Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-03-01T17:11:50.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Responsibility, Liability, and Retribution

from III - Legal Doctrine and Cognitive Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2021

By
Jaap Hage  and
Antonia Waltermann
Edited by
Bartosz Brożek ,
Jaap Hage  and
Nicole Vincent
Bartosz Brożek
Affiliation:
Jagiellonian University, Krakow
Jaap Hage
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Nicole Vincent
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney
Get access

Summary

This chapter focuses on the relationship between liability in (criminal) law, responsibility, and retribution. It addresses the question of whether law – in particular criminal law – should base liability on responsibility and whether responsibility should be based on retributivism. In examining these questions, the aim of the chapter is to present the main lines of the debates surrounding them and to examine whether – and if so, how – compatibilism is a means to reconcile the different positions within those debates. A central role in this regard is reserved for a social practice we call ‘the practice of agency’ and the tension between two different ways of looking at the world around us, namely the phenomenological and the realist way.

Criminal liability can be justified by reference to consequentialism or retributivism. The latter fits into a view of the world that includes free will libertarianism; the phenomenological view of the world. This view includes agents with free will who are responsible for their actions and deserve liability on those grounds. It can be contrasted with the realist view, which denies the existence of free will and the possibility of responsibility or liability based on desert. Compatibilism suggests that these two views of the world can co-exist because our actual social practice of agency does not depend on any philosophical position. We argue that for compatibilism to be successful in this regard, it needs to be shown that (a) the two views of the world are about the same thing, and (b) that it is desirable for both views of the world to co-exist. The cognitive sciences are relevant for both of these claims.

