Two Types of Legal Wrongdoing

Abstract

There are two distinct types of legal wrongdoing: civil and criminal. This article demonstrates in three ways that Immanuel Kant's Universal Principle of Right, properly interpreted, offers a plausible and resilient account of this important distinction. First, Kant's principle correctly identifies attempted crimes as crimes themselves even when they do not violate the rights of any individual. Second, it justifies our treatment of reckless endangerment as a crime by distinguishing it from ordinary negligence, traditionally thought to be only civilly wrong. Third, it explains and justifies differences between the features of traditional criminal punishments and the features of civil remedies. Moreover, the Universal Principle of Right yields a Kantian standard for criminal wrongdoing that is compelling enough to inform future philosophical inquiries into the nature and limits of the state's criminal lawmaking authority.

COVID-19 in the Courtroom: The Role of Mask Mandates and Source of Exposure on Negligence and Recklessness Decisions

“…Thus, negligence is often conceived of as failing to consider possible harm, and recklessness is knowingly disregarding possible harm. While negligence and recklessness are both considered civil wrongs, recklessness is also recognized as a crime and is a more serious offense (Newhouse, 2016 ).…”

Whence ‘honeste vive’?

“…27 27 Kant's examples of actions that return us to the state of nature are: revolution (see MM 6:320; see also Flikschuh, 2008; Korsgaard, 2008; Ripstein, 2009, chap. 11), public crimes such as counterfeiting money, theft and robbery (see MM 6:331; see also Newhouse, 2016), and—perhaps most controversially—lying to a would‐be murderer at your door (see SR 8:426; see also Varden, 2010; Weinrib, 2008). …”