DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents NSW Law Reform Commission DISCUSSION PAPER 31 (1993) - PROVOCATION, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INFANTICIDE Table of Contents Terms of reference Participants Submissions 1. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND TO THE REFERENCE WHAT ARE THE PARTIAL DEFENCES? THE PARTIAL DEFENCES AND THE SOCIAL REALITY OF HOMICIDE OUTLINE OF THIS DISCUSSION PAPER PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION PAPER SUMMARY OF OPTIONS FOR REFORM 2. RECASTING THE LAW OF HOMICIDE IN NEW SOUTH WALES THE LAW OF HOMICIDE IN NEW SOUTH WALES Brief history Categories of homicide: murder and manslaughter Other unlawful killings Sentencing for homicide REFORMING THE LAW OF HOMICIDE IN NEW SOUTH WALES Introduction One category of homicide? Implementation of one category of homicide OPTION FOR REFORM 3. PROVOCATION INTRODUCTION BRIEF HISTORY CURRENT LAW IN NEW SOUTH WALES The elements of the defence - the act of provocation The elements of the defence - the act of retaliation NSW Law Reform Commission DISCUSSION PAPER 31 (1993) - PROVOCATION, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INFANTICIDE Onus of proof and the role of judge and jury Provocation and offences other than murder Evidence THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION IN PRACTICE The prosecution process Provocation at trial Sentencing THE POSITION IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS Other Australian jurisdictions - the Code States Other Australian jurisdictions - the common law States England Ireland New Zealand Canada The United States India European jurisdictions OPTIONS FOR REFORM OPTION ONE: RETAIN THE DEFENCE WITHOUT AMENDMENT Implementation Other recommendations to this effect OPTION TWO: ABOLISH DEFENCE Implementation Other recommendations to this effect OPTION THREE: REFORMULATE DEFENCE Implementation and other similar recommendations DISCUSSION OF THE OPTIONS Should there be a provocation defence in one form or another or should it be abolished? Should the provocation defence be retained in its current form? NSW Law Reform Commission DISCUSSION PAPER 31 (1993) - PROVOCATION, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INFANTICIDE 4. DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY INTRODUCTION BRIEF HISTORY CURRENT LAW IN NEW SOUTH WALES The elements of the defence Issues of proof Diminished responsibility and the defence of mental illness THE DEFENCE OF DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY IN PRACTICE Guilty pleas The role of the jury Sentence THE POSITION IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS Other Australian jurisdictions New Zealand England Canada The United States Singapore European jurisdictions OPTIONS FOR REFORM OPTION ONE: RETAIN DEFENCE WITHOUT AMENDMENT Implementation Other recommendations to this effect OPTION TWO: ABOLISH DEFENCE Implementation Other recommendations to this effect OPTION THREE: REFORMULATE DEFENCE Other recommendations to this effect Implementation NSW Law Reform Commission DISCUSSION PAPER 31 (1993) - PROVOCATION, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INFANTICIDE DISCUSSION OF THE OPTIONS Should the defence of diminished responsibility be retained in one form or another or should it be abolished altogether? Should the defence of diminished responsibility be amended? 5. INFANTICIDE INTRODUCTION BRIEF HISTORY CURRENT LAW IN NEW SOUTH WALES Elements of infanticide INFANTICIDE LAW IN PRACTICE Offending, charging and conviction patterns Sentence The role of the expert witness THE POSITION IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS Other Australian jurisdictions England New Zealand Canada European jurisdictions OPTIONS FOR REFORM OPTION ONE: RETAIN OFFENCE/ DEFENCE WITHOUT AMENDMENT Implementation Other recommendations to this effect OPTION TWO: ABOLISH OFFENCE/ DEFENCE Implementation Other recommendations to this effect OPTION THREE: REFORMULATE THE OFFENCE/ DEFENCE OF INFANTICIDE Implementation Other recommendations to this effect DISCUSSION OF THE OPTIONS NSW Law Reform Commission DISCUSSION PAPER 31 (1993) - PROVOCATION, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INFANTICIDE Should infanticide be retained in one form or another or should it be abolished altogether? Should the offence/defence of infanticide be amended? SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY NSW Law Reform Commission DISCUSSION PAPER 31 (1993) - PROVOCATION, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INFANTICIDE TERMS OF REFERENCE On 17 March 1993, the Attorney General, the Hon John P Hannaford, MLC, gave the New South Wales Law Reform Commission the following terms of reference: to review the partial defences of infanticide, provocation and diminished responsibility under s 22A, 23 and 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) respectively; to develop proposals for reform and clarification of the substantive elements of the defences. PARTICIPANTS The Law Reform Commission is constituted by the Law Reform Commission Act 1967. For the purpose of this reference, the Chairman, in accordance with the Act, created a Division comprising the following members of the Commission: The Hon R M Hope QC (until 2 April 1993) The Hon G J Samuels QC (from 3 April 1993) Professor David Weisbrot Professor Brent Fisse Ms Jane Stackpool Officers of the Commission Executive Director Mr Peter Hennessy Research and Writing Ms Ronnit Lifschitz Librarian Ms Beverley Caska Desktop Publishing Ms Julie Freeman Cover Design Ms Stephanie East Ms Julie Freeman Administrative Assistance NSW Law Reform Commission DISCUSSION PAPER 31 (1993) - PROVOCATION, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INFANTICIDE Ms Zoya Howes Honorary Consultant Mr Mark Ierace SUBMISSIONS The Commission invites submissions on the issues raised in this Discussion Paper. Submissions and comments should reach the Commission by 29 October 1993. Suggestions for further issues which should be considered are welcome. All enquiries and submissions should be directed to: Mr Peter Hennessy Executive Director New South Wales Law Reform Commission GPO Box 5199 SYDNEY NSW 2001 [DX 1227 SYDNEY] Ph: (02) 9228 8230 Fax: (02) 9228 8225 Who can make a submission? Anyone may make a submission or comment. If you have an opinion on the matters under review or personal experience of the issues involved the Commission would like to hear from you. You do not need legal qualifications to make a submission although the Commission welcomes input from the legal community. Use of submissions and confidentiality Submissions may be used by the Commission in two ways: 1. Because the law reform process is a public one, copies of submissions are normally made available by the Commission on request to other persons or organisations. If you would like your submission to be treated as confidential, please indicate this in your written submission or oral comments. Any request for a copy of a submission marked “confidential” will be determined in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW). 2. In preparing its Report the Commission will make reference to submissions made in response to this Discussion Paper. However a request for confidentiality will be respected by the Commission in relation to the publication of submissions. Thus, if you would like your submission to be treated as confidential, please indicate this on your written submission or when making oral comments. NSW Law Reform Commission DISCUSSION PAPER 31 (1993) - PROVOCATION, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INFANTICIDE 1. Introduction BACKGROUND TO THE REFERENCE 1.1 Over the years there have been numerous criticisms of the so-called “partial defences” by judges, academics, practitioners and law reformers. In the recent case of R v Chayna,1 his Honour Justice Murray Gleeson, the Chief Justice of New South Wales, called for reform of the defence of diminished responsibility. In that case the differing expert opinions of seven psychiatrists highlighted the difficulties for the jury in the application of the defence. Accordingly, the Attorney General, on 17 March 1993, referred the matter to the Commission along with terms of reference covering the other partial defences for which statutory provision is made in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).2 WHAT ARE THE PARTIAL DEFENCES? 1.2 The existing partial defences - infanticide, provocation and diminished responsibility - operate to reduce a person’s liability for an unlawful homicide from murder to manslaughter. The defences are “partial” in the sense that they do not operate to deliver an outright acquittal (that is, to exculpate fully), as is the case with the other “complete” defences, such as duress and self-defence. In addition to operating as a partial defence, infanticide also constitutes a substantive offence that may be charged from the outset. 