Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Addiction (1)
- Alcoholism (1)
- Blameworthiness (1)
- Compulsion (1)
- Criminal law (1)
-
- Culpability (1)
- Defenses (1)
- Disagreement (1)
- Drugs (1)
- Drunkenness (1)
- Duress (1)
- Epistemic (1)
- Epistemic Peer (1)
- Excuses (1)
- Friends (1)
- Interpretation (1)
- Intuitions of justice (1)
- Involuntary intoxication (1)
- Judges (1)
- Mens rea (1)
- Methodology (1)
- Negating offense element (1)
- Peer (1)
- Peer Disagreement (1)
- Specific & basic/general intent (1)
- Voluntary intoxication (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
A Brief Summary And Critique Of Criminal Liability Rules For Intoxicated Conduct, Paul H. Robinson
A Brief Summary And Critique Of Criminal Liability Rules For Intoxicated Conduct, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
This essay provides an overview of the legal issues relating to intoxication, including the effect of voluntary intoxication in imputing to an offender a required offense culpable state of mind that he may not actually have had at the time of the offense; the effect of involuntary intoxication in providing a defense by negating a required offense culpability element or by satisfying the conditions of a general excuse; the legal effect of alcoholism or addiction in rendering intoxication involuntary; and the limitation on using alcoholism or addiction in this way if the offender can be judged to be reasonably responsible …
Arguing With Friends, William Baude, Ryan D. Doerfler
Arguing With Friends, William Baude, Ryan D. Doerfler
All Faculty Scholarship
It is a fact of life that judges sometimes disagree about the best outcome in appealed cases. The question is what they should make of this. The two purest possibilities are to shut out all other views, or else to let them all in, leading one to concede ambiguity and uncertainty in most if not all contested cases.
Drawing on the philosophical concepts of “peer disagreement” and “epistemic peerhood,” we argue that there is a better way. Judges ought to give significant weight to the views of others, but only when those others share the judge’s basic methodology or interpretive …