Iconoclasts? Who, Us? A Reply to Dolinko
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
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
- Alexander, L. (1993). Self-defense, justification, and excuse. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 22(1), 53–66.
- Alexander, L., & Ferzan, K. K. (forthcoming). Danger: The ethics of preemptive action. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law.
- Alexander, L., Ferzan, K. K., with Morse, S. J. (2009). Crime and culpability: A theory of criminal law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Ashworth, A. (1988). Criminal attempt and the role of resulting harm under the code, and in the common law. Rutgers Law Journal, 19, 725–772.
- Becker, L. (1974). Criminal attempts and the theory of the law of crimes. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 3(3), 262–294.
- Dolinko, D. (2011). Review of “crime and culpability: A theory of criminal law”. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 6, 93–102. CrossRef
- Feinberg, J. (1970). Problematic responsibility in law and morals. In Doing and deserving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Feinberg, J. (1995). Equal punishment for failed attempts: Some bad but instructive arguments against it. Arizona Law Review, 37, 117–134.
- Hall, J. (1963). Negligent behavior should be excluded from penal liability. Columbia Law Review, 63(4), 632–644. CrossRef
- Kadish, S. H. (1994). The criminal law and the luck of the draw. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 84, 679–702.
- Moore, M. S. (1997). Placing blame: A general theory of the criminal law. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.
- Moore, M. S., & Hurd, H. M. (2011). Punishing the awkward, the stupid, the weak, and the selfish: The culpability of negligence. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5, 147–198. CrossRef
- Schulhofer, S. J. (1974). Harm and punishment: A critique of emphasis on the results of conduct in the criminal law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 122(6), 1497–1607. CrossRef
- Smith, J. C. (1971). The element of chance in criminal liability. Criminal Law Review, 1971, 63–75.
- Williams, G. (1961). Criminal law: The general part (2nd ed.). London: Stevens & Sons.
- Iconoclasts? Who, Us? A Reply to Dolinko
Criminal Law and Philosophy
Volume 6, Issue 2 , pp 281-287
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors