‘Who’s Still Standing?’ A Comment on Antony Duff’s Preconditions of Criminal Liability
Abstract Antony Duff has argued that an important precondition of criminal liability is that the state has the moral standing to call the offender to account. Conditions of severe social injustice, if allowed or perpetuated by the state, can undermine this standing. Duff’s argument appeals to the or...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Recurso Electrónico Artigo |
| Idioma: | Inglês |
| Verificar disponibilidade: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Carregar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado em: |
Brill
2006
|
| Em: |
Journal of moral philosophy
Ano: 2006, Volume: 3, Número: 3, Páginas: 320-330 |
| Outras palavras-chave: | B
Punishment
B Duff B SOCIAL injustice B criminal liability |
| Acesso em linha: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Resumo: | Abstract Antony Duff has argued that an important precondition of criminal liability is that the state has the moral standing to call the offender to account. Conditions of severe social injustice, if allowed or perpetuated by the state, can undermine this standing. Duff’s argument appeals to the ordinary idea that a person’s own behaviour can sometimes negate his standing to call others to account. It is argued that this is an important issue, but that the analogy with individual standing is problematic. Moreover, Duff’s account of standing needs to address two interconnected issues: first, when and in what way the state can lose its standing to call offenders to account, and second, over what range of offences. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5243 |
| Obras secundárias: | Enthalten in: Journal of moral philosophy
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/1740468106072651 |