Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Whether our inquiry into crime is analytical or normative, we must focus on the notion of wrongdoing.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Legal positivists like Hart argue that the validity of law is entirely separate from its moral content or wrongdoing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Criminal law can be fully analyzed as a system of state-enforced prohibitions without appealing to moral wrongdoing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Conflating legal analysis with moral evaluation commits a category error that undermines jurisprudential clarity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Many criminal statutes prohibit 'mala prohibita' acts that are not intrinsically wrong but wrong only because prohibited.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If wrongdoing is not necessary for criminalization, it cannot be the conceptual center of criminal law analysis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The criminal law portrays crime not merely as conduct which has been prohibited, but as a species of wrongdoing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The simple positivist-consequentialist view of criminal law is inadequate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.