Miriam Gur-Arye - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Miriam Gur-Arye
Criminal law and philosophy, Mar 5, 2024
Social Science Research Network, 2003
Social Science Research Network, Oct 20, 2019
Social Science Research Network, May 3, 2020
The book Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues is the first ... more The book Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues is the first volume of an Anglo-German project which aims ‘to explore the foundational principles and concepts that underpin the different domestic systems and local rules’. It offers comparative perspectives on German and Anglo-American criminal law and criminal justice as ‘examples of the civil law and the common law worlds’. The comparisons ‘dig beneath the superficial similarities or differences between legal rules to identify and compare the underlying concepts, values, principles, and structures of thought’. The review essay focuses on the topics of omissions, preparatory offences, and participation in crime, all of which extend the typical criminal liability. It presents the comparative German and Anglo-American perspectives discussed in the book with regard to each topic and adds the perspective of Israeli criminal law. It points out the features common to all these topics as an extension of criminal liability and discusses the underlying considerations that justify the criminalisation of omissions, preparatory offences, and participation in crime. In evaluating whether extending criminal liability in these contexts is justified, the review essay suggests reliance on two main notions: that of ‘control over the commission of the offence’ and that of ‘liberty (or personal freedom)’.
Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, Feb 28, 2024
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited eBooks, Dec 28, 2023
Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, Apr 1, 2012
In his book Offences and Defences 1 Gardner republishes several of his essays on the philosophy o... more In his book Offences and Defences 1 Gardner republishes several of his essays on the philosophy of the criminal law. Some essays focus on criminal law defences 2 and provide an account of the distinction between justifications and excuses from the perspective of practical rationality. It would be impossible to present the richness of Gardner's account in this comment. I will therefore focus on the issues which seem to me more controversial, and mainly on: (1) whether criminal law justifications justify rather than negate wrongdoing; (2) whether or not justifications serve as a guidance to potential offenders; (3) the distinct nature of excuses. I will first present Gardner's account of these issues and then discuss them from a different perspective-that of the criminal law. I. WRONG BUT JUSTIFIED According to Gardner, committing an offence constitutes a prima-facie wrong. A prima-facie wrong is an actual, rather than an apparent, wrong. Justifications do not negate the wrong but rather justify it; 3 they convey the message that "it was 'all things considered' alright to perform it." 4 Justifications, according to this view, do not cancel the reasons against performing the act, which are also the reasons for its criminalization; justifications rather defeat these reasons. 5 To clarify his claim Gardner
Social Science Research Network, 2019
New Criminal Law Review, 2017
This article reveals the relationship between the societal phenomenon of moral panic and the spec... more This article reveals the relationship between the societal phenomenon of moral panic and the specific waves that it generates in the legal system. It focuses on hit-and-run traffic offenses and suggests that a moral panic with regard to these offenses uniquely affected the Israeli criminal justice system during 2002-2013. The media generates concern, fear, and outrage that are disproportionate to both the size and the nature of the offenses. In describing hit-and-run accidents, both the media and the courts demonize the drivers. Both the courts and the legislature react to the panic with disproportionally harsh punishments. This article also offers a possible explanation for why hit-and-run traffic offenses generated moral panic uniquely in Israel, and why this occurred during the period 2002-2013. Although the article focuses on hit-and-run traffic offenses in Israel, it has more general implications: it reveals in detail the interaction between constructed public anxieties and systems charged with delivering justice.
Social Science Research Network, Jan 10, 2016
Social Science Research Network, Jan 10, 2016
Social Science Research Network, Jan 13, 2016
Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, Jun 1, 2021
Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, Dec 1, 2018
In his book The Realm of Criminal Law,1 Duff offers a theory of criminalization grounded on polit... more In his book The Realm of Criminal Law,1 Duff offers a theory of criminalization grounded on political theory. According to that theory, criminal law is concerned with public, rather than with moral, wrongs. Public wrongs violate the polity’s civil order. The civil order defines which activities of its citizens are the polity’s business and as such belong within the public realm. The primary addressees of the criminal law are citizens, who are bound by the criminal law, and in whose name the criminal law calls those who commit public wrongs to account. In this comment, I will argue that a political theory of criminalization ought to grant “human rights” a more central role. Such a role requires distinguishing between two kinds of duties violated by crime: duties that we owe to our fellow citizens and duties that we owe to each other as human beings. When calling to account wrongdoers, who violate their duties quo citizens, as in cases of election malpractice, tax evasion, the polity speaks in the name of its citizens. When calling to account wrongdoers, citizens and non-citizens alike, who violate within the polity’s jurisdiction, what we owe to each other quo human beings, as in cases of murder and rape, the polity speaks in the name of human beings. The idea that while calling to account a polity can speak in different voices is not entirely new. When domestic courts exercise their universal jurisdiction over wrongdoers who commit international crimes (such as crimes against humanity, genocide), the domestic courts speak in the name of the international community.2 In such cases, the wrongdoers are accountable to the international community in whose name the domestic courts speak. The claim of this comment is that the polity can speak in different voices while calling to account wrongdoers that are accountable to the polity itself.
Social Science Research Network, Jan 10, 2016
This article reveals the relationship between the societal phenomenon of moral panic and the spec... more This article reveals the relationship between the societal phenomenon of moral panic and the specific waves that it generates in the legal system. It focuses on hit-and-run traffic offenses and suggests that a moral panic with regard to these offenses uniquely affected the Israeli criminal justice system during 2002-2013. The media generates concern, fear, and outrage that are disproportionate to both the size and the nature of the offenses. In describing hit-and-run accidents, both the media and the courts demonize the drivers. Both the courts and the legislature react to the panic with disproportionally harsh punishments. This article also offers a possible explanation for why hit-and-run traffic offenses generated moral panic uniquely in Israel, and why this occurred during the period 2002-2013. Although the article focuses on hit-and-run traffic offenses in Israel, it has more general implications: it reveals in detail the interaction between constructed public anxieties and systems charged with delivering justice.
Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies
עבירות ההמתה המוצעות במסגרת הרפורמה הכוללת לעבירות רשימה זו בוחנת הא האשמה. הטענה המרכזית ברשימה ... more עבירות ההמתה המוצעות במסגרת הרפורמה הכוללת לעבירות רשימה זו בוחנת הא האשמה. הטענה המרכזית ברשימה מכוונת נגד ההמתה במשפטנו תואמות את עקרו ההנחה שביסוד הרפורמה המוצעת לפיה יסוד נפשי של אדישות קרוב בחומרתו ליסוד נפשי של כוונה ושונה משמעותית מיסוד נפשי של קלות דעת; הנחה שביסוד ההצעה לחוקק עבירת רצח בסיסית המותנית ביסוד נפשי של כוונה או של אדישות. הרשימה א הדעת: ג קל האדיש לבי בי להבחי טוענת כי כשמדובר באחריות פלילית אי , יש לאדיש מניע עונשי חזק מבחינה ערכית היה ה"אדיש" שווה נפש כלפי חיי אד לו לקוות כי התוצאה לא להתרחשות התוצאה הקטלנית, מניע הגור שלא לגרו בסטיגמה של רוצח). לאור זאת לשאת בעונש החמור (או א שלא יצטר תתרחש כ מציעה הרשימה להגביל את עבירת הרצח הבסיסית ביסוד נפשי של כוונה, ולשמר בצדה עבירת הריגה בסיסית שתהא מותנית ביסוד נפשי של פזיזות על שתי צורותיה – ג אדישות וקלות דעת.של צורות מוחמרות לעבירת הרצח הבסיסית כמוצע תומכת הרשימה בקביעת בנוס של רצח הצדקה לייחס אשמה מוגברת במקרי טוענת כי אי במסגרת הרפורמה, א של רצח על רקע חילול כבוד המשפחה, הכלולי ...