1.3 It is critical to be aware of the historical context in which the partial defences emerged. When these defences were judicially developed (provocation) or were enacted (diminished responsibility and infanticide) the penalty for murder was either death or a mandatory life sentence. The partial defences operated to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter, thus offering the sentencing judge some flexibility to fashion an appropriate punishment based on the circumstances of the particular case. This situation no longer pertains in New South Wales. The death penalty was abolished in this State in 19553 and the mandatory life sentence for murder in 1982.4 Since 1989 there is no longer even a presumption that a life sentence will be imposed for murder.5 It is important to consider the partial defences in this context because it may be that, with their original rationale gone, they are no longer necessary. THE PARTIAL DEFENCES AND THE SOCIAL REALITY OF HOMICIDE 1.4 Chapters 3, 4 and 5 present the “black letter law” view of the partial defences. This is, however, only a small part of the overall picture. Recent investigations into the law
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alcohol: Why It's Not an Excuse
    We End Violence Handout #1 Alcohol: Why it’s not an excuse “If we were both drunk, then how could I have raped her?” The answers: If you are drunk and choose to drive resulting in an accident that hurts someone, should you be held accountable? Hell, yes! When you get drunk, will you stick your penis in a pencil sharpener or in the window of a police car? Probably not. Why? Because you have made the decision ahead of time to never ever do that because it would hurt. So why can’t men learn to not place our penises in or on women who are not con - senting? If we as men make that decision before we drink, just like the decision to not maul our penis in a pencil sharpener… Then it won’t happen when we are drunk! Women do not report rapes or feel they have been raped after consensual “drunk” sex. They do report rape after their bodies have been violated. Being drunk does not cause men to rape. However, society does set men up to think they have certain rights to sex. Assumptions men make while sober carry over when they are drunk. Both sober and drunk men use invalid excuses such as a woman wearing revealing clothing or behaving flirtatiously as reasons for assault. BUT REGARDLESS of whether a person is drunk or sober, NONE of these ridiculous excuses make the act of rape acceptable. Men do not have a right to sex no matter how drunk they are or how drunk the woman is! It is men’s responsi - bility to understand this and be responsible for their actions.
    [Show full text]
  • ~. Provocation As a Defence to Murder
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. LAW REFORM COMMISSIONER VICTORIA , r Working Paper No.6 : -­ I ~. PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE "~I TO MURDER MELBOURNE 1979 '. NCJf:'~~S SEP 261979 ACQUISITIONS, LAW REFORM COMMISSIONER I VICTORIA . " ! . , ". ~. I :'! .~, . ' .. " \ .. ' , Working Paper No.6 _} " ",!, I .. 1:. : . : ~ , PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE TO MUR'D'ER MELBOURNE 1979 / Views expressed in this Working Paper are provisional only and such suggestions as are made are tentative. Comment and criticism are invited and it would be greatly appreciated if these could be forwarded before 1st October, 1979. Law Reform Commissioner 155 Queen Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000. I CONTENTS Paragraph Page Introduction 1 5 What is Provocation? 4 S 19th Century Views 5 6 The Emergence of "The Reasonable Man" and "The Ordinary Man" 9 7 "The Ordinary Man" in Legislation 13 9 "The Reasonable Man" and the Common Law 18 11 The Case of Holmes 20 11 More of "The Reasonable Person" 28 13 Legislative Change 32 15 The New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 37 16 The New Zealand Case 38 16 Victoria Today 41 18 Ever the Problem of "The Ordinary Man" 59 23 A Climate of Reform 64 24 (a) Eire 64 24 (b) England 65 24 (c) U.S.A.- The Model Penal Code . 68 25 (d) South Australia 72 26 Reform for Victoria 76 27 References 31 3 WORKING PAPER No.6 PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER. Introduction 1. By letter dated the 13th day of March, 1979 The Honourable the Attorney-General acting pursuant to section 8 (b) of the Law Reform Act 1973 referred to the Law Reform Commissioner the following reference:- "To investigate and report upon the necessity for reform of the law relating to provocation as a defence to a charge of murder." 2.
