Show simple item record

Some Hypotheses About Empirical Desert

dc.contributor.authorSlobogin, Christopher, 1951-
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-16T19:57:14Z
dc.date.available2017-08-16T19:57:14Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citation42 Arizona State Law Journal 1188 (2011)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/8424
dc.descriptionarticle published in law journalen_US
dc.description.abstractPaul Robinson has written a series of articles advocating the view that empirical desert should govern development of criminal law doctrine. The central contention of empirical desert is that adherence to societal views of “justice” – defined in terms of moral blameworthiness – will not only satisfy retributive urges, but will also often be as efficacious at controlling crime as a system that revolves around other utilitarian purposes of punishment. Constructing criminal laws that implement empirical desert has the latter effect, Robinson argues, because it enhances the moral credibility of the law, thus minimizing citizens’ desire to engage in vigilantism and other forms of non-compliance and increasing their willingness to accept controversial government decisions to criminalize or de-criminalize. In keeping with the utilitarian spirit of Robinson’s agenda, the main goal of this paper is to propose hypotheses (ten in all) that test possible vulnerabilities of his argument. Robinson’s work on empirical desert is provocative, but requires further empirical support.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (17 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherArizona State Law Journalen_US
dc.subject.lcshLaw and ethicsen_US
dc.titleSome Hypotheses About Empirical Deserten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.ssrn-urihttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1660043


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record