Criminal law and philosophy, Mar 5, 2024
Social Science Research Network, 2003
Social Science Research Network, Oct 20, 2019
Social Science Research Network, May 3, 2020
The book Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues is the first ... more The book Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues is the first volume of an Anglo-German project which aims ‘to explore the foundational principles and concepts that underpin the different domestic systems and local rules’. It offers comparative perspectives on German and Anglo-American criminal law and criminal justice as ‘examples of the civil law and the common law worlds’. The comparisons ‘dig beneath the superficial similarities or differences between legal rules to identify and compare the underlying concepts, values, principles, and structures of thought’. The review essay focuses on the topics of omissions, preparatory offences, and participation in crime, all of which extend the typical criminal liability. It presents the comparative German and Anglo-American perspectives discussed in the book with regard to each topic and adds the perspective of Israeli criminal law. It points out the features common to all these topics as an extension of criminal liability and discusses the underlying considerations that justify the criminalisation of omissions, preparatory offences, and participation in crime. In evaluating whether extending criminal liability in these contexts is justified, the review essay suggests reliance on two main notions: that of ‘control over the commission of the offence’ and that of ‘liberty (or personal freedom)’.
Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, Feb 28, 2024
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited eBooks, Dec 28, 2023
Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, Apr 1, 2012
In his book Offences and Defences 1 Gardner republishes several of his essays on the philosophy o... more In his book Offences and Defences 1 Gardner republishes several of his essays on the philosophy of the criminal law. Some essays focus on criminal law defences 2 and provide an account of the distinction between justifications and excuses from the perspective of practical rationality. It would be impossible to present the richness of Gardner's account in this comment. I will therefore focus on the issues which seem to me more controversial, and mainly on: (1) whether criminal law justifications justify rather than negate wrongdoing; (2) whether or not justifications serve as a guidance to potential offenders; (3) the distinct nature of excuses. I will first present Gardner's account of these issues and then discuss them from a different perspective-that of the criminal law. I. WRONG BUT JUSTIFIED According to Gardner, committing an offence constitutes a prima-facie wrong. A prima-facie wrong is an actual, rather than an apparent, wrong. Justifications do not negate the wrong but rather justify it; 3 they convey the message that "it was 'all things considered' alright to perform it." 4 Justifications, according to this view, do not cancel the reasons against performing the act, which are also the reasons for its criminalization; justifications rather defeat these reasons. 5 To clarify his claim Gardner
Social Science Research Network, 2019
New Criminal Law Review, 2017
This article reveals the relationship between the societal phenomenon of moral panic and the spec... more This article reveals the relationship between the societal phenomenon of moral panic and the specific waves that it generates in the legal system. It focuses on hit-and-run traffic offenses and suggests that a moral panic with regard to these offenses uniquely affected the Israeli criminal justice system during 2002-2013. The media generates concern, fear, and outrage that are disproportionate to both the size and the nature of the offenses. In describing hit-and-run accidents, both the media and the courts demonize the drivers. Both the courts and the legislature react to the panic with disproportionally harsh punishments. This article also offers a possible explanation for why hit-and-run traffic offenses generated moral panic uniquely in Israel, and why this occurred during the period 2002-2013. Although the article focuses on hit-and-run traffic offenses in Israel, it has more general implications: it reveals in detail the interaction between constructed public anxieties and systems charged with delivering justice.
