Davis, unfair advantage theory, and criminal desert

1995 ◽  
Vol 14 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 375-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don E. Scheid
Keyword(s):  
Unfair Advantage ◽  
Criminal Desert

Criminal desert and unfair advantage: What's the connection?

1993 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Davis
Keyword(s):  
Unfair Advantage ◽  
Criminal Desert

Criminal Desert, Harm and Fairness

1991 ◽  
Vol 25 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 524-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Davis
Keyword(s):  
Unfair Advantage ◽  
Fairness Theory ◽  
Criminal Desert

This paper has two parts. The first (sections I-III) compares retributive theories measuring criminal desert largely by the harm the criminal did or risked, with a theory measuring it by the unfair advantage the criminal necessarily took, what I shall call “the fairness theory”. This part of the paper summarizes arguments I have made elsewhere. The second part (sections IV-V) defends the fairness theory against five objections recently made against it by two important theorists, Andrew von Hirsch and Hyman Gross. The objections are variations on the charge that the fairness theory of criminal desert is implausible, incoherent, or otherwise fundamentally flawed. Each objection collapses almost as soon as one or another standard distinction is made. I conclude the paper wondering why theorists have not noticed how weak these objections are.

Davis, Unfair Advantage Theory, and Criminal Desert

1995 ◽  
Vol 14 (3/4) ◽  
pp. 375
Author(s):  
Don E. Scheid
Keyword(s):  
Unfair Advantage ◽  
Criminal Desert

Criminal Desert and Unfair Advantage: What's the Connection?

1993 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Davis
Keyword(s):  
Unfair Advantage ◽  
Criminal Desert

Are some lawyers getting an unfair advantage in the bar exam?

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Sleek
Keyword(s):  
Unfair Advantage

Guilty Minds

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne C. Dailey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Police Interrogation ◽  
Rational Person ◽  
Unfair Advantage ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Unconscious Guilt

This chapter examines the puzzling question of why an otherwise rational person would voluntarily confess to a crime, knowing full well that the state will punish in return. Even more puzzling is the phenomenon of false confessions, where an individual inexplicably confesses to a crime she did not commit, in some cases believing in her own guilt. Psychoanalysis gives us important insights into these irrational phenomena. The focus in this chapter is on the ways in which certain deceptive and degrading police interrogation tactics may override a suspect’s conscious rational decision-making powers by enlisting unconscious needs, aggressions, and guilt. Three interrogation tactics are of greatest concern: false sympathy, degradation, and trickery. As this chapter shows, false sympathy and degradation exploit deep-seated, unconscious desires for absolution and punishment that undermine the voluntariness of a suspect’s self-incriminating statements. Similarly, police trickery can take unfair advantage of a suspect’s need to rationalize unconscious guilt for a crime he did not commit. By drawing attention to the risks associated with these methods, psychoanalysis ensures that the most egregious practices can be eliminated from our criminal justice system. Psychoanalytic insights into unconscious processes advances the law’s own best ideals of fundamental fairness in the criminal law.

Proposal for dimensionality testing in QPQ

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (13&14) ◽  
pp. 1125-1142
Author(s):  
Arpita Maitra ◽  
Bibhas Adhikari ◽  
Satyabrata Adhikari
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Quantum Information ◽  
Quantum System ◽  
Quantum State ◽  
Quantum Information Processing ◽  
Quantum States ◽  
Quantum Private Query ◽  
Unfair Advantage ◽  
Security Proofs

Recently, dimensionality testing of a quantum state has received extensive attention (Ac{\'i}n et al. Phys. Rev. Letts. 2006, Scarani et al. Phys. Rev. Letts. 2006). Security proofs of existing quantum information processing protocols rely on the assumption about the dimension of quantum states in which logical bits are encoded. However, removing such assumption may cause security loophole. In the present paper, we show that this is indeed the case. We choose two players' quantum private query protocol by Yang et al. (Quant. Inf. Process. 2014) as an example and show how one player can gain an unfair advantage by changing the dimension of subsystem of a shared quantum system. To resist such attack we propose dimensionality testing in a different way. Our proposal is based on CHSH like game. As we exploit CHSH like game, it can be used to test if the states are product states for which the protocol becomes completely vulnerable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document