Beyond the Justification/Excuse Dichotomy
This chapter discusses the strain in criminal law theory created by the assumption that all substantive defences — those that entitle a defendant to an acquittal as a matter of justice — can be categorised as either a justification or an excuse. A number of pleas that clearly show a defendant does not deserve to be punished resist simple classification within the traditional defence hierarchy. Antony Duff suggests in Answering for Crime that problems involving putative justification require a new defence — the warranted — to supplement those of justification and excuse. The chapter develops his original idea by examining additional kinds of cases in which further distinctions are helpful.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.