The Experts below are selected from a list of 273 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Richard L Lippke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Criminal Offenders and Right Forfeiture
Journal of Social Philosophy, 2020Co-Authors: Richard L LippkeAbstract:It is plausible to believe that the only way that Legal Punishment can be made consistent with the basic moral rights of offenders is to hold that offenders have, through their crimes, forfeited those rights. Numerous problems with the right forfeiture view are discussed. In its stead, I urge the view that Legal Punishment should be understood as justifiably curtailing the moral rights of offenders. Offenders retain some of their basic moral rights, while others are severely limited by Legal Punishment.
-
Two Ways of Thinking About the Value of Deserved Punishment
The Journal of Ethics, 2019Co-Authors: Richard L LippkeAbstract:Numerous retributivists hold that deserved Punishment has intrinsic value. A number of puzzles regarding that claim are identified and discussed. An alternative, more Kantian account of intrinsic value is then identified and the ways in which Legal Punishment might be understood to cohere with it are explored. That account focuses on the various ways in which Legal Punishment might be persons-respecting. It is then argued that this Kantian account enables us to solve or evade the puzzles generated by the other intrinsic value account.
-
Legal Punishment and the public identification of offenders
Res Publica, 2018Co-Authors: Richard L LippkeAbstract:In the United States, the identities of criminal offenders are matters of public record, accessible to prospective employers, the press, and ordinary citizens. In European countries, the identities of offenders are routinely kept hidden, with some exceptions. The question addressed in this discussion concerns whether the public disclosure of the identities of offenders is part and parcel of their Legal Punishment. My contentions are that public disclosure is not conceptually part of Legal Punishment, necessary to serve substantive penal aims, or likely to enhance penal aims. At times, it will conflict with defensible aims of Legal Punishment. Other values might support or require the public identification of criminal offenders, but the aims of Legal Punishment do not appear to do so.
-
Punishment Drift: The Spread of Penal Harm and What We Should Do About It
Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2017Co-Authors: Richard L LippkeAbstract:It is well documented that the effects of Legal Punishment tend to drift to the family members, friends, and larger communities of convicted offenders. Instead of conceiving of Punishment drift as incidental to Legal Punishment, or as merely foreseen but not intended by state authorities and thus permissible, I argue that efforts ought to be undertaken to limit or ameliorate it. Failure to confine Punishment drift comes perilously close to Punishment of the innocent and is at odds with other Legal doctrines and broader penal practices that hold offenders, and offenders alone, responsible for their crimes. Numerous arguments urging tolerance of Punishment drift, or more assertively defending it, are examined and found wanting.
-
Preventive Pre-trial Detention without Punishment
Res Publica, 2014Co-Authors: Richard L LippkeAbstract:The pre-trial detention of individuals charged with crimes is viewed by many Legal scholars as problematic. Standard arguments against it are that it constitutes Legal Punishment of individuals not yet convicted of crimes, violates the presumption of innocence, and rests on dubious predictions of future crime. I defend modified and restrained forms of pre-trial detention. I argue that pre-trial detention could be made very different than imprisonment, should be governed by strict criteria, and is warranted, when the evidence of danger is convincing. I contend that the presumption of innocence does not preclude us from doing many other things to criminal suspects and defendants that imply their guilt. Finally, I dispute arguments designed to show that pre-trial detention can be justified to prevent absconding or interferences with the course of justice, but not to prevent other, and sometimes much more serious, offenses.
Wang Chong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Questioning and Correcting the Legal Punishment Setting of Dangerous Driving Offenses——Coordination on the Second Paragraph of the First Provision of the 133th Article of the Penal Code
Journal of Hefei Normal University, 2020Co-Authors: Wang ChongAbstract:Due to the legislative constraints and unrefinedness,there have occurred a lot of theoretical and practical issues concerning the suspects who are sentenced to "detention and paying fines" for dangerous driving offenses according to the Second Paragraph of the First Provision of the 133th Article of the Penal Code.On the basis of learning from foreign legislative experiences,we should improve the set of Legal Punishment of the offense for dangerous driving.One-year imprisonment of the Legal Punishment is advised to add to the setting of Legal Punishment.All jurisdictions will view a person as committing an offence,if they are found to be driving a vehicle in a manner which results in the death or injury of another person.Dangerous driving charges cover a number of different cases,such as excessive speeding,being adversely affected by an intoxicating substance,taking part in unlawful speed trials.Penalties for dangerous driving charges vary depending mainly on whether anyone is injured or killed by the drivers action,but can be up to years imprisonment.
-
questioning and correcting the Legal Punishment setting of dangerous driving offenses coordination on the second paragraph of the first provision of the 133th article of the penal code
Journal of Hefei Normal University, 2012Co-Authors: Wang ChongAbstract:Due to the legislative constraints and unrefinedness,there have occurred a lot of theoretical and practical issues concerning the suspects who are sentenced to "detention and paying fines" for dangerous driving offenses according to the Second Paragraph of the First Provision of the 133th Article of the Penal Code.On the basis of learning from foreign legislative experiences,we should improve the set of Legal Punishment of the offense for dangerous driving.One-year imprisonment of the Legal Punishment is advised to add to the setting of Legal Punishment.All jurisdictions will view a person as committing an offence,if they are found to be driving a vehicle in a manner which results in the death or injury of another person.Dangerous driving charges cover a number of different cases,such as excessive speeding,being adversely affected by an intoxicating substance,taking part in unlawful speed trials.Penalties for dangerous driving charges vary depending mainly on whether anyone is injured or killed by the drivers action,but can be up to years imprisonment.
Colin Harris - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Institutional Solutions to Free-Riding in Peer-to-Peer Networks: A Case Study of Online 'Pirate' Communities
Journal of Institutional Economics, 2018Co-Authors: Colin HarrisAbstract:Self-governance of common pool resources is presumed to work well in small, homogeneous communities where interaction is repeated, agents have low discount rates, and information about past performance is available. It is presumed to work poorly elsewhere. This paper provides a case study of online communities who use peer-to-peer networks to ilLegally share copyrighted material — 'Pirates' — to investigate the robustness of self-governance institutions in less favorable conditions. Early models of peer-to-peer networks predicted complete collapse due to issues of free-riding. When these networks are used to ilLegally share copyrighted material, the increased risk of Legal Punishment leads to a further disincentive to contribute. Despite the increased incentive to free-ride, online pirate communities have developed a robust set of institutional mechanisms designed to mitigate the effects of free-riding in the network. My study highlights the diversity, and commonality, of institutional arrangements developed by self-governing communities to solve collective action problems under unfavorable conditions.
-
Institutional solutions to free-riding in peer-to-peer networks: a case study of online pirate communities
Journal of Institutional Economics, 2018Co-Authors: Colin HarrisAbstract:AbstractThis paper provides a case study of online pirate communities who use peer-to-peer networks to share copyrighted material ilLegally. Early scholars of peer-to-peer networks posited the possibility of a total network collapse due to issues of free-riding. When these networks are used to distribute copyrighted material ilLegally, the increased risk of Legal Punishment adds a further disincentive to contribute. This paper uses Ostrom's (2005) framework to categorize the rules used in pirate communities to solve collective action problems, evidencing the applicability and robustness of Ostrom's framework for self-governance under less favorable conditions. Through the use of boundary, position, information, and payoff rules, pirate communities are able to mitigate free-riding in the network.
Kyle Swan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Legal Punishment of immorality once more into the breach
Philosophical Studies, 2017Co-Authors: Kyle SwanAbstract:Gerald Dworkin’s overlooked defense of Legal moralism attempts to undermine the traditional liberal case for a principled distinction between behavior that is immoral and criminal and behavior that is immoral but not criminal. According to Dworkin, his argument for Legal moralism “depends upon a plausible idea of what making moral judgments involves.” The idea Dworkin has in mind here is a metaethical principle that many have connected to morality/reasons internalism. I agree with Dworkin that this is a plausible principle, but I argue that some of the best reasons for accepting it actually work against his enforcement thesis. I propose a principled distinction between the immoral-and-criminal and the immoral-but-not-criminal, and argue that a principle at least very much like it must be correct if the metaethical principle Dworkin avows is correct.
Melanie Taylor - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
female drug abusers narcotics offenders and Legal Punishment in china
Journal of Criminal Justice, 2009Co-Authors: Bin Liang, Hong Lu, Melanie TaylorAbstract:Drug abuse and narcotics offenses have been surging since the economic reforms in China. Accompanied is the dramatic increase of female involvement in the use of drugs and narcotics offenses. As a response, laws and governmental decrees have been promulgated and modified to curb these emerging and changing crimes and social problems. Courts at all levels in China also devoted more resources in handling and processing these particular criminals and crimes. Whether and how these Legal initiatives have been translated into Punishment that treats male and female offenders equally who committed similar offenses remains questionable. Citing published criminal court judgment documents, this study addressed this issue empirically and offered some plausible theoretical explanations for the treatment of female drug users and narcotics offenders by criminal courts in China.