Culture as Justification, not Excuse

IF 0.4 4区 社会学
Elaine M. Chiu
{"title":"Culture as Justification, not Excuse","authors":"Elaine M. Chiu","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.895276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article observes that the wide discussion of cultural defenses over the last twenty years has produced very little actual change in the criminal law. It urges a reorientation of our approach thus far to cultural defenses and aspires to move the languishing discussion to a more productive place. The new perspective it proposes is justification. The Article asks the criminal law to make doctrinal room for defendants to argue that their allegedly criminal acts are justified acts, and not excused acts, based on the values and norms of their minority cultures. Currently, the criminal law deals with such acts of minority defendants through the excuse approach. It begins by relying excessively on the individual discretion of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials to achieve just results in such cases. When discretion fails, the status quo then employs the legal fiction of ill-fitting excuse defenses like temporary insanity and extreme emotional disturbance. The troubling message of the current approach is that minority defendants commit wrongful acts but are not blameworthy because they suffer from the defect or disability of their culture. The proposal of the Article is to replace this current excuse approach with a justification approach. In Part II, it explains the theoretical distinctions that separate excuse from justification and offers some elements and limits to a justification defense. It even describes some available doctrinal vehicles through which the criminal law can adopt the justification approach. In Part III, the Article applies the justification approach to three famous cultural defense cases. It uses the cases to make a powerful comparison of the relative weaknesses and strengths of the excuse approach and the justification approach. Adopting justification will eliminate the use of legal fictions, will force the criminal law to directly confront the difficult moral questions posed by such cases and will advance the cause of cultural pluralism in the criminal law.","PeriodicalId":51824,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW","volume":"43 1","pages":"1317"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.895276","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

This Article observes that the wide discussion of cultural defenses over the last twenty years has produced very little actual change in the criminal law. It urges a reorientation of our approach thus far to cultural defenses and aspires to move the languishing discussion to a more productive place. The new perspective it proposes is justification. The Article asks the criminal law to make doctrinal room for defendants to argue that their allegedly criminal acts are justified acts, and not excused acts, based on the values and norms of their minority cultures. Currently, the criminal law deals with such acts of minority defendants through the excuse approach. It begins by relying excessively on the individual discretion of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials to achieve just results in such cases. When discretion fails, the status quo then employs the legal fiction of ill-fitting excuse defenses like temporary insanity and extreme emotional disturbance. The troubling message of the current approach is that minority defendants commit wrongful acts but are not blameworthy because they suffer from the defect or disability of their culture. The proposal of the Article is to replace this current excuse approach with a justification approach. In Part II, it explains the theoretical distinctions that separate excuse from justification and offers some elements and limits to a justification defense. It even describes some available doctrinal vehicles through which the criminal law can adopt the justification approach. In Part III, the Article applies the justification approach to three famous cultural defense cases. It uses the cases to make a powerful comparison of the relative weaknesses and strengths of the excuse approach and the justification approach. Adopting justification will eliminate the use of legal fictions, will force the criminal law to directly confront the difficult moral questions posed by such cases and will advance the cause of cultural pluralism in the criminal law.
文化是正当理由,而不是借口
本文观察到,近二十年来关于文化防卫的广泛讨论并没有在刑法上产生什么实际的变化。它敦促我们重新定位迄今为止的文化防御方法,并渴望将萎靡不振的讨论推向一个更有成效的地方。它提出的新观点是正当的。该条要求刑法在教义上为被告提供空间,让他们根据少数民族文化的价值观和规范,辩称他们所谓的犯罪行为是正当的行为,而不是可以原谅的行为。目前,我国刑法对少数民族被告人的此类行为采取的是辩解方式。它首先过分依赖法官、检察官和执法官员的个人自由裁量权,以便在此类案件中取得公正的结果。当自由裁量权失效时,现状就会采用法律虚构的不合适的借口来辩护,比如暂时精神错乱和极端情绪障碍。目前的做法令人不安的信息是,少数族裔被告犯了错误行为,但却不应受到谴责,因为他们遭受了自己文化的缺陷或残疾。该条的建议是用正当理由的方法取代目前的这种借口方法。第二部分阐述了辩解与正当性的理论区别,并提出了正当性抗辩的一些要素和限制。它甚至描述了刑法可以采用正当化方法的一些可用的理论工具。第三部分对三个著名的文化抗辩案例进行了辩护方法的应用。本文通过案例对辩解法和辩护法的相对优缺点进行了有力的比较。采用辩护将消除法律虚构的使用,将迫使刑法直接面对这类案件所带来的困难的道德问题,并将推动刑法文化多元化的事业。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: The American Criminal Law Review is the nation"s premier journal of criminal law. The ACLR is the most-cited criminal law review in the nation, and it also ranks among the country"s most-cited law reviews of any kind. Recently, ExpressO, an online submission service for legal scholars, ranked the ACLR as the top subject-specific law review in the area of Criminal Law and Procedure. Published four times a year, the ACLR provides timely treatment of significant developments in constitutional and criminal law through articles contributed by leading scholars and practitioners, and through notes authored by the journal"s student staff.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信