    [Show full text]
  • When Should a Mistake of Fact Excuse? Stephen P
    Cornell Law Library Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2009 When Should a Mistake of Fact Excuse? Stephen P. Garvey Cornell Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Garvey, Stephen P., "When Should a Mistake of Fact Excuse?" (2009). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 251. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/251 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHEN SHOULD A MISTAKE OF FACT EXCUSE? Stephen P. Garvey* I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 359 H1. WHEN SHOULD A MISTAKE OF FACT EXCUSE? ................. .. .. .. .. 360 A. From Mistake of Fact to Ignoranceof Law ............................. 364 B. From Mistake of Fact to Ignoranceof Some Law .................... 369 III. SHOULD AN "UNREASONABLE" MISTAKE OF FACT LOSE ITS EXCULPATORY FORCE? ................................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 372 A. Mistake of Fact and Mentes Reae ............................................ 373 B. Responsibilityfor UnreasonableBeliefs .................................. 375 1. Choice ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Defences, Mitigation and Criminal Responsibility
    Chapter 12 Defences, mitigation and criminal responsibility Page Index 1-12-1 Introduction 1-12-2 Part 1 - Defences 1-12-3 General defences 1-12-4 Intoxication/drunkenness due to drugs/alcohol 1-12-4 Self defence 1-12-4 Use of force in prevention of crime 1-12-5 Mistake 1-12-5 Duress 1-12-6 Necessity 1-12-6 Insanity 1-12-6 Automatism 1-12-6 Other defences 1-12-7 Provocation 1-12-7 Alibi 1-12-7 Diminished responsibility 1-12-7 Consent 1-12-7 Superior orders 1-12-7 Part 2 - Mitigation 1-12-9 Part 3 - Criminal responsibility 1-12-10 Intention 1-12-10 Recklessness 1-12-10 Negligence 1-12-10 Lawful excuse or reasonable excuse – the burden of proof 1-12-11 Evidential burden 1-12-11 Lawful excuse 1-12-11 Reasonable excuse 1-12-11 JSP 830 MSL Version 2.0 1-12-1 AL42 35 Chapter 12 Defences, mitigation and criminal responsibility Introduction 1. This chapter is divided into three parts: a. Part 1 - Defences (paragraphs 4 - 28); b. Part 2 - Mitigation (paragraphs 29 - 31); and c. Part 3 - Criminal responsibility (paragraphs 32 - 44). 2. This chapter provides guidance on these matters to those involved in the administration of Service discipline at unit level. Related chapters are Chapter 9 (Summary hearing and activation of suspended sentences of Service detention), Chapter 6 (Investigation, charging and mode of trial), and Chapter 11 (Summary hearing - dealing with evidence). 3. This is not a detailed analysis of the law on the most common defences likely to be put forward by an accused, but when read in conjunction with the chapters mentioned above, should provide enough information for straightforward cases to be dealt with and ensure that staffs can identify when a case should be referred for Court Martial (CM) trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1908 Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law Edwin Roulette Keedy Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Keedy, Edwin Roulette, "Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law" (1908). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 2052. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/2052 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HARVARD LAW REVIEW. VOL. XXII. DECEMBER, 1908. NO. 2. IGNORANCE AND MISTAKE IN THE CRIMINAL LAW. I. N the early days of English jurisprudence, maxims were regarded as inflexible and comprehensive rules of law to be strictly applied without regard to the reasons upon which they were based.' Modern courts and text-writers, however, attach much less importance to maxims;2 for the experience of centuries has proved the inapplicability of maxims in many instances and their too extensive scope in others. As pointed out in an article by Professor Jeremiah Smith,3 there is much necessary difficulty in applying a maxim on account of its brevity and the fact that it is couched in a foreign language. Moreover, there is nothing in a maxim to indicate. when it is to be applied.
    [Show full text]
  • Justifying the Right to Self-Defense: a Theory of Forced Consequences
    WALLERSTEINBOOK 5/18/2005 11:02 AM JUSTIFYING THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE: A THEORY OF FORCED CONSEQUENCES Shlomit Wallerstein* LTHOUGH the right to self-defense is recognized in all ju- A risdictions, it has proven difficult to justify. This difficulty arises from the existence of three classes of aggressors who pro- voke the right to self-defense—intentional aggressors, non- culpable aggressors, and non-agent aggressors—and is further complicated by the treatment of a fourth class, innocent bystand- ers. A comprehensive justification of the right to self-defense must explain why someone defending against each category of aggres- sors, including innocent bystanders, is entitled to prefer his own life over that of the aggressor; otherwise, it must identify a pertinent difference between those instances in which the right applies and those in which it does not. Over the last three decades three main lines of argument have been advanced to justify the right to self-defense. First, the “lesser harmful results” theory argues that allowing a defender to kill his aggressor is, on balance, the lesser harmful outcome, because the aggressor alone is responsible for the situation and hence the weight of his interests ought to be diminished. Second, according to the “forced choice” argument, self-defense is explained as a mix- ture of a justification and an excuse. It can be considered an excuse because the defender lacks real choice, and so his act is not fully voluntary. As a justification, the forced choice theory builds on the civil-law principle of fault-based selection. The aggressor, as the one who forces the defender to choose between his own life and the life of the aggressor, ought to be the one who pays the price.
