Risking One’s Life: ‘Soft Paternalism’ and Feinberg’s Account of Legal Liberalism

1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Hunt
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Joel Feinberg ◽  
Moral Basis ◽  
Soft Paternalism ◽  
Legitimate Concern ◽  
Harm To Others ◽  
Social Gain ◽  
Personal Harm

In his The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Harm To Self, one volume in what is arguably the most impressive and thorough statement of liberal political philosophy to date, Joel Feinberg claims that there is a problem of reconciling the reasonableness of our concern for people who endanger themselves with our repugnance for paternalism:preventable personal harm (setback interest) is universally thought to be a great evil, and... such harm is no less harmful when self-caused... If society can substantially diminish the net amount of harm to interests from all sources, that would be a great social gain. If that prospect provides the moral basis underlying the harm to others principle, why should it not have application as well to self-caused harm and thus support equally the principle of legal paternalism?... On the other hand, we are challenged to reconcile, somehow, our legitimate concern with diminishing overall harm with the threatened proliferation of criminal prohibitions enforcing a “Spartan like regime” of imposed prudence

HARM AND THE VOLENTI PRINCIPLE

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 309-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Dworkin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Moralism ◽  
Great Work ◽  
Joel Feinberg ◽  
Offense Principle ◽  
Moral Limits

AbstractThis is an essay on the limits of the Criminal Law. In particular, it is about what principles, if any, determine whether it is legitimate for the state to criminalize certain conduct. Joel Feinberg in his great work on the moral limits of the criminal law argues that we need only two principles. One is a principle regulating harm to other people and the other is an offense principle regulating certain kinds of offensive conduct. I explore various aspects of his argument. In particular I concentrate on his use of the Volenti Principle: He who consents cannot be wrongfully harmed by conduct to which he has fully consented. Feinberg uses the principle to argue that certain kinds of consensual conduct cannot be forbidden unless we adopt some kind of legal moralism, i.e., conduct can be forbidden on the grounds that it is immoral even though the conduct harms no other person. I explore the possibility of avoiding legal moralism by limiting the use of the Volenti Principle.

Feinberg's Theory of “Preposthumous” Harm

Dialogue ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 727-734 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. J. Waluchow
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Strong Tendency ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Alternative Theory ◽  
Logical Possibility ◽  
Joel Feinberg ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Harm To Others ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Dead Man

In his recent book, Harm to Others, Joel Feinberg addresses the question whether a person can be harmed after his or her own death, that is, whether posthumous harm is a logical possibility. There is a very strong tendency to suppose that harm to the dead is simply inconceivable. After all, there cannot be harm without a subject to be harmed, but when death occurs it appears to obliterate the subject thus excluding the possibility of harm. On the other hand, there is an inclination to believe that harmful events can indeed occur posthumously. As Aristotle observed, “a dead man is popularly believed to be capable of having both good and ill fortune—honour and dishonour and prosperity and the loss of it among his children and descendants generally—in exactly the same way as if he were alive but unaware or unobservant of what was happening”. Feinberg sides with Aristotle on this issue and develops an intriguing theory purporting to show how posthumous harms are possible. My intention in this paper is to argue that Feinberg's account meets with such serious difficulties that we must either develop an alternative theory or agree with those who claim that death logically excludes the possibility of harm. I shall begin in §2 with a brief sketch of Feinberg's provocative theory. This will be followed in §3 by my comments and criticisms. Section 4 will close with suggestions about where Feinberg's account goes wrong and how it might be repaired.

FEINBERG AND THE FAILURE TO ACT

Legal Theory ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Smith
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Joel Feinberg ◽  
Harm To Others ◽  
Moral Limits

In Chapter 4 of his famous work, Harm to Others, Joel Feinberg, with characteristic clarity and insight, outlined the major problems associated with analyzing the foundations of responsibility for the failure to act. In that chapter he made a number of controversial claims supported by arguments that have generated debate ever since he made them in 1984. His analysis led him to conclude that liability (or responsibility) for the failure to act falls within the moral limits of the criminal law in cases in which a random bystander could easily rescue a seriously imperiled stranger.

