THE IRRELEVANCE OF RESPONSIBILm'

Br ROIJEIUCl T. U",c

I. RESPONSI.ILlTr NOT TIlE CO.",CUN OF LAw

IWsponsibility is often thought ()f as primarily a ITlI ~pt. Evenwhen it is lloond resp<lllSibilily that is at issue, it is _umed Ihat it is ab<lveall in moraliti"", based "" low-<;ef1l<.'f'ed palterns and """"'Is that ,"p"".

sibility lakes cenler slage, SO tho11 n>Sponsibilil)' i. a legal C<>n«.'pI at itsro~, and is applicable 10 !he No.lm 01 private m()raHty only by ex!fllSionand analogy.'

As • genetic claim about the histmical origins of Ihe OOfl<X!pt, thisac«>unl may well be lrue.' Whal I wish to suggest, however, is that,R'gardles8 of how OUr roncepts may !la,'e originat~>d, tudgnwnts ()j _

sponsibitity are most propt'l"ly al home in the Noalm of private morality.;md are out of place in the l<'gal spltere.

By "responsibility" I mean. of COUrSl", more than mere OIuS41 re;ponsi­hility. in the oenst! inv<>ked when we ....y that the acid was "",,w,,,,;bl~ fm!he corro;ion of Ihe ml.'lal, Or that an asterQid was rrspo"sibl, f<>r Iheextinctioo of tho:: diM6aul'S, JudgmenlS of OIuS4lic1t are. of roUrst", CSS<."n­

lial to the working of ."y legal.ystem. Bul there is a narrl>V>'er sense ofresponsibility. llav;ng to do with positive considerations of knowledgeand control, as wen as normativ.. considerations of pra;';"""·orthiness.blamewQrtkil\i.'!l!l, and obligation; and il is responsibility in this sense IhalI maintain is 1.-g~lIy irrelevant.

let me quickly qualify this "legal irrelevana: of responsibility· in twoways, first,lam using tho:: phrase "legal" here in a fairly narrow sense aswell. The", is a broad 5enso': in which any organi~ system lor adjudi.cating dispul.... and senlring compliance counts as. tTlI sys""", even ifjudicial dtrisioos are""f~ ooly by voluntary. noov;o!ent means such

'"

 

THE I~R[UVA"CfOf' RI':SI~SllllLfn n9

as boycotts ~nd other form! of wcial pn"lSurc. n,., laic medieval systemof commel'dal law Imown as the Llw Merchant waS of this charilCter,~ Icertainly do not maintain tNt ronsideraticms of responsibility arc neces­sarily OUI of place in e"err institution that <:OlIld be d<>s<:ribed as a k'galsystem in Ihis bread scru;c, My concern is wilh legal institutions in thenarrower sense of institutions authorized to use forcr to back up theirlegal judgments. (lne nation-state is the most /amiliar example of thisSOTt of institution.. though not the only ono;,·l' The limits of \'"8a1 relevance.in my sense, arc set by the limits on the legitimate uSC of fom.-; that is.M.Use I am here roncemed only with law that is backed up by fllTre.considerations of I'\'Sponsibility com be legally "'l,,vant only to the "Xt~~1t

(if M\y}that thep~ or absoence of responsibility makes a diffel't"nCeto whl>th,,, the u"'-' of 10= is justified Or nUl.

1he second qualification I wish to make is tl\.lt it is only jvT 1M mqsl ,.'"that ronsiderations of responsibility an: legally irrelevant. on my view.Hence. this discussion might mOre accurately (if less dramatically) betitled ~Thc Ug~1 Nl"Ilr-lrre'evance of Rl."Spoc1sibllity" But the relpeclS inwhich responsibility turns out to be kgally relevant after all are. I shalla~. largely peripheral. and certainly outside tt.e primary «"''''~t inwhich I'elip<msibility has traditionally been consid",,'<l I"'radigmaticallyrelevant.

n. A NOI......Tlvll L,MITA'UO-," ON TUB USB or FORCE

My af'J!;ument will appeal to the following normative principle:

