Abstract
When does a defendant not deserve punishment because he is unaware that his conduct breaches a penal statute? Retributivists must radically rethink their answer to this question to do justice to our moral intuitions. I suggest that modest progress on this topic can be made by modeling our approach to ignorance of law on our familiar approach to ignorance of fact. We need to distinguish different levels of culpability in given mistakes and to differentiate what such mistakes may be about. I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this approach with special attention to how to contrast offenses from defenses. The alternative I tend to favor probably should not be implemented in existing penal codes. As a result, we are likely to remain dissatisfied with the decisions made by our criminal justice system about the exculpatory effect of ignorance of law.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 135-159 |
| Number of pages | 25 |
| Journal | Criminal Law and Philosophy |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jun 2010 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy
- Law
Keywords
- Blame
- Consequentialism
- Culpability
- Desert
- Ignorance of law
- Morality
- Offenses and defenses
- Retributivism
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Mistake of law and culpability'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver