Legal Obligation, Criminal Wrongdoing, and Necessity
35(3) Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence (2023)
26 Pages Posted: 27 Jul 2022 Last revised: 16 Feb 2023
Date Written: July 18, 2022
Abstract
Individuals sometimes do things that they know will violate the terms of a statute. Most scholars deny that such actions are always morally wrong, but a coherent theoretical account of the relationships between 1) moral obligation, 2) legal obligation, and 3) criminal wrongdoing that can robustly classify hard cases has been elusive. This article starts with a Kantian account of the relationship between law and morality, and it proposes two closely related standards: one for legal obligation, and another for criminal wrongdoing. It then tests the plausibility and resilience of these standards by using them to generate illuminating new analyses of classic hypothetical cases involving alleged crimes committed under circumstances of necessity. These analyses offer reason to believe that the standards proposed in this article can anchor a Kantian theory of criminal responsibility that is simultaneously rigorous and humane.
Keywords: Kant, legal obligation, punishment, criminal law, necessity
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation