Allowing for Exceptions_ A Theory of Defences and Defeasibility in Law.pdf

Allowing for Exceptions_ A Theory of Defences and Defeasibility in Law.pdf

《Allowing for Exceptions_ A Theory of Defences and Defeasibility in Law.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Allowing for Exceptions_ A Theory of Defences and Defeasibility in Law.pdf（321页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

OXFORDLEGALPHILOSOPHYSeriesEditors:

TimothyEndicott,JohnGardner,andLeslieGreenAllowingforExceptionsOxfordLegalPhilosophypublishesthebestnewworkinphilosophicallyorientedlegaltheory.Itcommissionsandsolicitsmonographsinallbranchesofthesubject,includingworksonphilosophicalissuesinallareasofpublicandprivatelaw,andinthenational,transnational,andinternationalrealms;studiesofthenatureoflaw,legalinstitutions,andlegalreasoning;treatmentsofproblemsinpoliticalmoralityastheybearonlaw;andexplorationsinthenatureanddevelopmentoflegalphilosophyitself.Theseriesrepresentsdiversetraditionsofthoughtbutalwayswithanemphasisonrigourandoriginality.Itsetsthestandardincontemporaryjurisprudence.ALSOAVAILABLEINTHESERIESTheEndsofHarmTheMoralFoundationsofCriminalLawVictorTadrosCorrectiveJusticeErnestJ.WeinribConscienceandConvictionTheCaseforCivilDisobedienceKimberleyBrownleeTheNatureofLegislativeIntentRichardEkinsWhyLawMattersAlonHarelImposingRiskANormativeFrameworkJohnOberdiekOXFORDLEGALPHILOSOPHYSeriesEditors:

TimothyEndicott,JohnGardner,andLeslieGreen1AllowingforExceptionsATheoryofDefencesandDefeasibilityinLawLusDuartedAlmeida1GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,ox26dp,UnitedKingdomOxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.ItfurtherstheUniversitysobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,andeducationbypublishingworldwide.OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountriesLDuartedAlmeida2015ThemoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenassertedFirstEditionpublishedin2015Impression:

1Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographicsrightsorganization.EnquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressaboveYoumustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherformandyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirerCrowncopyrightmaterialisreproducedunderClassLicenceNumberC01P0000148withthepermissionofOPSIandtheQueensPrinterforScotlandPublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmericaBritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataDataavailableLibraryofCongressControlNumber:

2014950250ISBN9780199685783PrintedandboundbyCPIGroup（UK）Ltd,Croydon,cr04yyCoverimage:

LeDfenseur（c.1860）byHonorDaumier.Superstock/GLinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithandforinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerialscontainedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.Tomyfather,andtothememoryofmymotherSeriesEditorsPrefaceRecentworkinthephilosophyofcriminallawhasgivenrenewedprominencetothedistinctionbetweenoffencesanddefences.Unconvincedthatthisismerelyatechnicaldistinctiondrawnforthepurposeofallocatingburdensofproofasbetweenthepartiestocrim-inalproceedings,severaltheoristshaveattemptedtoestablishthatthedistinctionisrootedinthegeneraltheoryofresponsibility,andthatithassignificancebeyondthecriminallaw.Inthisfascinatingwork,LusDuartedAlmeidajoinsthosewhodenythatthedistinctionismerelyatechnicalone.Healsoagreesthatithasasignificancereachingwellbeyondthecriminallaw,extendingintothewholetheoryofrulesandexceptionsinpracticalreasoning.Buthearguesthatallthisisnonethelesscompatiblewithanunderstandingofthedistinctionthattiesitverycloselytothetheoryofproof.ThefirstmovesofDuartedAlmeidasbooklaythefoundationfortheseclaimsbyretrievingsomeideasfromH.L.A.Hartsearly（andlaterdisowned）argumentsabouttheroleofdefencesinlawandmorality.DuartedAlmeidassophisticatedreworkingoftheseideasprovidesthegroundworkforhisoriginalaccountofthemoregeneraldistinctionbetweenrulesandexceptions.Heshowshowthisviewcastsnewlightonseveralissuesandproblems,includingthenotionoftheburdenofproofandthedistinctionbetweenoffencesanddefencesincriminallaw.LusDuartedAlmeidathusreconnectsthelocalconcernsofcriminallawtheoryandthetheoryoflegalproofwithwiderprob-lemsinphilosophyoflaw.Healsospeakstolawyers.ThebookisviiiSeriesEditorsPrefacehighlyoriginalandhighlycriticalofsomeprevailingdogmas,yetitalsoremindsusthatsometimesthetraditionallegalanalysisofaproblemcangivethebestcluesinthesearchforaphilosophicalunderstanding.T.A.O.EndicottJ.GardnerL.GreenAcknowledgmentsMygreatestdebtofgratitudeinwritingthisbookistoJohnGardner,whosupervisedtheD.Phil.thesisoutofwhichthebookhasgrown.GenerousandstimulatingguidanceisonlyoneamongthemanythingsforwhichIthankhim.Iamalsoverygratefultomanyfriendsandcolleaguesforhelpfulcommentsanddiscussions.JosdeSousaeBritohasbeenagentleteacherandapatientcritic.PedroMrias,whoreadmanyversionsofseveralchapters,andBenjaminSpagnolo,whoreadatleastoneversionofeachchapter,bothgavemeextensiveremarksandcorrections.AtdifferentstagesIprofitedfromexchangeswithEugenioBulygin,AndreaDolcetti,JamesEdwards,SebastinFigueroa,LeslieGreen,MatthewGrellette,DanilHogers,JosJuanMoreso,NicolaMuffato,MaribelNarvezMora,DiegoPapayannis,FrederickSchauer,FbioShecaira,RichardH.S.Tur,JosAntnioVeloso,FredWilmot-Smith,andHugoR.Zuleta;andthefinaldraftwasgreatlyimprovedbyAlexFlachsexpertsuggestions.IamequallygratefultoAntonyDuffandTimothyEndicott,mydoctoralexam-iners,forinstructivefeedbackontheoriginalthesis;toaudiencesinBarcelona,BahaBlanca,BeloHorizonte,BuenosAires,Cambridge,Frankfurt,Girona,Lisbon,Milan,Oxford,andHamilton,Ontario,whereversionsofseveralchapterswerepresentedoverthepastfewyears;andtoCeliaDavisforexcellentresearchassistance.AndIamespeciallybeholdentotheEdinburghLegalTheoryGroupfororgan-izing,andtotheEdinburghSchoolofLawforsupporting,aone-dayworkshoponthepenultimateversionofthetypescript.Manythankstoallwhoparticipated,andespeciallytoAndrewCornford,JamesEdwards（again）,GuyFletcher,MartinKelly,AlexLatham,EuanxAcknowledgmentsMacDonald,CludioMichelon,NickTreanor,andNeilWalker;theircommentsledmetoreviseandexpandseveralpassages,andtocorrectsomemistakes,whenpreparingthefinalversion.IenjoyedexceptionalresearchconditionsbothasaJuniorResearchFellowatChurchillCollege,Cambridge,andasaResearchFellowinLegalPhilosophyattheUniversityofGirona;Iamgratefultotheseinstitutions,toMatthewH.Kramer,andtoJordiFerrer.IalsoacknowledgethesupportprovidedbythePortugueseFoundationforScienceandTechnology,1bytheUniversityofLisbon,andbyUniversityCollege,Oxford.Chapter3incorporates（withseveralchanges）materialpreviouslypublishedasAProof-BasedAccountofLegalExceptions（2013）,OxfordJournalofLegalStudies33:

