Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Justification And Excuse, Law And Morality, Mitchell N. Berman
Justification And Excuse, Law And Morality, Mitchell N. Berman
All Faculty Scholarship
Anglo-American theorists of the criminal law have concentrated on-one is tempted to say "obsessed over"-the distinction between justification and excuse for a good quarter-century and the scholarly attention has purchased unusually widespread agreement. Justification defenses are said to apply when the actor's conduct was not morally wrongful; excuse defenses lie when the actor did engage in wrongful conduct but is not morally blameworthy. A near consensus thus achieved, theorists have turned to subordinate matters, joining issue most notably on the question of whether justifications are "subjective"-turning upon the actor's reasons for acting-or "objective"-involving only facts independent of the actor's beliefs …
Testing Competing Theories Of Justification, Paul H. Robinson, John M. Darley
Testing Competing Theories Of Justification, Paul H. Robinson, John M. Darley
All Faculty Scholarship
Present criminal law theory reflects a disagreement over the underlying theory of the justificatory principle, and thus the proper legal formulation of such defenses. At the core of the debate about the principle is the following question. Are justification defenses given because the actor's deed avoids a greater harm, or because she acted for the right reason? The deeds theory of justification justifies conduct that avoids a greater harm, because the conduct is conduct that we would be happy to tolerate under similar circumstances in the future: that is, because the actor has done the right deed. The reasons theory …