TITLE

Towards a Modest Legal Moralism

AUTHOR(S)
Duff, R.
PUB. DATE
January 2014
SOURCE
Criminal Law & Philosophy;Jan2014, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p217
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
After distinguishing different species of Legal Moralism (positive vs. negative; modest vs. ambitious) I outline and defend a modest, positive Legal Moralism, according to which we have good reason to criminalize some type of conduct if (and only if) it constitutes a public wrong. Some of the central elements of the argument will be: the need to remember that the criminal law is a political, not a (merely) moral practice, and therefore that in asking what kinds of conduct we have good reason to criminalize, we must begin not with the entire realm of wrongdoing, but with conduct falling within the public realm of our civic life; the need to look at the different processes of criminalization (of which legislation is only one), and to ask what kinds of consideration can properly figure in those processes; the need to attend to the relationship, and the essential differences, between criminal law and other modes of legal regulation.
ACCESSION #
93447636

 

Related Articles

  • Criminal Law, the Victim and Community: The Shades of 'We' and the Conceptual Involvement of Community in Contemporary Criminal Law Theory. PerÅ¡ak, Nina // Criminal Law & Philosophy;Jan2014, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p205 

    The article addresses the argument, put forward by Lernestedt, that the proprietor of the 'criminal-law conflict' is the community (or the community and the offender) and discusses his proposed theoretical model of criminal law trial. I raise questions regarding the legitimacy of such a model,...

  • The collaborative development of power in children's arguments. Meyer, Jasna // Argumentation & Advocacy;Fall92, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p77 

    Investigates strategies preschoolers utilize in arguments to establish power and dominance. Subjects and procedures; Tape transcription; Episodes; Conflict involving possessions; Production of power.

  • Slippery Slope Arguments and Legal Reasoning. Lode, Eric // California Law Review;Dec99, Vol. 87 Issue 6, p1469 

    Analyzes the roles that slippery slope arguments (SSAs) can play in legal debates. Basic structure of SSA; Different forms that SSAs may take; Various contexts in which people invoke SSAs.

  • Hobson's choice.  // Reporter;Sep92, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p8 

    Presents information on the application of Thomas Hobson's principle regarding picking and choosing by trial advocates in their arguments to court members. Reference made to the case `United States versus Motsinger, 34 M.J. 255 (CMA 1992); Description of the arguments in the case; Detailed...

  • Before the Court.  // Supreme Court Debates;Apr2005, Vol. 8 Issue 4, p126 

    Presents excerpts from the arguments of Scott G. Bullock, attorney for Susette Kelo, et al, and Wesley W. Horton, attorney for the City of New London, et al.

  • Dos & Don'ts. Minsberg, Susan Dickel // Bench & Bar of Minnesota;Mar2011, Vol. 68 Issue 3, p48 

    The article offers suggestions regarding the things that should be taken care of by the lawyers during a trial such as not using inflammatory language during an argument, turning off the cellphone, and not interrupting the judge.

  • Positional Conflicts. Pitulla, Joanne // ABA Journal;Feb93, Vol. 79 Issue 2, p92 

    Addresses the practical aspect of lawyers arguing both side of an issue in two different cases. Factors that should be considered by lawyers before representing a case that involves defending the opposite side of a previously handled case; Steps that should be taken by lawyers to deal with...

  • `What did you mean by that?': The functions of perceptions in interpersonal argument. Legge, Nancy J. // Argumentation & Advocacy;Fall92, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p41 

    Focuses on the significance of perceptions in understanding interpersersonal arguments. Functions of perceptions; Perceptual agreement as stasis; Interpersonal disputes; Methodological issues.

  • The art of trial advocacy.  // Army Lawyer;Aug98, Issue 309, p47 

    Proposes a method for constructing rebuttal arguments. Preparation of the rebuttal as an integral part of the closing argument; Control of the agenda; Structuring the rebuttal for maximum effect; Effectiveness of concise, clear and brief rebuttals.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics