The Children Who Lived

“…117 More specifically, the rule is said to arise from the idea inherent in Due Process that a person ought to have sufficient notice, or fair warning, of the acts that a government would criminalize. 118 At least two scholars 119 have suggested that the Due Process foundation of the rule was present in Wiltberger in Chief Justice Marshall's gesture to "the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals". Others have pointed to other early decisions, many of them by federal judges riding circuit.…”

Section: (Ii) Due Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oceans Apart?: The Rule of Lenity in Australia and the United States

Murphy

2020

British Journal of American Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occasionally traced back to Byzantine times, the rule that penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly in favor of the subject, also known as the rule of lenity, now finds expression in common law countries across the world. This Article compares the origins and evolution of the rule in Australia and the United States. The comparison is timely because of the current uncertainty in both jurisdictions about the rule’s rationale and scope and because of an emerging global trend towards the “constitutionalization” of common law rules of interpretation. In the course of the analysis, various facets of the rule are discussed, including its common law origins; jurisprudential development; purported constitutional foundations; and modifications by state and federal statutes. Tracing the rule’s development in each country reveals significant commonalities, but also important differences, in the respective approaches to the interpretation of criminal statutes. Most importantly, despite similarities in the two countries’ constitutional structures, the rule has assumed constitutional significance in the United States but not in Australia. Identification of this marked difference provides an opportunity to reflect on the separation of powers, and the federal structure, of each country.

show abstract

“…It should also be underscored that all these labels for different activities are prescriptive (though not moral) definitions, as are labour, work and action in Arendt's terms. In fact, on a descriptive basis, no one has ever been a pure homo oeconomicus nor purely political, and not even a single act is always reducible to a single category 45 -yet the inherent logic of such different activities may still be distinguished. Interpreting these concepts as if there were objects or independent phenomena such as 'labour', 'politics' or 'power', that we could observe as we observe an ant colony, simply leads to the departure of meaning from human activities.…”

Section: What 'Autotelic' Should Meanmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the autotelic character of politics

Parietti

2011

European Journal of Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a wide consensus that politics should not be considered as an end in itself, being instead instrumentally valuable, provided it is capable of producing good outcomes, however defined. Even when some intrinsic value is accorded to politics, it is thought to be dependent on some broader instrumental character. I shall argue for the reverse: that politics ought to be considered autotelic, and that the very possibility of any good outcomes depends on that. I will begin with a brief summary of how deep and widespread this rejection of the autotelic character of politics is. Then, mainly drawing on Arendt, I shall argue for a restatement of the question, which will clarify why and how a meaningful and coherent concept of politics should be autotelic. Eventually, I will sketch some of the implications for normative political theory.

show abstract

The Children Who Lived

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Introductory Chapter: Changes in Eco-System Change Echinococci - “One Health Concept” against Echinococci

Introductory Chapter: Changes in Eco-System Change Echinococci - “One Health Concept” against Echinococci

Oceans Apart?: The Rule of Lenity in Australia and the United States

On the autotelic character of politics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About