回收的恶意

IF 1.5 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

Cambridge Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-11-06 DOI:10.1017/s0008197323000442

Findlay Stark

{"title":"回收的恶意","authors":"Findlay Stark","doi":"10.1017/s0008197323000442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The criminal law doctrine of “transferred malice” has been much discussed. What has gone comparatively unnoticed is the phenomenon of “recycled malice”. For example, those who endorse transferred malice would hold that, if D tries to shoot V, and the shot misses and hits T, D’s intention to hit V is “transferred” to T, and a completed offence against T is constructed. But many legal systems that endorse transferred malice also allow D to be convicted of an attempted offence against V. In other words, D’s intention to hit V can apparently be used multiple times. Once this phenomenon is noticed, a question arises over its justification and limits. This article argues that no convincing justification for recycling mens rea exists.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RECYCLED MALICE\",\"authors\":\"Findlay Stark\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0008197323000442\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The criminal law doctrine of “transferred malice” has been much discussed. What has gone comparatively unnoticed is the phenomenon of “recycled malice”. For example, those who endorse transferred malice would hold that, if D tries to shoot V, and the shot misses and hits T, D’s intention to hit V is “transferred” to T, and a completed offence against T is constructed. But many legal systems that endorse transferred malice also allow D to be convicted of an attempted offence against V. In other words, D’s intention to hit V can apparently be used multiple times. Once this phenomenon is noticed, a question arises over its justification and limits. This article argues that no convincing justification for recycling mens rea exists.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197323000442\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197323000442","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要刑法中的“恶意转移”学说一直被广泛讨论。相对而言，人们没有注意到的是“恶意循环”现象。例如，支持恶意转移的人认为，如果D试图射击V，而射击没有击中T，则D击中V的意图被“转移”到T上，并且构建了对T的完整进攻。但是，许多支持恶意转移的法律体系也允许D对V的未遂犯罪被定罪。换句话说，D攻击V的意图显然可以被多次使用。一旦注意到这种现象，就会产生一个关于其正当性和局限性的问题。本文认为，没有令人信服的理由，回收的行为是存在的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

RECYCLED MALICE

Abstract The criminal law doctrine of “transferred malice” has been much discussed. What has gone comparatively unnoticed is the phenomenon of “recycled malice”. For example, those who endorse transferred malice would hold that, if D tries to shoot V, and the shot misses and hits T, D’s intention to hit V is “transferred” to T, and a completed offence against T is constructed. But many legal systems that endorse transferred malice also allow D to be convicted of an attempted offence against V. In other words, D’s intention to hit V can apparently be used multiple times. Once this phenomenon is noticed, a question arises over its justification and limits. This article argues that no convincing justification for recycling mens rea exists.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Cambridge Law Journal LAW-

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

6.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal''s range includes jurisprudence and legal history. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. Each issue also contains an extensive section of book reviews.