    [Show full text]
  • Pocket Guide for Police Response to Sexual Assault
    NYSCASA would like to thank the following for their valuable time and efforts which made the development of this guide possible… John Brooks, Senior Investigator, NY State Police Ken Buniak, New York State Internet Crimes Pocket Guide for Police Against Children Task Force Response to Sexual Assault Caran Curry, Legal Education Coordinator, New York Prosecutors Training Institute Tim Hardiman, Captain, New York Police Department, Queens South Task Force Alice Robinson, Mt. Sinai SAVI Program Terri Rolfe, Forensic Biologist, Arkansas State Crime Laboratory Amanda Voytek, Director of Counseling Programs, Kings County District Attorney’s Office Jacqui Williams, Director of Policy and Education, NYSCASA Joseph Farrell, Criminal Justice Project Director, NYSCASA National Institute on Drug Abuse NYS Crime Victims Board The Pocket Guide for Police Response to Sexual New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault Assault is modeled on The Guide for Police Response 63 Colvin Avenue to Crimes of Sexual Assault which was produced by Albany, New York 12203 the Police Officer Standards and Training Council Phone: (518) 482-4222 Fax: (518) 482-4248 (T. William Knapp, Executive Director), State of Website: http://www.nyscasa.org Connecticut in 1998. Many thanks to the E-mail: [email protected] POSTCouncil. Overview acquaintance, colleague, spouse, ex-lover, or a family member). Sexual assault is a crime that may be terrifying, Responding to sexual assault calls involves numerous humiliating, and life-threatening, regardless of who the complex and specialized procedures, all of which cannot victim is (teen, elder, prostitute, drug-addict, male, be covered in detail in this material. gay/lesbian). Keep in mind that the injuries from sexual assault are often not immediately apparent; some examples Accordingly, the following material is not intended to of this are post-traumatic stress disorder, internal injuries, provide complete information about conducting a sexual sexually transmitted diseases, or unwanted pregnancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Consent Laws and the Excuse of Mistake of Fact
    Review of consent laws and the excuse of mistake of fact Consultation Paper WP No 78 December 2019 Queensland Law Reform Commission Review of consent laws and the excuse of mistake of fact Consultation Paper WP No 78 December 2019 Postal address: PO Box 13312, George Street Post Shop, Qld 4003 Telephone: (07) 3564 7777 Facsimile: (07) 3564 7794 Email: [email protected] Website: www.qlrc.qld.gov.au © State of Queensland (Queensland Law Reform Commission) 2019. ISBN: 978-0-6481164-3-1 SUBMISSIONS You are invited to make a written submission on the issues raised in this Consultation Paper. Submissions should be sent to: The Secretary Queensland Law Reform Commission PO Box 13312 George Street Post Shop QLD 4003 Email: [email protected] Facsimile: (07) 3564 7794 Closing date: 31 January 2020 PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY Any personal information you provide in a submission will be collected by the Queensland Law Reform Commission for the purposes of its review of consent laws and the excuse of mistake of fact. Unless you clearly indicate otherwise, the Commission may refer to or quote from your submission and refer to your name in future publications for this review. Further, future publications for this review will be published on the Commission’s website. Please indicate clearly if you do not want your submission, or any part of it, or your name to be referred to in a future publication for the review. Please note that all submissions may be subject to disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld), and access applications for submissions, including those for which confidentiality has been requested, will be determined in accordance with that Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Partial Responsibility and Excuse
    39 3 Partial Responsibility and Excuse David O. Brink * The criminal law is broadly retributive insofar as it predicates censure and sanction on culpable or responsible wrongdoing. 1 Wrongdoing for which the agent is not responsible and, hence, not culpable (in this sense) is excused. Responsibility and excuse are scalar phenomena, because the capacities constitutive of the normative competence required for responsibility can be had to different degrees and their impairment can be a matter of degree. Ideally, the criminal law would aim to deliver just deserts in cases of partial responsibility, making censure and sanction propor- tional to the degree of culpable wrongdoing. However, with some qualif cations, American criminal law is bivalent about responsibility and excuse. It treats responsi- bility as all or nothing, and it is very stingy with excuse, in effect treating many cases of partial responsibility as if the individuals were fully responsible. It is normatively problematic to treat responsibility and excuse as bivalent when the underlying facts about them are scalar in nature. 2 In this essay, I want to explain this concern about * It is my pleasure to contribute an essay honoring Larry Alexander, who has been a friend for two decades and from whom I have learned so much about the philosophy of law, especially legal interpre- tation and criminal jurisprudence. My debt is all the greater because of our frequent disagreements. 1 Culpability plays two very different roles within the criminal law. Culpability in a narrow sense concerns the mental elements of wrongdoing – elemental mens rea – whereas culpability in the broad sense concerns the agent’s responsibility for her wrongdoing, without which she would be excused.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Can Culture Excuse Crime?'
