Search
Author
- Matravers, Matt (1)
- Silver, Kenneth (1)
Subject
- Respondeat Superior (1)
- Specialness (1)
Date issued
Has File(s)
- true (2)
Search Results
This comment begins with some thoughts on the question of ‘criminal law’s exceptionalism’ and on what (seems to) motivate the question. It then moves on to a brief survey of some candidate criteria for the distinctive nature of the criminal law.Footnote1 The argument is that there is a defensible account of criminal law and punishment as distinctively valuable, but that this account does not have to be ‘apolitical’ and, perhaps even more importantly, it does not provide reasons for criminal law and punishment to be excluded from evaluation as instruments of public policy that may, or may not, be all things considered justified. |
Respondeat superior is a legal doctrine conferring liability from one party onto another because the latter stands in some relationship of authority over the former. Though originally a doctrine of tort law, for the past century it has been used within the criminal law, especially to the end of securing criminal liability for corporations. Here, I argue that on at least one prominent conception of criminal responsibility, we are not justified in using this doctrine in this way. Firms are not answerable for the crimes committed by their employees, because firms cannot answer as to why the crime was committed; they lack the authority to offer the employee’s reasons for action. Though this rules out respondeat superior as a general principle, I show contexts in which vicarious liabilit... |