Type
Chapter
Information
Law and Mind
A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences
 , pp. 255 - 288
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bernstein, Mark. (2002). Fatalism. In Kane, 2002, pp. 65–81.Google Scholar
Blomsma, Jeroen, & Roef, David. (2019a). Forms and Aspects of Mens Rea. In Keiler, Johannes & Roef, David (eds.), Comparatible Concepts of Criminal Law. Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 177–205.Google Scholar
Blomsma, Jeroen, & Roef, David. (2019b). Justifications and Excuses. In Keiler, Johannes & Roef, David (eds.), Comparatible Concepts of Criminal Law. Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 207–51.Google Scholar
Boaz, David (ed.). (1997). The Libertarian Reader. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Carlsmith, Kevin M. (2008). On Justifying Punishment: The Discrepancy between Words and Actions. Social Justice Research 21, 199–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caruso, Gregg D. (2012). Free Will and Consciousness. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Caruso, Gregg D. (2018). Skepticism About Moral Responsibility. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/skepticism-moral-responsibility/Google Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick M. (1982). Human Freedom and the Self. In Watson, Gary (ed.). Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 24–35.Google Scholar
Curd, Martin, & Cover, J. A. (eds.). (1998). Philosophy of Science. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. (1984). Elbow Room. The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. (2003). Freedom Evolves. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. (1641). Meditations Metaphysique, 1st ed. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. (2011). Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Joel. (1970). Doing and Deserving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, John Martin, & Ravizza, Mark (eds.) (1993). Perspectives on Moral Responsibility. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, George P. (2007). The Grammar of Criminal Law. Volume One: Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. (1969). Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 45, 829–39.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. (1971). Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. Journal of Philosophy 68, 5–20.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. (1983). What Are We Morally Responsible For. In Cauman, Leigh S. & Morgenbesser, S. (eds.), How Many Questions? Essays in Honor of Sidney Morgenbesser. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Shaun. (2012). Phenomenology. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Greene, Joshua, & Cohen, Jonathan. (2004). For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359, 1781–85.Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap. (2017a). The Compatibilist Fallacy. Revus 32, 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hage, Jaap. (2017b). Tort Law. In Hage, Jaap, Waltermann, Antonia, & Akkermans, Bram (eds.), Introduction to Law, 2nd ed. Cham: Springer, pp. 109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hage, Jaap. (2018). Foundations and Building Blocks of Law. Den Haag: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility. Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, David. (2002). Quantum Physics, Consciousness and Free Will. In Kane, 2002, pp. 85–110.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert. (1996). The Significance of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert (ed.). (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert. (2005). A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kenneth, Jeannette. (2001). Agency and Responsibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kornhuber, K., & Deecke, L. (1965). Hirnpotentialänderungen bei Willkürbewegungen und passiven Bewegungen des Menschen: Bereitschaftspotential und reafferente Potentiale. Pflügers Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere 284, 1–17.Google Scholar
Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, 529–66.Google Scholar
Lucy, William. (2007). Philosophy of Private Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackor, Anne Ruth. (2013). What Can Neuroscience Say About Responsibility? Taking the Distinction Between Theoretical and Practical Reason Seriously. In Vincent, 2013, pp. 53–83.Google Scholar
Maslen, Cei, Horgan, Terry, & Daly, Helen. (2009). Mental Causation. In Beebee, Helen, Hitchcock, Christopher, & Menzies, Peter (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 523–53.Google Scholar
McKenna, Michael, & Coates, D. Justin. (2020). Compatibilism. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/compatibilism/Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Brian P. (1994). Epiphenomenalism. In Guttenplan, Samuel (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 277–88.Google Scholar
Metzinger, Thomas. (2011). The No-Self Alternative. In Gallagher, Shaun (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of The Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 279–96.Google Scholar
Michaels, Ralph. (2006). The Functional Method of Comparative Law. In Reimann, M. & Zimmerman, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 339–82.Google Scholar
Miller, Alexander. (2019). Realism. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/realism/Google Scholar
Moore, Michael. (2018). ‘Nothing But a Pack of Neurons’: The Moral Responsibility of the Human Machine. In Donelly-Lazarov, Bebhinn (ed.), Neurolaw and Responsibility for Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–70.Google Scholar
Morse, Steven J. (2013). Common Criminal Law Compatibilism. In Vincent, 2013, pp. 27–52.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Timothy. (1995). Agent Causation. In O’Connor, Timothy (ed.), Agents, Causes & Events, Essays on Indeterminism and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173–200.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Timothy, & Franklin, Christopher. (2020). Free Will. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/freewill/Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Peereboom, Derk. (2001). Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peereboom, Derk. (2014). Free Will, Agency and Meaning in Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1976). Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes. In Quine, W. V. (ed.), The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays (revised and enlarged edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 185–96.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (1995). Two Concepts of Rules. Philosophical Review 64, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robb, David, & Heil, John. (2019). Mental Causation. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/mental-causation/Google Scholar
Robinson, William. (2019). Epiphenomenalism. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/epiphenomenalism/Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (1762). Du contrat social. Marc Michel Rey: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. (ed.). (2014). Moral Psychology, Volume 4: Free Will and Moral Responsibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, & Nadel, Lynn. (eds.) (2011). Conscious Will and Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. (2017). The Mind/Brain Identity Theory. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/mind-identity/.Google Scholar
Smilansky, Saul. (2000). Free Will and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smilansky, Saul. (2002). Free Will, Fundamental Dualism, and the Centrality of Illusion. In Kane, 2002, pp. 489–505.Google Scholar
Smits, Jan M. (2017). An Advanced Introduction to Private Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter. (1962). Freedom and Resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy, 48, 1–25.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. (2011). The Minimal Subject. In Gallagher, Shaun (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of The Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–78.Google Scholar
Talbert, Matthew. (2019). Moral Responsibility. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/moral-responsibilityGoogle Scholar
Van Dam, Cees. (2014). European Tort Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, Peter. (1995). When Is the Will Free? In O’Connor, Timothy (ed.), Agents, Causes & Events, Essays on Indeterminism and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 219–38.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nicole A. (ed.). (2013). Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wegner, Daniel M. (2002). The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Alan R. (1985). Grounds of Liability: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×