Actions, reasoning, and criminal liability: Philosophical and psychological foundations of criminal responsibility.
AuthorSchopp, Robert Francis.
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractContemporary American Criminal Law, as represented by the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, defines the structure of criminal offenses in a manner that establishes certain psychological processes of the defendant as necessary conditions for criminal liability. In order to convict a defendant, the state must prove all offense elements including the voluntary act and culpability requirements. These provisions involve the actor's psychological processes, but neither the exact nature of these requirements nor the relationship between them is clearly understood. Certain general defenses, such as automatism and insanity, also address the defendant's psychological processes. It has been notoriously difficult, however, to develop a satisfactory formulation of either of these defenses or of the relationship between them and the system of offense elements. This dissertation presents a conceptual framework that grounds the Model Penal Code's structure of offense elements in philosophical action theory. On this interpretation, the offense requirements that involve the defendant's psychological processes can be understood as part of an integrated attempt to establish the criminal law as a behavior guiding institution that is uniquely appropriate to those who have the capacity to direct their conduct through a process of practical reasoning. The key offense requirements are designed to limit criminal liability to those behaviors that are appropriately attributed to the offender as a practical reasoner. Certain general defenses, including insanity, exculpate defendants when their behavior is not attributable to them as practical reasoners as a result of certain types of impairment that are not addressed by the offense elements. This conceptual framework provides a consistent interpretation of the relevant offense elements and defenses as part of an integrated system that limits criminal liability to those acts that are appropriately attributable to the defendant in his capacity as a practical reasoner. In addition, this dissertation contends that this system reflects a defensible conception of personal responsibility.
Degree GrantorUniversity of Arizona
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Indians and criminal justice administration: The failure of the criminal justice system for the American IndianGuilfoyle, Michael Hoag, 1946- (The University of Arizona., 1988)The criminal justice administration has failed the American Indian. Since the usurpation of traditional tribal criminal justice management by the local, state, and federal criminal justice systems, the impacts of Indian crime have become epidemic. The American Indian has the highest arrest rates, alcohol-related crime, violent-related crime, and conviction rates of any group in the United States. Indians are 15% less likely to receive deferred sentences, and 15% less likely to receive parole. In addition, the Indian offender has the highest recidivism rate of any ethnic group in the United State. This paper discusses the problems of Indians in the criminal justice system at the adult and juvenile level. As recommendations it stresses the empowering of the Indian community, the greater autonomy of tribal courts, the concepts of alternative sentencing programs for Indian offenders, treatment as justice, and the idea that Indian people can take charge of this problem and do a better job in addressing their relatives.
Case Study of the Structures of Criminal and Drug CourtsShomade, Salmon Adegboyega (The University of Arizona., 2007)This dissertation is an empirical study of the actors and organizations working in criminal and drug courts. Specifically, the dissertation examines the structure (as defined by the interactions and relationships of players) of a criminal court and a drug court operating under a state trial court system in the United States. Recent reforms to trial courts indicate that the organizational structure of a typical trial court has changed in many states. Separately, specialty courts which help coordinate treatment for offenders like drug users and mental patients in many jurisdictions have changed the structure, process, and the nature of trial courts.The study is an inductive study using a case method research strategy to build new theory from past findings of organizational studies of criminal courts and from the little we know about drug courts as organizations. The method of inquiry in the study is a triangular research strategy that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. The qualitative data collection methods include primarily participant observations of drug team meetings and court proceedings, and semi-structured interviews with actors representing organizations participating in both criminal and drug courtrooms. The study uses network analysis as the primary method for analyzing quantitative data. The research site is the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County, located in Tucson, Arizona.I found that the most important central actors across all phases of the criminal court case disposition process are judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and that measuring core workgroup actors across all phases give a more accurate picture of the criminal court case disposition process. I also found that defense attorneys may be less familiar with other court actors than prosecutors because they may enter the criminal justice system from many different sponsoring organizations. As for the drug court case disposition process, the study shows that the most central player is not always the judge. In addition, the study reveals that drug courts, as court reforms, have little overall connection to overall criminal court organization. Important policy implications and theory inferences, as well as recommendations for future court studies, are discussed.