(I) Every person has Ihe righl not to be treated as a mere means tothe ends of others

I mncei"e this righl as whal I have elsewhe... called a BC-right.·1l\at isto say, Ihis right is M\alyzable into two components; a dilly of e\'cryonc tot.... t the rights-hold"r in a certain way (the Brompont....t). and a/illa,yof

> I'<>r "'" \..ow ~l«<hAnI .... !...on E. T..l.m..... Tho- l.ft-~, Tho- CI'<'I.''''' ife-·...... '--' (I..i'deoon: _ B. 1\0.."11..... 19l1J~ ilruoo L -.. -n.. 5J>00'''- EVO/U·tM>n <>fC_I 1..''''." s"."""" e.-o- (oomW 55 (,",,""Y 1\l1l\11: 6«--i>I: W. /omm.,1te-y "" rIO< &rly II......, 'frl" '--'~ (N<,w Y<d Burt f,onkl">. 19()4~ H.orold I.~ U.. 0.<1 Rn-oI~'."" Tl>t F..-;.,. if'"' 1'0'......... u,.r T,..j~"'" (C.m~ H."".cd Uni"_'~ rr-, l11tl31:.'" \'{~liam C. Wookl~. U..-Y 50... ,,,,~ AU..(New _Ir. ArI~ H....... lm~

, For _ .-on,,", _ """"" I.. -.. Tho- C"""JItiIt of u.../."ia ...1/1oo, rIO< SIMi(Soo1 Fr""""'" f'arih<o _.t<h In>m~ ... 1\190)0 Tom W. B<lt -1'o/ycfttIri< \..0...," 11._Slod...-.,. no. 1 (1~1-9:l1; .nd Albotn S. toM. -l....Ii'"lioNl -. 01 ,h< Sponta-....Ord<r. Surfl)' and .......,..1><4'•• 11._ 5".1... -'7. no. 1 O~l-9:l)

• Raderid T.~ - AOOotion.~'. and l'uai,n.< ~'" Tho Uobtl 01 Com­pulo<>oy AIt",,,,,,' 5oriol~ 0.<1 P«i<y In....... 1 (Wi""-,, 1993): 166-'11. Th< rigl"un<krd_ ""'" 10 ..pli<..1«1 _ .... """"ri~ .hen.

•

 

""the righl5-holder (or the righ~holder',asmt)" 10 use force toens"~ thatsuch treatment is inde<'<! acrorded (the C cOOlp"""""t).'

If this right is to b<> C(lherrnt and univel"Sdt the exen:ise of the libcrty·rornpon.'l1t mu$I not violate tn..· duty<omponl.'nl: SO whm Anita forcesJuanita to refrain from t",.ting Allil. as a mere meaN. AIlil,,', doing 50must not count as an instanet' of Anita's tINting /u4IJi,. as a ml'fC meanS.If ttny Ui!'l' uf force agaiNI another p"l':'lO" were impermissible (as somepacifISts mainl<lin). then there could b<> 00 such thing as a ,;.~~l to be fr«from ,,,,,h rorcibk.- imposition. sm.ce tl1" f"'mlissibility of a I'l'SOrt 10 forre(if not on the part of the rights-holder. then on that of Iler agcnt ....g .• thestall') is pilrt 01 w!la! it meaos for prople 10 have Ltg"1 rights_the _I ofrights wilh .....hich we are presently ronoemoo"

W""t p~Jy doo:s principle (1) give uS a rightlo? What oonduct onlhe part of others is it permissible for uS (or OUr agents) to ""force? J 11",-..argued elsewhe",~ that the most plausible specification of the principleexprt'SSCd in (I) is:

(2) hl'T}' pen;on has tile right not to have he' bm..,uLJrirs lJiiII,>l~, andal5Q not 10 have her boundurit; inlJdded UnJesIi Stlch invasi()ll is~ry to end some wrongful bounda'y-in\'ui<:m of hers. andsuch InvasiOll is also not disproporti()llate to lhe 5eriOUSt\l'S5 ofher boundary-invasion,

w~ the te,ms empkasi~ed above are defined as follows:

() S's aCliOll lies within O's boundary if and only if S's action in·volves using 0 as a means (whelhe' me"" or nonmere) 10 theends of others'"

(4) S (MSt':S O's boundary if and only if S pt'Tforms an action wilhinO's boundary.

• 11<0.'""... .... q_<JI ...."'_ ~ ",y', l<>whO:'t. ridl_>IdM 01.,•.101 ""~"'"l<>...........,.. .... pn-otWol ""«do< 01 _ tib<rty .. (..'" 01 d<l<g.otioo '" • p""""'l>.r "3""~~_.

'I ....... _ ......d~ ... A, """"""",r .. wt'Il; .... """"I ~I;ly 01~ "",,'.~. n,;, It _ In>m .t>. "",,01 ponniooOIrihlj"~<:nI<~ ""i"'" I<Jt"",,'. ripIll' """,101 "" q~imI" ",d<kn<l "",,', 'W" to prom"!&''' N.z1~. bnom.,.., l'" "'" Iegiti....... 10~ tho rill'" on< .. _;"g.

• Bur in mind ....' _ It< lOili _.ting willi ..... """"'" """""f"io 01 -1<g.>1· here.o.im> "'" "'sillma"ly ...._10 mill'" ........,._ """", .. -~I "V'''- und<-o- •" ...... '" """""ry l>.w lia tho l.a.. Mot<lIAoL

•~ ·Ab<>rriooo.· 170-76... N<::!O<!ha' """ """ "" _ ... _ w;"",,, b<ing.....:l ... -.. _ H Is ......y '10<

Ia,........, "'-"""itIo.... "W> -_._."'" 01...--. ..--0), iI ..... rt<>l"t>l1IM"".,.;ng _Ie .. """' It "'" to f<>rb;d __ hu"",n ;n..,,,,,,",,,,- Croooing """'""",,'.l><Iund.ory _ .. uoing Ihat!"""""' ... """..... but """ ........._ juolin <_e-f.~_ng"~prin<ip.. ~), r", _01.,.._... ;bid.

 

'"(S) S i"l.»<bs O's boundary il and only if S crosses O's boundary

without O's 00115<..,,1

(6) S ,>icI~t<"5 0'5 boundary if and only if (a) 5 Invades 0'5 bQundaryand (b) invading 0', boundary (in that way) is nol necessary toend any !>oundary-inval;;()Il on 0'. part.

Noti~ that none of these definitions turns on whl.'lher the act in questionIs intentional. 1/ Il~paSS on your bQundary. the ract that I did not meantQ do il dQeS not make my acti"" any Ies6 a l"'lipass. Not all use isvoluntary 1Il'l'. For example,,, plant does not inlrolionnlly use watl"" and,ml, but it ll~ tllem nonetheles6. Uk..",;"", If I sl<!p on your f"".. I amusing your face all a support for my feet .,,'en if I st"PJ"'d on your lac<:inadvenenlly (or was pushed).

Since I ha".. p~viously dd"nd,'<l th.' derivation of (2) from (I), I willnol "-'Capitula!" thaI argument h.ore, I did ooltlwn defend {I) it,;elt how­e.-e.;" and while I sh.111 not undertake a full defense of (1) t>t>"". it isworth saying _hi~g in its ddmse. since the principle is hardly un­CQIl1l'O\'~rsial.

