By Luis Duarte d'Almeida
You end up in a courtroom of legislation, accused of getting hit anyone. What are you able to do to prevent conviction? you may easily deny the accusation: 'No, i did not do it'. yet believe you probably did do it. you could then provide a distinct solution. 'Yes, I hit him', you furnish, 'but it was once self-defence'; or 'Yes, yet i used to be performing less than duress'. to reply to during this way-to provide a 'Yes, yet. . .' reply-is to carry that your specific fallacious was once devoted in unparalleled situations. maybe it truly is actual that, commonly, wrongdoers should be convicted. yet on your case the court docket should still set the rule of thumb apart. you need to be acquitted.
Within limits, the legislation allows exceptions. Or so we have a tendency to imagine. actually, the road among principles and exceptions is tougher to attract than it sort of feels. How are we to figure out what counts as an exception and what as a part of the proper rule? the excellence has very important useful implications. yet felony theorists have chanced on the concept of an exception unusually tricky to provide an explanation for. this is often the longstanding jurisprudential challenge that this e-book seeks to solve.
The ebook is split into 3 components. half I, Defeasibility in Question, introduces the subject and articulates the middle puzzle of defeasibility in legislations. half II, Defeasibility in Theory, develops a finished proof-based account of criminal exceptions. half III, Defeasibility in Action, seems to be extra heavily into the workings of exceptions in accusatory contexts, together with the felony trial.
Read or Download Allowing for exceptions: a theory of defences and defeasibility in law PDF
Similar legal theory & systems books
This choice of essays units out to problem and query the hugely influential paintings of H. L. A. Hart, whose textual content, " the idea that of legislation" , has been the root of a lot felony philosophy given that its book in 1961.
During this first book-length learn of optimistic legislations, James Bernard Murphy rewrites valuable chapters within the heritage of jurisprudence via uncovering a primary continuity between 4 nice criminal philosophers: Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, and John Austin. of their theories of optimistic legislation, Murphy argues, those thinkers characterize successive chapters in one interesting tale.
This paintings offers the fundamental arguments and primary topics of the political and ethical considered the seventeenth-century thinker, Samuel Pufendorf--one of the main largely learn usual attorneys of the pre-Kantian period. choices from the texts of Pufendorf's significant works, parts of common Jurisprudence and The legislations of Nature and of countries, were introduced jointly to make Pufendorf's ethical and political idea extra available.
- Radical Philosophy #140
- Reason and Professional Ethics
- Shared Authority: Courts and Legislatures in Legal Theory
- Legal Concepts of Childhood
- Moral Combat: The Dilemma of Legal Perspectivalism
- Merciful Judgments and Contemporary Society: Legal Problems, Legal Possibilities
Additional resources for Allowing for exceptions: a theory of defences and defeasibility in law
This is an extra-legal example, and when we make such judgments as ‘private individuals’, Hart remarks, we are not in the position of a judge whose decision is authoritative and final, but who is required only to deal with the claims and defences actually presented to him. 4 It seems, then, that a defeasible judgment is a non-final one, a judgment vulnerable to challenge or impugnation. Can this notion be articulated in more detail? Hart’s example incorporates a chronological element. There is an initial point in time at which, on the grounds of ‘merely the physical facts’ observed, we judge that ‘Smith hit her’.
The other regards the relation between the presence or absence of defeating circumstances and the correctness of certain (final or non-final) decisions and judgments. 1 What are these two notions? We can begin to distinguish between them by paying closer attention to one of Hart’s examples of a ‘defeasible’ ascription of responsibility: the simple example, described in Chapter 1, of an accusation—made on the strength of some facts we have observed—that someone hit someone else. ‘Smith hit her’, we say.
4 It seems, then, that a defeasible judgment is a non-final one, a judgment vulnerable to challenge or impugnation. Can this notion be articulated in more detail? Hart’s example incorporates a chronological element. There is an initial point in time at which, on the grounds of ‘merely the physical facts’ observed, we judge that ‘Smith hit her’. 5 So with this chronological element in mind, let me suggest a simple scheme of analysis that will help to clarify several points that Hart’s cursory account of this and other examples does not fully capture.
Allowing for exceptions: a theory of defences and defeasibility in law by Luis Duarte d'Almeida