Social Science Research Network, Jan 10, 2016
Social Science Research Network, Jan 10, 2016
Social Science Research Network, Jan 13, 2016
Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, Jun 1, 2021
Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, Dec 1, 2018
In his book The Realm of Criminal Law,1 Duff offers a theory of criminalization grounded on polit... more In his book The Realm of Criminal Law,1 Duff offers a theory of criminalization grounded on political theory. According to that theory, criminal law is concerned with public, rather than with moral, wrongs. Public wrongs violate the polity’s civil order. The civil order defines which activities of its citizens are the polity’s business and as such belong within the public realm. The primary addressees of the criminal law are citizens, who are bound by the criminal law, and in whose name the criminal law calls those who commit public wrongs to account. In this comment, I will argue that a political theory of criminalization ought to grant “human rights” a more central role. Such a role requires distinguishing between two kinds of duties violated by crime: duties that we owe to our fellow citizens and duties that we owe to each other as human beings. When calling to account wrongdoers, who violate their duties quo citizens, as in cases of election malpractice, tax evasion, the polity speaks in the name of its citizens. When calling to account wrongdoers, citizens and non-citizens alike, who violate within the polity’s jurisdiction, what we owe to each other quo human beings, as in cases of murder and rape, the polity speaks in the name of human beings. The idea that while calling to account a polity can speak in different voices is not entirely new. When domestic courts exercise their universal jurisdiction over wrongdoers who commit international crimes (such as crimes against humanity, genocide), the domestic courts speak in the name of the international community.2 In such cases, the wrongdoers are accountable to the international community in whose name the domestic courts speak. The claim of this comment is that the polity can speak in different voices while calling to account wrongdoers that are accountable to the polity itself.
Social Science Research Network, Jan 10, 2016
This article reveals the relationship between the societal phenomenon of moral panic and the spec... more This article reveals the relationship between the societal phenomenon of moral panic and the specific waves that it generates in the legal system. It focuses on hit-and-run traffic offenses and suggests that a moral panic with regard to these offenses uniquely affected the Israeli criminal justice system during 2002-2013. The media generates concern, fear, and outrage that are disproportionate to both the size and the nature of the offenses. In describing hit-and-run accidents, both the media and the courts demonize the drivers. Both the courts and the legislature react to the panic with disproportionally harsh punishments. This article also offers a possible explanation for why hit-and-run traffic offenses generated moral panic uniquely in Israel, and why this occurred during the period 2002-2013. Although the article focuses on hit-and-run traffic offenses in Israel, it has more general implications: it reveals in detail the interaction between constructed public anxieties and systems charged with delivering justice.
Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies
עבירות ההמתה המוצעות במסגרת הרפורמה הכוללת לעבירות רשימה זו בוחנת הא האשמה. הטענה המרכזית ברשימה ... more עבירות ההמתה המוצעות במסגרת הרפורמה הכוללת לעבירות רשימה זו בוחנת הא האשמה. הטענה המרכזית ברשימה מכוונת נגד ההמתה במשפטנו תואמות את עקרו ההנחה שביסוד הרפורמה המוצעת לפיה יסוד נפשי של אדישות קרוב בחומרתו ליסוד נפשי של כוונה ושונה משמעותית מיסוד נפשי של קלות דעת; הנחה שביסוד ההצעה לחוקק עבירת רצח בסיסית המותנית ביסוד נפשי של כוונה או של אדישות. הרשימה א הדעת: ג קל האדיש לבי בי להבחי טוענת כי כשמדובר באחריות פלילית אי , יש לאדיש מניע עונשי חזק מבחינה ערכית היה ה"אדיש" שווה נפש כלפי חיי אד לו לקוות כי התוצאה לא להתרחשות התוצאה הקטלנית, מניע הגור שלא לגרו בסטיגמה של רוצח). לאור זאת לשאת בעונש החמור (או א שלא יצטר תתרחש כ מציעה הרשימה להגביל את עבירת הרצח הבסיסית ביסוד נפשי של כוונה, ולשמר בצדה עבירת הריגה בסיסית שתהא מותנית ביסוד נפשי של פזיזות על שתי צורותיה – ג אדישות וקלות דעת.של צורות מוחמרות לעבירת הרצח הבסיסית כמוצע תומכת הרשימה בקביעת בנוס של רצח הצדקה לייחס אשמה מוגברת במקרי טוענת כי אי במסגרת הרפורמה, א של רצח על רקע חילול כבוד המשפחה, הכלולי ...