Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![Cctv and Policing]( "Cctv and Policing")
Cctv and Policing143,99 €![The Insanity Defence]( "The Insanity Defence")
The Insanity Defence138,99 €![Nightlife and Crime]( "Nightlife and Crime")
Nightlife and Crime165,99 €![Palermo in the Pacific: Organised Crime Offences in the Asia Pacific Region]( "Palermo in the Pacific: Organised Crime Offences in the Asia Pacific Region")
Palermo in the Pacific: Organised Crime Offences in the Asia Pacific Region223,99 €![Fighting Financial Crime in the Global Economic Crisis: An Explorative]( "Fighting Financial Crime in the Global Economic Crisis: An Explorative")
Fighting Financial Crime in the Global Economic Crisis: An Explorative134,99 €![Crime Victimization: Patterns, Impact, and System Response]( "Crime Victimization: Patterns, Impact, and System Response")
Crime Victimization: Patterns, Impact, and System Response228,99 €![Introduction to Criminal Justice (Hardcover)]( "Introduction to Criminal Justice (Hardcover)")
Introduction to Criminal Justice (Hardcover)162,99 €
When should someone who may have intentionally or knowingly committed criminal wrongdoing be excused? Excusing Crime examines what excusing conditions are, and why familiar excuses, such as duress, are thought to fulfil those conditions.
The 'classical' view of excuses sees them as rational defects (such as mistake) in the motive force behind an action, but contrasts them with 'denials of responsibility', such as insanity, where the rational defect in that motive force is attributable to a mental defect in the agent him- or herself. This classical view of excuses has a long heritage, and is enshrined in different forms in many of the world's criminal codes, both liberal and non-liberal; however, in this book, Jeremy Horder
contends that it is now time to move beyond it.
Horder develops a 'liberal' account of excuses, arguing that the 'classical' distinction between rational defects and 'denials of responsibility' is too sharp, and also that the classical view of excuses is too narrow. He contends that it can be right to treat claims as excusatory even if they rely on a combination of elements of rational defect in the motive force behind the action, even if that defect is in part attributable to a mental deficiency in the agent him or herself ('diminished
capacity'). Further, he argues that there can be a sound case for excuse even when people can give full rational assent to their actions, such as when they could not reasonably have been expected to do more than what they did to avoid committing wrongdoing ('due diligence'), or, more rarely, when their
conscience understandably left them with no moral freedom to do other than commit the wrong ('demands-of-conscience').
The 'classical' view of excuses sees them as rational defects (such as mistake) in the motive force behind an action, but contrasts them with 'denials of responsibility', such as insanity, where the rational defect in that motive force is attributable to a mental defect in the agent him- or herself. This classical view of excuses has a long heritage, and is enshrined in different forms in many of the world's criminal codes, both liberal and non-liberal; however, in this book, Jeremy Horder
contends that it is now time to move beyond it.
Horder develops a 'liberal' account of excuses, arguing that the 'classical' distinction between rational defects and 'denials of responsibility' is too sharp, and also that the classical view of excuses is too narrow. He contends that it can be right to treat claims as excusatory even if they rely on a combination of elements of rational defect in the motive force behind the action, even if that defect is in part attributable to a mental deficiency in the agent him or herself ('diminished
capacity'). Further, he argues that there can be a sound case for excuse even when people can give full rational assent to their actions, such as when they could not reasonably have been expected to do more than what they did to avoid committing wrongdoing ('due diligence'), or, more rarely, when their
conscience understandably left them with no moral freedom to do other than commit the wrong ('demands-of-conscience').