{"title":"为示范刑法典辩护:对弗莱彻教授的回答","authors":"P. Robinson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.137130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Robinson responds to George Fletcher's attacks on the Model Penal Code, specifically Fletcher's often biting claims that the drafters adopted these dogmas: (1) Define as many concepts as you can -- whether you are competent to do so or not. (2) Write provisions that seem precise but that judges could never understand. (3) Assume that you and your drafting committee are the only smart lawyers who have ever lived. (4) Pretend to subscribe to the rule of law. (5) Wreak theoretical changes, inadvertently if possible. (6) Pretend the problem of mistake does not exist. (7) Recognize but do not recognize mistake of law as an excuse.","PeriodicalId":344882,"journal":{"name":"Buffalo Criminal Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Defense of the Model Penal Code: A Reply to Professor Fletcher\",\"authors\":\"P. Robinson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.137130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Robinson responds to George Fletcher's attacks on the Model Penal Code, specifically Fletcher's often biting claims that the drafters adopted these dogmas: (1) Define as many concepts as you can -- whether you are competent to do so or not. (2) Write provisions that seem precise but that judges could never understand. (3) Assume that you and your drafting committee are the only smart lawyers who have ever lived. (4) Pretend to subscribe to the rule of law. (5) Wreak theoretical changes, inadvertently if possible. (6) Pretend the problem of mistake does not exist. (7) Recognize but do not recognize mistake of law as an excuse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Buffalo Criminal Law Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Buffalo Criminal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.137130\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Buffalo Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.137130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
In Defense of the Model Penal Code: A Reply to Professor Fletcher
Robinson responds to George Fletcher's attacks on the Model Penal Code, specifically Fletcher's often biting claims that the drafters adopted these dogmas: (1) Define as many concepts as you can -- whether you are competent to do so or not. (2) Write provisions that seem precise but that judges could never understand. (3) Assume that you and your drafting committee are the only smart lawyers who have ever lived. (4) Pretend to subscribe to the rule of law. (5) Wreak theoretical changes, inadvertently if possible. (6) Pretend the problem of mistake does not exist. (7) Recognize but do not recognize mistake of law as an excuse.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