13368;andChapter8includes（againwithchanges）argumentsfirstpresentedin“OCallMeNottoJustifytheWrong”:

CriminalAnswerabilityandtheOffence/DefenceDistinction（2012）,CriminalLawandPhilosophy6:

22745.ThesematerialsareusedwiththekindpermissionofSpringerandtheOxfordUniversityPress.1GrantSFRH/BD/44394/2008,financedbyPOPHQRENType4.1AdvancedTraining,co-fundedbytheEuropeanSocialFundandbynationalMCTESfunds（20082011）.ContentsPartI.DefeasibilityinQuestion11.TheIrreducibilityThesis31.1Introduction31.2HartonDefeasibleConcepts81.3TheIrreducibilityThesis131.4TwoQuestions172.TheIssueofDefeasibility232.1TwoNotionsofDefeasibility232.2DefencesandExceptions322.3DefeasibilityandtheApplicationofLegalConcepts342.4Agenda45PartII.DefeasibilityinTheory473.TheProof-BasedAccount493.1Preliminaries493.2IntroducingtheProof-BasedAccount533.3SubstantiveRepresentationsofExceptions583.4ProbandaandNon-Refutanda653.5FirstConclusions733.6Refinements774.ExceptionsandtheBurdenofProof834.1ThreeObjections834.2TheBurdenofProof:

ProblemswiththeReceivedView854.3MakingBetterSenseoftheNotion894.4Defences,Proof,andEvidentialBurdens944.5DevelopingtheAnalysis1034.6TheLogicofExceptions1225.ImplicitExceptions1355.1TheProblem1355.2TheCommonView1385.3TwoSensesofRules1435.4TheCommonViewDismissed151xiiContents6.CeterisIgnotisClauses1696.1CompletingtheProof-BasedAccount1696.2OnOverrides1796.3OnThatsitClauses1816.4ConcludingRemarks183PartIII.DefeasibilityinAction1857.ActionsandAccusations1877.1Introduction1877.2ResponsibilityandAction1927.3Yes,but.2047.4DefeasibilityinAccusatoryContexts2097.5LinesofDevelopment2148.CriminalAnswerabilityandtheOffence/DefenceDistinction2198.1CriminalDefencesintheGermanModel2198.2OffencesandCrimes2348.3Defences,Convictions,andAccusations2398.4OCallMeNottoJustifytheWrong2528.5PrimaFacieWrongsandPrimaFacieJudgments2598.6InConclusion266Bibliography269IndexofSubjects289IndexofNames293Thucydideswroteofpeoplewhomaderulesandfollowedthem.Goingbyruletheykilledentireclassesofenemieswithoutexcep-tion.Mostofthosewhodiedfelt,Iamsure,thataterriblemistakewasbeingmade,that,whatevertherulewas,itcouldnotbemeantforthem.I!

:

thatwastheirlastwordastheirthroatswerecut.Awordofprotest:

I,theexception.Weretheyexceptions?

Thetruthis,giventhetimetospeak,wewouldallclaimtobeexceptions.Fore