Applying Analytic Reasoning to Clarify <em>Intention</em> and <em>Responsibility</em> in Joint Criminal Enterprise Cases
This paper argues that both criminologists and lawyers need a far more philosophically robust account of joint action, notably as it relates to technical matters of intentionality and responsibility when dealing with joint criminal enterprise cases. Criminology seems unable to see beyond the superf...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law
2016-02-01
|
| Series: | Oñati Socio-Legal Series |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/752 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846156930348744704 |
|---|---|
| author | Anthony Amatrudo |
| author_facet | Anthony Amatrudo |
| author_sort | Anthony Amatrudo |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
This paper argues that both criminologists and lawyers need a far more philosophically robust account of joint action, notably as it relates to technical matters of intentionality and responsibility when dealing with joint criminal enterprise cases. Criminology seems unable to see beyond the superficiality of cultural explanations ill-suited to understanding matters of action. Law seems wedded to mystical notions of foresight. As regards the law there seems common agreement that joint enterprise prosecutions tend to over-criminalise secondary parties. This paper suggests that the current discussions around joint criminal enterprise will benefit from a critical engagement with analytical philosophy. The paper will examine a series of technical accounts of shared commitment and intention in order to explain the problems of joint criminal enterprise (multi-agent criminal activity).
Este artículo defiende que tanto criminólogos como abogados necesitan ofrecer una acción conjunta más robusta, desde el punto de vista filosófico, especialmente en lo que se refiere a aspectos técnicos de intencionalidad y responsabilidad, al tratar casos de colaboración criminal. La criminología parece incapaz de ver más allá de la superficialidad de las explicaciones culturales, inadecuadas para entender cuestiones de acción. El derecho parece aliado con nociones místicas de previsión. En lo que respecta al derecho, parece que existe un consenso en que los fiscales de asociaciones de malhechores tienden a penalizar en exceso a los cómplices. Este artículo sugiere que el debate actual sobre asociaciones criminales se beneficiará de un compromiso crítico con la filosofía analítica. El artículo analiza un conjunto de explicaciones técnicas de compromiso e intención compartidos para explicar los problemas de las asociaciones criminales (actividad criminal multi-agente).
DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2847796
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0817682e255b4e4a98f88421c208ee5f |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2079-5971 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-02-01 |
| publisher | Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Oñati Socio-Legal Series |
| spelling | doaj-art-0817682e255b4e4a98f88421c208ee5f2024-11-25T15:41:01ZengOñati International Institute for the Sociology of LawOñati Socio-Legal Series2079-59712016-02-0164638Applying Analytic Reasoning to Clarify <em>Intention</em> and <em>Responsibility</em> in Joint Criminal Enterprise CasesAnthony Amatrudo0Middlesex University This paper argues that both criminologists and lawyers need a far more philosophically robust account of joint action, notably as it relates to technical matters of intentionality and responsibility when dealing with joint criminal enterprise cases. Criminology seems unable to see beyond the superficiality of cultural explanations ill-suited to understanding matters of action. Law seems wedded to mystical notions of foresight. As regards the law there seems common agreement that joint enterprise prosecutions tend to over-criminalise secondary parties. This paper suggests that the current discussions around joint criminal enterprise will benefit from a critical engagement with analytical philosophy. The paper will examine a series of technical accounts of shared commitment and intention in order to explain the problems of joint criminal enterprise (multi-agent criminal activity). Este artículo defiende que tanto criminólogos como abogados necesitan ofrecer una acción conjunta más robusta, desde el punto de vista filosófico, especialmente en lo que se refiere a aspectos técnicos de intencionalidad y responsabilidad, al tratar casos de colaboración criminal. La criminología parece incapaz de ver más allá de la superficialidad de las explicaciones culturales, inadecuadas para entender cuestiones de acción. El derecho parece aliado con nociones místicas de previsión. En lo que respecta al derecho, parece que existe un consenso en que los fiscales de asociaciones de malhechores tienden a penalizar en exceso a los cómplices. Este artículo sugiere que el debate actual sobre asociaciones criminales se beneficiará de un compromiso crítico con la filosofía analítica. El artículo analiza un conjunto de explicaciones técnicas de compromiso e intención compartidos para explicar los problemas de las asociaciones criminales (actividad criminal multi-agente). DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2847796 https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/752Joint actionJoint commitmentJoint criminal enterpriseShared intentionsColaboracióncompromiso conjunto |
| spellingShingle | Anthony Amatrudo Applying Analytic Reasoning to Clarify <em>Intention</em> and <em>Responsibility</em> in Joint Criminal Enterprise Cases Oñati Socio-Legal Series Joint action Joint commitment Joint criminal enterprise Shared intentions Colaboración compromiso conjunto |
| title | Applying Analytic Reasoning to Clarify <em>Intention</em> and <em>Responsibility</em> in Joint Criminal Enterprise Cases |
| title_full | Applying Analytic Reasoning to Clarify <em>Intention</em> and <em>Responsibility</em> in Joint Criminal Enterprise Cases |
| title_fullStr | Applying Analytic Reasoning to Clarify <em>Intention</em> and <em>Responsibility</em> in Joint Criminal Enterprise Cases |
| title_full_unstemmed | Applying Analytic Reasoning to Clarify <em>Intention</em> and <em>Responsibility</em> in Joint Criminal Enterprise Cases |
| title_short | Applying Analytic Reasoning to Clarify <em>Intention</em> and <em>Responsibility</em> in Joint Criminal Enterprise Cases |
| title_sort | applying analytic reasoning to clarify em intention em and em responsibility em in joint criminal enterprise cases |
| topic | Joint action Joint commitment Joint criminal enterprise Shared intentions Colaboración compromiso conjunto |
| url | https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/752 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT anthonyamatrudo applyinganalyticreasoningtoclarifyemintentionemandemresponsibilityeminjointcriminalenterprisecases |