Excused Necessity in Western Legal Philosophy

Ghanayim, Khalid

doi:10.1017/s0841820900005592

Cited by 24 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fate was then the arbiter and the right was with whom fate favoured. In Roman law the defence of necessity was treated "casuistically" or case by case (Ghanayam, 2006). If this is correct then clearly the defence was available to the Roman jurists.…”

Section: The Transition Of the Defence Of Necessity From Roman To Commentioning

confidence: 99%

<i>Regina v Dudley & Stephens</i> Anatomy of a Show Trial

Minchin¹

2020

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the centre of Regina v Dudley & Stephens, "Dudley & Stephens" is the defence of necessity and its place in a criminal law built on volitional conduct. At Roman law the defence arose first from the facts but was then contingent on the drawing of lots. This second feature did not find favour with St Thomas Aquinas, who deleted it when he wrote the defence of necessity into Church law. From Church law the defence passed into common law, again sans lot, but it was anomalous in regard to kindred defences, in that it was absolute. The English Court in Dudley & Stephens was right to have seen this anomaly as being in need of correction but instead of correcting this in a practical manner, and manipulated the case so that a pronouncement of Victorian morality could be made. This was a prime example of Arnold's observation that: "in the public trial we find the government speaking ex cathedra" 1 .

show abstract

Section: The Transition Of the Defence Of Necessity From Roman To Commentioning

confidence: 99%

<i>Regina v Dudley & Stephens</i> Anatomy of a Show Trial

Minchin¹

2020

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A common thought experiment in ethics is the trolley problem (Ghanayim, 2006). In this thought experiment there is a runaway trolley racing down railway tracks that would kill five people if there were no intervention.…”

Section: A) Necessitas Eget Legem -Necessity Needs Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

’Governance by Things’ as a challenge to regulation by law

Schulz¹,

Dankert²

2016

Internet Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper the authors examine how the rise of the Internet of Things will challenge regulatory structures. Coming from the idea of "code as law" the shift from technology governing online spaces to physical spaces is described as a new phenomenon. They call it 'Governance by Things'. Some key observations of this structural shift are characterised in this article, for instance regarding its self-executing character and the imperfection of technology. Finally, the authors draw the conclusion that the 'Governance by Things' calls for a second-order regulation.

show abstract

“…Although retribution may be the main justification for sentencing (Ghanayim, 2006;Kant, 1996), it may also serve other social ends, including incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation (Duff, 1986;Hart, 2008). The relative weight of each of these may be debated as a matter of principle and also in individual cases when judges come to prescribe the deserved punishment of a given culprit.…”

Section: Possible Interactions Between Retribution and Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retributive Considerations in Parole Proceedings

Assy

Menashe

2015

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In "Looking Beyond Risk in Paroling Denying Prisoners," Dr. Dagan provided a refreshing critical analysis of the role of retributive considerations in parole proceedings. Its main argument is that if we are to make sense of the insistence on an admission of guilt, we cannot discuss parole proceedings merely in terms of prevention and risk. What is actually in play, at least in part, is retribution and moral evaluation. Taking retributive considerations into account enables a better understanding of the importance that admissions assume in parole proceedings and their role as a means of moral repentance and catharsis. In this brief commentary, we discuss Dagan's thesis, offering a few remarks on the relationship between retribution and prevention. We provide some details on the nature of parole proceedings and on the practices that may increase the likelihood of moral and retributive considerations being taken into account contrary to the will of parliament and to the stated principles of parole.

show abstract

Excused Necessity in Western Legal Philosophy

Cited by 24 publications

References 22 publications

<i>Regina v Dudley & Stephens</i> Anatomy of a Show Trial

<i>Regina v Dudley & Stephens</i> Anatomy of a Show Trial

’Governance by Things’ as a challenge to regulation by law

Retributive Considerations in Parole Proceedings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Excused Necessity in Western Legal Philosophy

Cited by 24 publications

References 22 publications

&lt;i&gt;Regina v Dudley &amp; Stephens&lt;/i&gt; Anatomy of a Show Trial

&lt;i&gt;Regina v Dudley &amp; Stephens&lt;/i&gt; Anatomy of a Show Trial

’Governance by Things’ as a challenge to regulation by law

Retributive Considerations in Parole Proceedings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

<i>Regina v Dudley & Stephens</i> Anatomy of a Show Trial

<i>Regina v Dudley & Stephens</i> Anatomy of a Show Trial