Description
The mechanism of prior fault is often discussed from a normative legal perspective. The inconsistencies in prior fault reasoning, as discussed throughout the entire conference, are legitimized by the argument that without prior fault, voluntary behaviour - such as intoxication - would become an excuse to get away with crime. This perspective dates back as far as the 12th Century, when actors were held liable despite being in excusatory situations, if these were culpably created by themselves. As behavioural sciences were much less advanced than they currently are, it is safe to say that, at its core, prior fault has much less to do with mental states, and much more with the necessities of legal doctrine. Yet, given advances in behavioural science over the course of recent centuries, there seem to be many opportunities for interactions between legal and behavioural disciplines that may help us better distinguish between prior fault situations, in turn more accurately assessing degrees of culpability in having prior fault, and consequently developing the scientifically- and ethically-justified application of such prior fault rules. Hence, it is necessary to look closely at the different lacunas in prior fault reasoning and identify which other disciplines will be able to inform us on them, and how.The aim of this presentation is to build bridges between the different disciplines by connecting the identified problems with prior fault rules and examining how other disciplines may help us address them. Several areas for potential disciplinary interaction are discussed. First is the discrepancy between the law’s perspective towards control – often a synchronous outlook – and social scientific advancements identifying different types and degrees of (diachronous) control. Moreover, legal arguments tend to presume that it is impossible to distinguish between a complete lack of control and the conscious choice to forgo its exercise. This claim is examined in light of recent neuroscientific research. Second is a consideration of the rationale and normative underpinning of having prior fault rules. This presentation addresses the normative framework that justifies prior fault reasoning and addresses whether this is compatible with contemporary perspectives on (moral) responsibility. Lastly, we discuss perceptions of and stigma surrounding drug use and addiction, and the effects of these perspectives on the application of prior fault rules. Prior fault may be a legal doctrine, but biases towards addicts undoubtedly affect the way these rules are interpreted and applied.
All in all this presentation will start to connect the legal frameworks from the previous talks with the upcoming discussions by identifying the different areas of prior fault reasoning that call for a more nuanced, multidisciplinary approach than one rooted strictly in historic legal doctrine.
| Period | 15-Sept-2023 |
|---|---|
| Event title | Reforming Prior Fault Criminalisation |
| Event type | Conference |
| Location | Birmingham, United KingdomShow on map |
| Degree of Recognition | International |