Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Lethal Injections: States Medicalize Execution, Joel B. Zivot
Lethal Injections: States Medicalize Execution, Joel B. Zivot
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Survey Of The History Of The Death Penalty In The United States, Sheherezade C. Malik, D. Paul Holdsworth
A Survey Of The History Of The Death Penalty In The United States, Sheherezade C. Malik, D. Paul Holdsworth
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Has The "Machinery Of Death" Become A Clunker?, Stephen F. Smith
Has The "Machinery Of Death" Become A Clunker?, Stephen F. Smith
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Making Sure We Are Getting It Right: Repairing "The Machinery Of Death" By Narrowing Capital Eligibility, Ann E. Reid
Making Sure We Are Getting It Right: Repairing "The Machinery Of Death" By Narrowing Capital Eligibility, Ann E. Reid
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Pink Cadillac, An Iq Of 63, And A Fourteen-Year-Old From South Carolina: Why I Can No Longer Support The Death Penalty, Mark Earley Sr.
A Pink Cadillac, An Iq Of 63, And A Fourteen-Year-Old From South Carolina: Why I Can No Longer Support The Death Penalty, Mark Earley Sr.
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Future Of The Death Penalty In The United States, Richard C. Dieter
The Future Of The Death Penalty In The United States, Richard C. Dieter
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Death As A Bargaining Chip: Plea Bargaining And The Future Of Virginia's Death Penalty, John G. Douglass
Death As A Bargaining Chip: Plea Bargaining And The Future Of Virginia's Death Penalty, John G. Douglass
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Blame And The Criminal Law, David Lefkowitz
Blame And The Criminal Law, David Lefkowitz
Philosophy Faculty Publications
Many retributivists appear to presume that the concept of blame that figures in their accounts of just punishment is the same one people employ in their interpersonal moral relationships. David Shoemaker contends that this presumption is mistaken. Moral blameworthiness, he maintains, tracks only the meaning of a person's action––his reasons for acting as he did––while criminal blameworthiness, which he equates with liability to punishment, tracks only the impermissibility of an agent's action. I contest the second of these two claims, and in doing so defend the retributivists’ presumption. First, I argue that the purpose of a criminal trial can be …