Law Commons^™

The Puzzle Of Inciting Suicide, Guyora Binder, Luis E. Chiesa

Journal Articles

In 2017, a Massachusetts court convicted Michelle Carter of manslaughter for encouraging the suicide of Conrad Roy by text message, but imposed a sentence of only 15 months. The conviction was unprecedented in imposing homicide liability for verbal encouragement of apparently voluntary suicide. Yet if Carter killed, her purpose that Roy die arguably merited liability for murder and a much longer sentence. This Article argues that our ambivalence about whether and how much to punish Carter reflects suicide’s dual character as both a harm to be prevented and a choice to be respected. As such, the Carter case requires us …

Killing, Letting Die, And The Case For Mildly Punishing Bad Samaritanism, Ken M. Levy

Journal Articles

For over a century now, American scholars (among others) have been debating the merits of “bad-samaritan” laws – laws punishing people for failing to attempt “easy rescues.” Unfortunately, the opponents of bad-samaritan laws have mostly prevailed. In the United States, the “no-duty-to-rescue” rule dominates. Only four states even have bad-samaritan laws, and these laws impose only the most minimal punishment – either sub-$500 fines or short-term imprisonment.

This Article argues that this situation needs to be remedied. Every state should criminalize bad samaritanism. For, first, criminalization is required by the supreme value that we place on protecting human life, a …

Victims And The Significance Of Causing Harm, Guyora Binder

Journal Articles

Many criminal law theorists find the punishment of harm puzzling. They argue that acts should be evaluated only on the basis of the risks they create and the actors' awareness of those risks; that punishing results violates both desert and utility. This article explains punishment of harm on the basis of political theory rather than moral philosophy. Punishing harm helps legitimize the rule of law by vindicating victims. A rule of law state precludes cycles of organized retaliatory violence by asserting a monopoly on retaliatory force, thereby depriving individuals and groups of the option of securing their own dignity. We …