, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 281-287
Date: 23 Feb 2012

Iconoclasts? Who, Us? A Reply to Dolinko

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access
This is an excerpt from the content

It is always humbling to have others pay serious attention to your work. We are thus greatly honored that David Dolinko has taken the time to work through our book and offer a critique of our views.

Dolinko (2011). Numbers in parenthesis refer to the Dolinko review.

The four arguments on which he focuses, and finds iconoclastic, are (in ascending order) (1) our claim that results do not matter; (2) our claim that negligent conduct is not culpable; (3) our claim that there should be only the mens rea of recklessness; and (4) our claim that only one crime should exist—creating an unjustifiable risk to a legally protected interest (p. 94). We will take up these arguments and Dolinko’s reactions in turn.

Results Don’t Matter

For our discussion, see Alexander and Ferzan (2009, chap. 5).

As Dolinko himself notes, our claim that results do not matter hardly casts us outside of criminal theory orthodoxy (p. 94).

Dolinko himself cites Schulhofer (1974), Smith (1971), Kadish (1994), Becker (1974), As ...