7 found
Order:
See also
Miroslav Imbrisevic
Heythrop College
  1. Why is (Claiming) Ignorance of the Law No Excuse?Miroslav Imbrisevic - 2010 - Review Journal of Political Philosophy 8 (1):57-69.
    In this paper I will discuss two aspects of ignorance of the law: ignorance of illegality (including mistaking the law) and ignorance of the penalty; and I will look at the implications for natives, for tourists and for immigrants. I will argue that Carlos Nino's consensual theory of punishment need to rely on two premises in order to justify that (claiming) ignorance of the law is no excuse. The first premise explains why individuals are presumed to 'know' current laws. The (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Gaunilo's Cogito Argument.Miroslav Imbrisevic - 2007 - St. Anselm Journal:1-7.
    Gaunilo presents Anselm with a dilemma in section 7 of his Responsio: I know most certainly that I exist. But If I cannot think my non-existence at the same time, then Anselm's claim in Proslogion 3 (that my inability to think God's non-existence, while knowing most certainly that He exists, is a unique property of God) would be false. If I can do so, however, then I should also be able to know most certainly that God exists and, at the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. The Consent Solution to Punishment and the Explicit Denial Objection.Miroslav Imbrisevic - 2010 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 25 (2):211-224.
    Recently, David Boonin has put forward several objections to Carlos S. Nino's 'Consensual Theory of Punishment'. In this paper I will defend Nino against the 'explicit denial objection'. I will discuss whether Boonin's interpretation of Nino as a tacit consent theorist is right. I will argue that the offender's consent is neither tacit nor express, but a special category of implicit consent. Further, for Nino the legal-normative consequences of an act (of crime) are 'irrevocable', i.e. one cannot (expressly and successfully) (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  56
    Radical and Marxist Theories of Crime, Lynch & Stretesky (Review). [REVIEW]Miroslav Imbrisevic - 2014 - Marx and Philosophy Review of Books 1:1-3.
    This collection of essays approaches the issue of crime from the perspective of criminology, which is traditionally concerned with the nature and causes of crime. Radical or Marxist criminology (RMC) became prominent in the late 60s. This strand of criminology is concerned with how class formation, class structure and crime are related. It is assumed that the motivation to commit crimes is not innate to individuals but is a result of social conditions. RMC’s most important premise is that the structure (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  12
    Suits on Strategic Fouling.Miroslav Imbrišević - 2019 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 13 (3-4):307-317.
    Given Bernard Suits’ stature in the philosophy of sport, his take on strategic fouling, surprisingly, hasn’t been given much attention in the literature. Rather than relying on a purely empirical or ‘ethos’ approach to justify the Strategic Foul he provides a mixed justification. Suits’ account combines a priori and a posteriori elements. He introduces a third kind of rule, which appears to be unlike rules of skill or constitutive rules, into his conceptual scheme. Suits claims that it is sometimes tactically (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  41
    Carlos Nino's Conception of Consent in Crime.Miroslav Imbrisevic - 2013 - Diacritica 27 (2):103-124.
    In this paper I discuss the nature of consent in general, and as it applies to Carlos Nino’s consensual theory of punishment. For Nino the criminal’s consent to change her legal-normative status is a form of implied consent. I distinguish three types of implied consent: 1) implied consent which is based on an operative convention (i.e. tacit consent); 2) implied consent where there is no operative convention; 3) “direct consent” to the legal-normative consequences of a proscribed act – this is (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  4
    The Strategic Foul and Contract Law: Efficient Breach in Sports?Miroslav Imbrisevic - 2018 - Fair Play 12:69-99.
    The debate about the Strategic Foul has been rumbling on for several decades and it has predominantly been fought on moral grounds. The defenders claim that the rules of a game must be supplemented by the ‘ethos’ of the game, by its conventions or informal rules. Critics of the Strategic Foul argue that to break the rules deliberately, in order to gain an advantage, is morally wrong, spoils the game, or is a form of cheating. Rather than entering the moral (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark