Punishment and Blame for Culpable Indifference

  title={Punishment and Blame for Culpable Indifference},
  author={Kenneth W Simons},
  pages={143 - 167}
Abstract In criminal law, the mental state of the defendant is a crucial determinant of the grade of crime that the defendant has committed and of whether the conduct is criminal at all. Under the widely accepted modern hierarchy of mental states, an actor is most culpable for causing harm purposely and progressively less culpable for doing so knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. Notably, this hierarchy emphasizes cognitive rather than conative mental states. But this emphasis, I argue, is… Expand
Reflections on Crime and Culpability: Problems and Puzzles
In 2009, Larry Alexander and Kimberly Ferzan published Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law. The book set out a theory that those who deserve punishment should receive punishmentExpand
The Influence of Psychosocial Immaturity, Age, and Mental State Beliefs on Culpability Judgments About Juvenile Offenders
Juvenile offenders are treated harshly in that they receive adult-like punishment and are incarcerated when alternatives to incarceration are possible. Research on adolescent offenders suggests thatExpand


Sorting Guilty Minds
Because punishable guilt requires that bad thoughts accompany bad acts, the Model Penal Code (MPC) typically requires that jurors infer the past mental state of a criminal defendant. MoreExpand
Criminal Responsibility and the Emotions: If Fear and Anger Can Exculpate, Why Not Compassion?
Abstract The article offers an Aristotelian analysis of emotion-based defences in criminal law: someone who commits an offence is entitled to an excuse if she was motivated by a justifiably arousedExpand
Does Punishment for ““Culpable Indifference”” Simply Punish for ““Bad Character””? Examining the Requisite Connection Between Mens Rea and Actus Reus
The conventional mental state or culpability categories recognized in the criminal law are purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. Should the law also recognize as an additional categoryExpand
Retributivism Refined - Or Run Amok?
What would the criminal law look like if we took retributivist principles very seriously? In their book, Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, the authors - Larry Alexander and KimberlyExpand
Virtue, Vice, and Criminal Liability: Do We Want an Aristotelian Criminal Law?
In criminal law theory, as in other kinds of theorizing, there is a powerful temptation (or, less question-beggingly, a powerful disposition) to search for a grand, unitary theory of criminalExpand
Don't Abandon the Model Penal Code Yet! Thinking Through Simons's Rethinking
Criminal law theorists argue that culpability is a prerequisite for blameworthiness and responsibility. The definition above renders our endeavor circular. What does it mean to say someone isExpand
Mens rea and defences in European criminal law
In the past decades, the process of European integration has influenced all fields of law, and eventually also criminal law. Whereas the creation and enforcement of criminal liability used to beExpand
Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law
Part I. Introduction: Retribution and the Criminal Law: 1. Criminal law, punishment, and desert Part II. The Culpable Act: 2. The essence of culpability: acts manifesting insufficient concern for theExpand
Dimensions of Negligence in Criminal and Tort Law
This article explores different dimensions of the concept of negligence in the law. The first sections focus on the fundamental distinction between conduct negligence (unreasonable creation of a riskExpand
The Inefficiency of Mens Rea
In "The Decline of Innocence," Sanford Kadish presents an eloquent defense of the notion of mens rea against Lady Wooton's famous call for its elimination. His basic thought is that the criminalExpand