Kantian legal philosophy, legal obligation, theories of criminalization
UK Kant Society, North American Kant Society
BBC Breakfast, 8 February 2017 (discussing the 9th Circuit oral argument in the US litigation: Washington v Trump) Watch
BBC News, 10 February 2017 (discussing the 9th Circuit opinion in the US litigation: Washington v Trump)
BBC World News, 10 February 2017 (discussing the 9th Circuit opinion in the US litigation: Washington v Trump)
Find me on campus Room: 32 AB 05
Tuesdays: 9:30 - 10:45
Wednesdays: 11:15 - 13:15
There are two distinct types of legal wrongdoing: civil and criminal. This article demonstrates in three ways that Immanuel Kant’s Universal Principle of Right, properly interpreted, offers a plausible and resilient account of this important distinction. First, Kant’s principle correctly identifies attempted crimes as crimes themselves even when they do not violate the rights of any individual. Second, it justifies our treatment of reckless endangerment as a crime by distinguishing it from ordinary negligence, which traditionally is only civilly wrong. Third, it justifies differences between the way in which we determine criminal punishments and the way in which we measure civil remedies. Moreover, the Universal Principle of Right yields a Kantian standard for criminal wrongdoing that is compelling enough to inform future philosophical inquiries into the nature and limits of the state’s criminal lawmaking authority.
Dennis F. Thompson developed a theory of “institutional corruption” in order to explain a phenomenon that he believed the Congressional ethics rules failed to address: Congress’ systematic deviation from its proper purpose as a consequence — not merely of individual wrongdoing — but of the influence of several general systemic features of the legislative process. Researchers at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics have recently deployed the language of institutional corruption broadly in analyses of various other public and private institutions, such as regulatory agencies, banks, pharmaceutical companies, and think tanks. The states of affairs that researchers have identified as “institutional corruption” fall into four categories: 1) breaches of fiduciary duty, 2) fraud or otherwise unfair commercial practices, 3) destructive firm behavior, and 4) mistake, inefficiency, or incompetence. This Article reveals that only the first of these represents a true application of Dennis F. Thompson’s theory of institutional corruption, which was originally developed in the context of Congressional ethics. Research projects that deploy the terminology of institutional corruption in non-fiduciary contexts are certainly valuable, but they do not address the subject matter of institutional corruption, properly understood.
Page Owner: mn0015
Page Created: Tuesday 2 September 2014 16:25:48 by pj0010
Last Modified: Tuesday 26 September 2017 12:49:34 by mn0015
Expiry Date: Wednesday 2 December 2015 16:24:37
Assembly date: Fri Dec 15 00:35:33 GMT 2017
Content ID: 131268