Although (1) may~ like a p"radigmatic'l11y d<'Ontologkal prir.cipk.I think it """";v,," its strongest support from Ar;slOllc's cthiocs of virtuc<though Aristotle himself did not drnw such ,1 ronclusion). On an Aris­totehan virtue-<'thkal acrount. right action is action 'ha' e><pf'<.'SSeS ,heattitudl"!l and dispositions appropriate tu a flourishing human life," whe""the latteT Is C<lT"Oreiw~d as a life that gi,'cs primacy to the e><e~ ofdistinctively human csp"citics. A life aiming primarily al sensual plea­sure. Or at me"" survival. is rtjoctt-d as subhuman. sin~ it focuses onCilpacities that humans share with the Io,,·t.,. animals. rather than beingOIJf<lnized around thc c.crrisc of diStinctke!y human lraits.'~ Out super­human lives an: rukd out;lS well. Aristotle dQ<.'li urge us to s,rive 1m asgodlike an existence as possible," but he ma~ dear that our humannature pla~ cons'raints on this g<.>al," and 'hat actually Inooming a godwould no' be al>cncfit fo•• human.'· Hen~. the best life lor a humanbeing ;s one tha' navigates between the extremes of subhuman andsuperhuman:

Man is a naturally polilk.al animal; and he who is without a polis byna,ure <and not through chance) is ei'he.l>aso.'or superhuman.... He

" '.~yw_ only II..., "1 >I\lI' "'" .'tI"" for the '",tl"lf (I~ bu. , ..a.. ;, ., ....pl.o...... """., principl<,." ,"A"""""," 166 n. l~

" An 1I<1lon.- "'" o<fu.oDy l>< ",...foJrmod I""" vb1..., In ,.....,. "' ..._ rin...,.I .... in_ ... boo ,..... kind <>f .."Ioon ,...... --.-.. ,,;'h ..... ,in"""" .lIi1ud< ""...lJ p«Io<m. f0o­d_ON Ilooolind Hun'howo<. "Vi""" Th<ooy .nd I\b<>rtion "~ 0>01 I'IJ>&II/foJr' 20 tsu 1'l911: l23---<6.

u Arisl<>t N~._"." (..... (ho«.fl<-< N(~ to'11bZS"'Il'J8.t4."NE.n77bU>-l178H" .'1(. ll7I'tQ--7. lI7\IbJJ-1I1'J.1'·.'I(.ll5'l....U.

 

122

who is unable lQ &hare lin a political CQmrnunily], or who through".,.1f....ufficien<:y has no need to, is no pari of the polis-thus. either abeast <1f a god."

The AristOlclian ~irtucs, 100, can be se..n as a mean ~.""" It><. subhu­man vice of ov..""aluing. and the superhuman vice of undef\'aluing. ourvulOl."fable ernbodied~_ To err on the side of the be.SIS is 10 be e~cer

5i'-ely concerned wilh our animal nalu"" oor physical desill'S and pI\~

leal 5eCUrity; this iti the error of the common p""ple, whorn Aristotle"-'gards as all too p","" to fake pluwn' and material advantage as !heirprimary goab. and ,,, neglect Ih<> poo>!iibitity of higher values that mayn!<[Ui", us 10 sacrifice comfort or even continued exish..,..,.., To err on theside of the godh. by contrast, is 10 t ...al human beings .s di~rnbodil'd

intelJecb for whom the animal nat"", is i.",I..,-anl; this is the err", ofphil.-pfler.; like So<:rateli who _lmowledge and virtue as suffiCient forhappiroess. and dismiss 01""",1 goods a5 Urme«'SS;lry. aiming for a Ira ....S<:efldent sell....ulflCienc)· tl>at is noC an opt;on fur ,..."bodied beings like us.

For he who flees and fears everything. and endures ""thing. becomes• coward; and he who kars ""thing wluo!.."ver and approaches ev·erything 00r0mes rash. And like...·jse he who indulges in every plea­SU'" and holds bad, fn:>m n""" is undiscipJinLod, whil~ he who fleelIlhL>m an, a, b<:>or-5 du, is an i""-"'Sible wrt.'·

Sober--mindednes.s and indiscipli"'" are ~med with lhose plea·sul'\'S that other animals also sh.1n: in. which Ihus aWar sla"ish andbestial. .. Indiscipline S«mS to be justly reviled. sir>ce il belongs!ouS nol as humans but as animals. ... Th~ who fall short withregard 10 pleasures and take less enjoym",,' lhan they ough! do notoften ari~; ,uch insensibility is not human,"

[A'i,IOIIeI u500 10 say that some people are as stingy as if lhey weregoing to live /o,e""r, while othen a", as profligate a, if !hey we",going 10 p"rish lhe next day,'"

In short, one !let of vice places 100 much val"<,,, and the other too little.on lhe animal side of human nalu",.