    04 046120 (ds) 30/6/04 10:04 am Page 395 Copyright © SAGE Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi. www.sagepublications.com 1462-4745; Vol 6(4): 395–4090 DOI: 10.1177/1462474504046120 PUNISHMENT & SOCIETY ‘Can culture excuse crime?’ YY Evaluating the inability thesis MARK TUNICK LL Florida Atlantic University NN Abstract The inability thesis holds that one’s culture determines behavior and can make one unable to comply with the law and therefore less deserving of punishment. Opponents of the thesis reject the view that humans are made physically unable toOO act certain ways by their cultural upbringing. The article seeks to help evaluate the inability thesis by pointing to a literature in cultural psychology and anthropology presenting empirical evidence of the influence of culture on behavior, and offering conceptual analysis of the concept of determinism and its connection to moralFF culpability. Without conced- ing that culture never determines behavior, the author argues that opponents of the inability thesis err in drawing a moral implication from this premise. What matters in formulating moral judgments about punishment are not the possibility but the reason- ability of complying with the law. CulturalOO influences may make an action reasonable that without similar cultural influences would be unreasonable. Key Words OO culture • excuse • Rfree will vs determinism • responsibility In the late 1990sR a family of Iraqi refugees moved to Lincoln, Nebraska. The father feared his two daughters, aged 13 and 14, would be corrupted, so he arranged for their marriage to two ‘good Muslims’, aged 28 and 34. The men consummated the marriage and wereP chargedP with sexual assault of a minor.
    [Show full text]
  • Causation and the Excuses
    Causation and the Excuses Michael S. Mooret My target in this paper is a theory of excuse that I call the causal theory. The causal theory is partly descriptive and partly normative. The descriptive part asserts that the established excuses of Anglo-Ameri- can criminal law can best be understood in terms of causation. Accord- ing to this part of the theory, when an agent is caused to act by a factor outside his control, he is excused; only those acts not caused by some factor external to his will are unexcused. The normative part of the the- ory asserts that the criminal law is morally right in excusing all those, and only those, whose actions are caused by factors outside their control. In a nutshell, the causal theory of excuse regards causation as the core of both legal and moral excuse. I shall urge that we must reject the causal theory of excuse. It neither describes accurately the accepted excuses of our criminal law nor provides a morally acceptable basis for deciding what conditions ought to qualify as excuses from criminal liability. I shall approach my thesis gradually, for some preliminary work must be done. In Part I below, I examine what a theory of excuse is. To do this I shall ask first what the excuses are and how they differ both from one another and from justifica- tions. I shall then ask what a theory of excuse might be and how one might argue for or against such a theory. In Part II, I attempt to show why the causal theory of excuse is so widely accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • Excusing Mistakes Of
    Philosophers’ volume 9, no. 2 ven a cursory look at the criminal law will lead one to real- april 2009 ize that despite the old adage, a person who has a mistaken Imprint E belief about the law can, in our system at least, be excused from criminal liability on those grounds. There are whole categories of legal mistake that can, at least under certain conditions, excuse a defendant from criminal liability. To give just one example, consider the British case of Regina v. Smith (1974 (2 Q. B. 354)). With his landlord’s permis- Excusing Mistakes sion, the defendant installed some speaker wire behind a wall in an apartment he was renting. When it came time to move out, he discon- nected the wire. He was charged with the crime of damaging property belonging to another, a crime that requires the defendant to intend of Law such damage, or to be reckless with respect to it. He falsely believed that the speaker wire belonged to him, when in fact the law granted it, in such cases, to the landlord. Things attached to a wall belonged to the tenant; things installed behind them, to the landlord. But Smith was mistaken about the legal rule. After an appeal, the defendant was acquitted; his mistaken belief about the law was enough to excuse him. So, when understood as a descriptive claim, the slogan that ignorance of the law is no excuse is simply false. Further, when the slogan is understood normatively — as a claim to the effect that no one who is ignorant of the law should, on those grounds, be excused — it is false as well.
    [Show full text]