MAIN SPECIFICATIONS OF ASSESSING ACTIVITIES OF MINOR IMPORTANCE OF IN MODERN CRIMINAL LAW

Law and World ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-95
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Minor Importance ◽  
Detailed Review

The research includes the full and the detailed overview of assessing activities of minor importance in Georgian Criminal Law. The Article 7 of the Criminal Code of Georgia states the following: a crime shall not be an action that, although formally containing the signs of a crime, has not produced, for minor importance, the prejudice that would require criminal liability of its perpetrator, or has not created the risk of such harm. The research includes the main criteria of defining activities as activities of minor importance. The detailed review of Georgian case law is also introduced, as well as, legislation, judicial literature and experience of the other European countries.

Penal Law and Penal Police in the Dual Penal State

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus D. Dubber
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Penal State ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
Patriarchal Power ◽  
Modes Of Governance

The first part of Dual Penal State investigated various ways in which criminal law doctrine and scholarship (or “science”) have failed to address the challenge of legitimating penal power in a modern liberal democratic state. This, second, part explores an alternative approach to criminal law discourse that puts the legitimacy challenge of modern penal law front and center: critical analysis of criminal law in a dual penal state. Dual penal state analysis differentiates between penal law and penal police, two conceptions of penal power, and state power more generally, rooted in autonomy, equality, and interpersonal respect, on one hand, and in heteronomy, hierarchy, and patriarchal power, on the other. Chapter 4 applies the distinction between law and police as fundamental modes of governance set out in Chapter 3 to the penal realm and explores the tension between penal law and penal police as constituting the dual penal state.

scholarly journals Weak Berge Equilibrium in Finite Three-person Games: Conception and Computation

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-134
Author(s):  
Konstantin Kudryavtsev ◽  
Ustav Malkov
Keyword(s):  
Cooperative Games ◽  
Hippocratic Oath ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mixed Strategies ◽  
Finite Games ◽  
Moral Basis ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Berge Equilibrium ◽  
Do No Harm ◽  
Non Cooperative Games

AbstractThe paper proposes the concept of a weak Berge equilibrium. Unlike the Berge equilibrium, the moral basis of this equilibrium is the Hippocratic Oath “First do no harm”. On the other hand, any Berge equilibrium is a weak Berge equilibrium. But, there are weak Berge equilibria, which are not the Berge equilibria. The properties of the weak Berge equilibrium have been investigated. The existence of the weak Berge equilibrium in mixed strategies has been established for finite games. The weak Berge equilibria for finite three-person non-cooperative games are computed.

Distinction between Dolus and Culpa with reference to Arson in Zakon Sudnyj LJudem, the Vinodol Law and the Statute of Senj

De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Haman ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Documents ◽  
The Third ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The World ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Better Than

The difference between intent (dolus) and negligence (culpa) was rarely emphasized in codified medieval laws and regulations. When compared to the legal statements related to intent, negligence was mentioned even more rarely. However, there are some laws that distinguished between the two concepts in terms of some specific crimes, such as arson. This paper draws attention to three medieval Slavic legal documents – the Zakon Sudnyj LJudem (ZSLJ), the Vinodol Law and the Statute of Senj. They are compared with reference to regulations regarding arson, with the focus being on arson as a crime committed intentionally or out of negligence. The ZSLJ as the oldest known Slavic law in the world shows some similarities with other medieval Slavic legal codes, especially in the field of criminal law, since most of the ZSLJ’s articles are related to criminal law. On the other hand, the Vinodol Law is the oldest preserved Croatian law and it is among the oldest Slavic codes in the world. It was written in 1288 in the Croatian Glagolitic script and in the Croatian Chakavian dialect. The third document – the Statute of Senj – regulated legal matters in the Croatian littoral town of Senj. It was written in 1388 – exactly a century after the Vinodol Law was proclaimed. When comparing the Vinodol Law and the Statute of Senj with the Zakon Sudnyj LJudem, there are clear differences and similarities, particularly in the field of criminal law. Within the framework of criminal offenses, the act of arson is important for making a distinction between intent and negligence. While the ZSLJ regulates different levels of guilt, the Vinodol Law makes no difference between dolus and culpa. On the other hand, the Statute of Senj strictly refers to negligence as a punishable crime. Even though the ZSLJ is almost half a millennium older than the Statute of Senj and around 400 years older than the Vinodol Law, this paper proves that the ZSLJ defines the guilt and the punishment for arson much better than the other two laws.

Introduction: Criminal Law

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Public Response ◽  
The Public ◽  
Moral Basis ◽  
Fertile Ground ◽  
Justification Of Punishment ◽  
Criminal Conduct

It is hardly surprising that philosophers have long regarded the criminal law as fertile ground. As the most visible application of state power, the criminal law raises issues of the first importance to political philosophy: issues of liberty, justice, and the common good. In announcing and enforcing rules of behaviour the criminal law connects with the concerns of moral philosophers, who have paid particular attention to the justification of punishment and the moral basis of criminal responsibility. Lastly, since the criminal law is typically concerned with the actions of human beings, it raises issues in the philosophy of action. Philosophers have devoted much attention to such central criminal law concepts as voluntariness, intention, and causation.The essays collected here explore topics which fall into three broad groups: the interests protected by the criminal law, the relation of agents to outcomes, and defenses to otherwise criminal conduct. Criminal law protects certain types of interests against certain kinds of invasions. Not everything that sets back a person’s interests is subject to legal sanction. Among those interests that the law deems worthy of protection, only certain kinds of invasions merit criminalization. The papers by Marshall and Duff, Hampton, Lacey, and Brett all touch on issues of the moral basis of criminalization. Marshall and Duff focus on the general issue of criminalization, arguing that crimes merit a certain kind of public response because they are attacks on the public. Drawing out the implications of the familiar fact that the state is a party to a criminal proceeding, they argue that the criminal law appropriately addresses wrongs that are shared by the wider community. For Marshall and Duff, criminalization is about deciding that a wrong against one person is serious in a way that makes it a wrong against everyone in the community, and demands a collective response.

scholarly journals TINJAUAN TENTANG SISTEM PEMIDANAAN DALAM PERBARENGAN TINDAK PIDANA MENURUT KUHP

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
Fahrurrozi Fahrurrozi ◽  
Abdul Rahman Salman Paris
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Penal System ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Qualitative Descriptive ◽  
Joint Crime

This study discusses the forms of crime in the context of criminal acts or the comparison of criminal acts (same loop) that occur in society. This happens where one person commits a crime, but it is not uncommon for one person to commit several functional crimes at the same time in the same place. On the other hand, there is also one person who determines the number of crimes at different times in different locations which in criminal law is known as the term of criminal acts or sharing criminal acts (same loop) or in Dutch is same loop van Strafbare Feiten. This study uses a normative method using qualitative descriptive analysis. The results of this study indicate that there are three forms of criminal acts namely Concursus Idialis, continuing actions and realist Concursus while the penal system in the proportion of criminal acts can be applied to three methods, namely Stelsel absorption, cumulative Stelsel, and limited cumulative Stelsel.Keywords: criminal code; criminal system; joint crime. AbstrakPenelitian ini membahas tentang bentuk-bentuk kejahatan perbarengan perbuatan pidana atau perbarengan tindak pidana (samenloop) yang terjadi di dalam masyarakat. Hal tersebut bisa terjadi dimana satu orang melakukan satu kejahatan tapi tidak jarang terjadi satu orang melakukan beberapa kejahatan baik dalam waktu yang sama di tempat yang sama. Disisi lain, ada juga satu orang yang melakukan beberapa kejahatan pada waktu yang berbeda di tempat yang berbeda pula yang dalam hukum pidana dikenal dengan istilah perbarengan perbuatan pidana atau perbarengan tindak pidana (samenloop) atau dalam bahasa belanda ialah sameloop van strafbare feiten. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode normatif, dengan menggunakan analisis deskriptif kualitatif. Adapun hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa ada tiga bentuk perbarengan tindak pidana yaitu concursus idialis, perbuatan berlanjut dan concursus realis sedangkan sistem pemidanaan dalam perbarengan tindak pidana dapat diterapkan tiga stelsel yaitu stelsel absorpsi, stelsel kumulasi dan stelsel kumulasi terbatas.Kata kunci: KUHP; sistem pemidanaan; perbarengan tindak pidana.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document