<i>Mens rea</i>

Carson, David C.; Felthous, Alan R.

doi:10.1002/bsl.557

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Doris, ascribing moral responsibility to such a parent would require invoking the concept of 'strict liability.' In criminal law, strict liability consists in a standard through which the individual can be found liable for a crime based only in the actus reus (the guilty action) regardless of the underlying state of mind (i.e., mens rea or guilty mind) (Carson & Felthous 2003). According to the traditional common law standards, strict liability would never be considered as a reasonable standard to be applied to the action described in this hypothetical case.…”

Section: Heidi Lene Maibommentioning

confidence: 99%

The Nietzschean precedent for anti-reflective, dialogical agency

Alfano

2018

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nietzsche anticipates both the anti-reflective and the dialogical aspects of Doris's theory of agency. Nietzsche's doctrine of will to power presupposes that agency does not require reflection but emerges from interacting drives, affects, and emotions. Furthermore, Nietzsche identifies two channels through which dialogical processes of person-formation flow: sometimes a person announces what she is and meets with social acceptance of that claim; sometimes someone else announces what the person is, and she accepts the attribution.

show abstract

Section: Heidi Lene Maibommentioning

confidence: 99%

The Nietzschean precedent for anti-reflective, dialogical agency

Alfano

2018

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this reason, in criminal law, judges are requested to enter the criminal's mind in order to reach as thorough as possible an understanding of his intentions and thus to choose an appropriate punishment. Basically, four conditions have to be satisfied to establish criminal responsibility: (a) the defendant must have committed an act which is considered a crime (this is called the actus reus in common law systems); (b) that act must have been committed in a specific “state of mind” (this is known as the mens rea in common law systems); (c) there must be a causal connection between the crime and the prohibited consequences; and (d) there must be an absence of circumstances that would constitute a legal defense to any crime charged (Carson and Felthous, 2003 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“I didn't want to do it!” The detection of past intentions

Zangrossi

Agosta

Cervesato

et al. 2015

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In daily life and in courtrooms, people regularly analyze the minds of others to understand intentions. Specifically, the detection of intentions behind prior events is one of the main issues dealt with in courtrooms. To our knowledge, there are no experimental works focused on the use of memory detection techniques to detect past intentions. This study aims at investigating whether reaction times (RTs) could be used for this purpose, by evaluating the accuracy of the autobiographical Implicit Association Test (aIAT) in the detection of past intentions. Sixty healthy volunteers took part in the experiment (mean age: 36.5 y; range: 18–55; 30 males). Participants were asked to recall and report information about a meeting with a person that had occurred at least 1 month before. Half of the participants were required to report about an intentional meeting, whereas the other half reported on a chance meeting. Based on the conveyed information, participants performed a tailored aIAT in which they had to categorize real reported information contrasted with counterfeit information. Results demonstrated that RTs can be a useful measure for the detection of past intentions and that aIAT can detect real past intentions with an accuracy of 95%.

show abstract

“…In this example a father, after an exhausting work day, forgets his child inside a locked car under a dangerously hot temperature. According to Doris, ascribing moral responsibility to such a parent would require invoking the concept of ‘strict liability.’ In criminal law, strict liability consists in a standard through which the individual can be found liable for a crime based only in the actus reus (the guilty action) regardless of the underlying state of mind (i.e., mens rea or guilty mind) (Carson & Felthous 2003). According to the traditional common law standards, strict liability would never be considered as a reasonable standard to be applied to the action described in this hypothetical case.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Talking to others' selves: Why a valuational paradigm of agency fails to provide an adequate theoretical framework for moral responsibility, social accountability, and legal liability

Mattei

2018

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this commentary, I highlight the importance of a proper discussion of the pragmatic implications of John Doris's paradigm for allocation of personal responsibility proposed in his new book Talking to Our Selves. By employing some classic concepts of the American common law tradition, I discuss why Doris's valuational understanding of agency fails to provide an adequate framework for moral responsibility, social accountability, and legal liability.

show abstract

Mens rea

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

The Nietzschean precedent for anti-reflective, dialogical agency

The Nietzschean precedent for anti-reflective, dialogical agency

“I didn't want to do it!” The detection of past intentions

Talking to others' selves: Why a valuational paradigm of agency fails to provide an adequate theoretical framework for moral responsibility, social accountability, and legal liability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About