When should someone who may have intentionally or knowingly committed criminal wrongdoing be excused? Excusing Crime examines what excusing conditions are, and why familiar excuses, such as duress, are thought to fulfil those conditions. Setting himself against the 'classical' view of excuses, which has a long heritage, and is enshrined in different forms in many of the world's criminal codes, both liberal and non-liberal; Jeremy Horder argues that it is now time to move forwards. He contends that a wider range of excuses--'diminished capacity', 'due diligence' and 'demands of conscience'--should be recognised in law.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
A Theoretical Overview
An Anatomy of Excuses
6 other sections not shown
A. P. Simester action actively justificatory adopted reason Andrew Ashworth argument belief Brudner capacity theory chapter 1.2 character character theory circumstances claim to excuse commit common law contrast conviction courts Cr App Rep crime Criminal Law D's conduct denial of responsibility diminished capacity diminished responsibility discussion duress element emotional example excessive defence excusatory claims excusing conditions fact favour Gist of Excuses H. L. A. Hart harm harm principle Homicide Homicide Act 1957 Ibid individual involuntary involve issue Jeremy Horder John Gardner Joseph Raz judges jury justification killing kind law's liberal Lord loss of self-control mental disorder moral murder Norrie objective version offence one's Oxford Partial Defences partial excuse person plea predominantly ascriptive predominantly normative Punishment question rational defect regard regulatory regulatory offences relevant respect role Ronald Dworkin rung seeking sentence someone standards strict liability Tadros theory of excuses threat tion wrong wrongdoing