5 found
Order:
  1.  46
    Nussbaum on Sexual Instrumentalization.Michael Plaxton - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (1):1-16.
    In “The Wrongness of Rape”, Gardner and Shute argued that the English offence of rape primarily targets the wrong of objectification. They tie objectification closely to instrumentalization—to the “conversion of subjects into instruments or tools”. In doing so, they explicitly purport to follow Nussbaum’s understanding of what is morally problematic about objectification. In this paper, I want to explore more closely just what Nussbaum understands by instrumentalization, focusing in particular upon the meaning and role of mutuality in her analysis. Doing (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2.  27
    Reflections on Waldron’s Archetypes.Michael Plaxton - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (1):77-103.
    Jeremy Waldron argued that the government lawyers responsible for the ‘torture memos’ acted unprofessionally by undermining the prohibition on torture. He did so partly on the basis that that the torture prohibition represents a ‘legal archetype’ which cannot be undermined without doing considerable harm to large bodies of law. This paper argues that, however much intuitive appeal Waldron’s archetype-based analysis may have, its force is inherently limited. This is so for two reasons. First, the claim that the torture prohibition is (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. Punishment, Written by Thom Brooks.Michael Plaxton - 2016 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 13 (6):755-758.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  20
    Victor Tadros, Criminal Responsibility: , ISBN 0-19-926159-8, 389 Pp. + Xv.Michael Plaxton - 2007 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (2):223-226.
  5.  1
    Subsidiarity and the Criminal Jury.Michael Plaxton - 2022 - American Journal of Jurisprudence 67 (1):33-56.
    The institution of trial-by-jury is a puzzle in the modern criminal justice system. It has dubious merits as a mechanism for applying facts to law. If anything, it represents a challenge to the very idea that decision-making should be consistent and transparent. Yet the emphasis on the relative ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the jury as a trier of fact may miss the point. The jury does not function merely as a verdict-generating machine, or as a procedural safeguard for individual defendants. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark