Human Fallibilism and Individual Self-Development in John Stuart Mill’s Theory of Liberty

J. S. Mill regards individuality as the most fundamental of human interests – the principal condition of and main ingredient in self-development. But in addition to the individualist-functionalist element in Mill’s thought there is also a strong element of fallibilism derived from an empiricist view of the nature and possibilities of human knowledge. A corollary of Mill’s fallibilism is his conception of human nature as essentially open and incomplete. His doctrine of individuality and self-development, on the other hand, implies that the individual is definable by certain necessary and permanent characteristics. Following a discussion of the empiricist and fallibilist strain in Mill’s liberalism, the present paper offers an interpretation of Mill’s view that reconciles these two seemingly discordant elements in his understanding of man

Character, Choice and Criminal Responsibility

Le présent article examine la responsabilité criminelle et le rôle des excuses selon deux points de vue théoriques différents: la théorie fondée sur le caractère de l'accusé (« the character theory ») et la théorie de la responsabilité fondée sur le choix (« the choice theory »). La première préconise l'individualisation de l'examen de la culpabilité morale et de la punition de manière à tenir compte des traits de caractère de l'accusé. Les excuses empêchent d'imputer tout blâme à l'auteur d'un acte interdit commis involontairement ; elles repoussent ainsi l’inference entre la nature mauvaise de l'acte et les traits de caractère répréhensibles de l'accusé. La deuxième théorie revendique que la responsabilité criminelle se rattache au caractère volontaire de la contravention à la loi plutôt qu'à la nature immorale de la conduite. Dans ce cadre, la responsabilité criminelle concerne davantage les choix que les traits de caractère. De ce point de vue, les excuses empêchent l'attribution de la responsabilité criminelle parce que l'auteur de l'acte n'a pas, dans les circonstances donnant ouverture à une excuse, une capacité suffisante ou une opportunité équitable de choisir de respecter la loi. L'auteur conclut que la théorie fondée sur le caractère de l'accusé, en mettant l'accent sur les traits de la personnalité qui motivent les choix d'une personne, offre un meilleur fondement théorique pour comprendre les actions humaines sous l'angle moral et pour expliquer et justifier l'attribution de la responsabilité criminelle et de la sanction.This paper examines the issue of criminal responsibility and the role of legal excuses from two theoretical viewpoints : the character theory and the choice theory of responsibility. The character theory claims that the moral assessment of an offender's character is a necessary prerequisite of criminal liability and punishment. Legal excuses preclude the attribution of moral and legal blame because, by negating voluntariness, they block the inference from a wrongful act to a flawed character. The choice theory, on the other hand, claims that criminal responsibility pertains to the voluntary violation of the law rather than to the doing of an immoral act as such. For the choice theorist criminal responsibility is concerned with choices rather than with character traits. From this point of view, excuses are taken to preclude criminal liability because, when these conditions are present, the actor does not have sufficient capacity or a fair opportunity to choose to act according to law. The paper concludes that the character theory, by placing the emphasis on those character traits that motivate a person's choices offers a better basis for understanding the moral significance of human actions and for explaining and justifying the attribution of criminal responsibility and punishment

Defending Victims of Domestic Abuse who Kill : A Perspective from English Law

La « provocation cumulative » désigne les instances de mauvais traitements, pendant une période prolongée, d’une personne par une autre et qui se terminent par le meurtre de l’auteur par la victime d’abus. Depuis le début des années 90, la doctrine a abondamment commenté la manière dont le droit pénal appréhende de telles situations. Dernièrement, le débat a refait surface dans la foulée de la publication des propositions de la Law Commission d’Angleterre sur les moyens de défense partiels à l’accusation de meurtre. Le présent article examine les enjeux que soulève l’appel à des circonstances de provocation cumulative pour diminuer la responsabilité criminelle. Compte tenu de la portée et des limites inhérentes à la défense de provocation, il convient d’envisager les circonstances de la provocation cumulative comme étant susceptibles de fonder le recours à d’autres moyens de défense. Circonscrire le moyen de défense juridique le plus approprié nécessiterait de se pencher sur la nature de la condition ou des conditions disculpatoires qui découlent de chaque cas déterminé. Bien que cet article se fonde en grande partie sur les doctrines de la provocation et de la responsabilité diminuée telles qu’elles sont appliquées en droit anglais, il est à espérer que l’analyse proposée aura sa pertinence pour tous les régimes de droit qui reconnaissent l’existence de tels moyens de défense (ou qui se proposent de les mettre en œuvre) et qu’elle pourra être d’un apport utile au débat moral suscité par les moyens de défense partiels à l’accusation de meurtre .The term “cumulative provocation” is used to describe cases involving a prolonged period of maltreatment of a person at the hands of another, which culminates in the killing of the abuser by her victim. Since the early 1990s there has been a plethora of academic commentary on the criminal law’s response to such cases. More recently, the debate has been re-opened following the publication of the English Law Commission’s proposals on the partial defences to murder. This article examines doctrinal issues that arise in relation to claims of extenuation stemming from the circumstances of cumulative provocation. It is argued that, given the scope and limitations of the provocation defence, one should view the circumstances of cumulative provocation as likely to bring about the conditions of different legal excuses. Identifying the relevant legal defence would require one to reflect on the nature of the excusing condition or conditions stemming from the circumstances of each particular case. Although the paper draws largely upon the doctrines of provocation and diminished responsibility as they operate in English law, it is hoped that the analysis offered has relevance to all systems where similar defences are recognized (or proposed to be introduced), and can make a useful contribution to the continuing moral debate that the partial excuses to murder generate

Addressing Methodological Challenges in Comparative Law Research

Comparative law is a field of study whose object is the comparison of legal systems with a view to obtaining knowledge that may be used for a variety of theoretical and practical purposes. It embraces: the comparing of legal systems with the purpose of ascertaining their differences and similarities; the systematic analysis and evaluation of the solutions which two or more systems offer for a particular legal problem; and the treatment of methodological problems that arise in connection with the comparative process and the study of foreign law. One type of interest pertaining to knowledge and explanation in comparative law is associated with the traditional comparison de lege lata and/or de lege ferenda. Pursuant to this comparison are searches for models for the formulation of new legislative policies at a domestic, regional or international level. Comparative law can also be a valuable tool when courts and other authorities interpret and apply legal rules or are faced with the task of filling gaps in legislation or case law. However, when carrying out their tasks, comparative law researchers are often faced with vexing methodological problems. Some of these problems pertain to difficulties in establishing the so-called tertium comparationis – the common denominator between the legal rules or institutions under consideration that makes comparison possible. This paper examines some key aspects of comparative law methodology, with particular attention being paid to the normative-dogmatic and functional approaches to the comparability issue. It is submitted that, depending on the demands and goals of the particular research project, combining elements of these two approaches may provide a useful way of addressing some of the methodological challenges that arise in the context of comparative law research

Conceptualizing legal change: A comparative law approach

Legal historians have observed that many legal norms have remained in force for a long time, yet the great degree of social change would prima facie also entail legal innovations. But there have been fewer than expected Can one construct a general theoretical framework for assessing explanations concerning legal change and legal stability? Further, can such a framework be constructed from the perspective of comparative law? It may perhaps be argued that comparative law is not sufficient for constructing such a theory, a general analysis of society is also needed. But even if concrete conditions, and cause and effect relations cannot be entirely explained by an abstract scheme, it is at least reasonable to hope that such a scheme may clarify some of the basic concepts at work and enhance insights into the nature and progress of law. The first part of this paper considers the nature and scope of comparative law and identifies different approaches to the subject adopted by contemporary comparatists. In the second part, the problem of legal change is discussed from the standpoint of a particular theoretical perspective represented by Professor Alan Watson, one of the most productive post-War comparatists and legal historians

Legal transplants and legal development: A jurisprudential and comparative law approach

The changes in the legal universe that have been taking place in the last few decades have increased the potential value of different kinds of comparative law information and thereby urged new objectives for the comparative law community. The comparative method, which was earlier applied in the traditional framework of domestic law, is now being adapted to the new needs created by the ongoing globalization process, becoming broader and more comprehensive with respect to both its scope and goals. Associated with this development is a growing interest in the question of transferability or transplantability of legal norms and institutions across different cultures, especially in so far as current legal integration and harmonization processes require reasonably transferable models. This paper critically examines the issue of transferability of laws with particular attention to the theory of legal transplants propounded by Professor Alan Watson, one of the most influential contemporary comparatists and legal historians. It is submitted that the element of relativity imposed by the special relationship of the law to its socio-cultural environment must be taken into consideration when the comparative method is applied. However, the view held by some scholars that legal transplants are impossible betrays an exaggeration of cultural diversity as it contradicts the teachings of history and is at odds with recent trends towards legal integration in certain world regions