How. then. can it be shown lhal principle (1) <'''presses an aUitud"appn>priate 10 someone who is virtuous In Aristotle's sense? That is. howcan it boe shown thai (1) is the truly hw....11 altitude. lhat it neither fallsshort of, nor~" what can pmperly be demanded of ou, humanity?

" ......"""'.M~ 12S.'lo1-5, 27-33 t!'....l."ion mind.,. N/:. 110&020-251..........1ion mm.),. Nt. 1111loJ3-11l'M71"-,_ m;",,~

..~ L.omi lim...J CJfiniorII <f Eni_~ V.uo ("....t.tio<> rni",,).n.. polnl.,...., 'l!"1 iI ...... .-.... '1'.... f.lI ....... ot'v"",,,,, pi....- ri'''''' _ m""" "'_1;,,1< ,-.1... "" 1!Iri, _" "ulnO<obIr~;"d_

 

TIiE IRRf.LEVANCE Of Rf.SI'O.'<SI~ltITY '"Consider .....hat ArililQtle says about tile political natu.... of human beings;

N<>w that man is rnQre of a political anirrml thon tile Ix~ and everyother gregariou~animal is dear. For nattl..... as we say, makes nothingin vain. and among !he animals <mIl' man ha5/egos [reason, spc«hl.So ..... hile mere voice is an indication of pain m pleasu!\'. and hence isfound in other animals (fo' lhoei, nalure reaches as tar as !hi" havingthe ~rception of pain and pleasure, and indi<:aling these to oneanother)./ogos is fm l'e\-'ealing the ad""ntab"""'s and the disadvan­tageous. and so also the right and tilt' wrong. Fm this is peculiar toman, as opposed IQ tile other animals: 10 be the sole possessor of theperception of good and evil. of right and wronS- and the others. Anda community of th..-se make,; a household and a polis."

In otho.r word~. Arilitotle idrnlifK'S tn., dislinctiwly human capacity forreason and spe<.'Ch as the ba~is ofour being naturally political animals, forit enables us to pursue our goals through d;Sl~~ioll with one another.Moreover, Aristotle famously regards /egos, reason m speech. as the~sent",l trait around which a nourishing human life must be organize<!.,:r:lThis, il seems, is why Arilitotle <egards it as an eso;ential componrnt of atruly human life to de.l with others poIili«lIy. i.e,. thn,mgh reason anddisrourse-i.e.• as cor",om;a.tion panl\Cl'!I.>J But such an ide. I cre.les astrong presumplion against lhe usc of 10=. and in favor of relying 00persuasion as f.r.s possible. Aristotle ind.-..ro affirms that il is unjust to

rule by fo= ..ther than persuasion. insisting that statesmen should be asdependent on the rons..'I1t of tOOr ,..,~tsas doctor.l and pilots are on theron~t of their palients and passengers n'Sp«tively-~ lthinl<. however.that Aristotle's insighl points in the dire<:lion of a mOre radical critique offorce than he is likely to have rcrog.-.ized. To deal .....ith I)!hers by f<"lf'Ce isto acl in a subhum.n m.nner, like a beast of prey; we live a more humanlile (and therdo"". in Aristotelian tt-rDlS, a bt.1ter life) to the e~tent Ihal ourrel.lions with other p«>ple embody re'SOn and ~rsu,,-~ion ral"", thanrom;:ion.'" The...fore, Ihe.-.d to avoid the bestial tyl'C' of "Ire gives thevinuous agi'nt ...ason. to a«ept an obligation 10 resp«t other poople asends in them~lves. rather than to t.... t them as m<'r~ ml.'ans to her <>wn

".''''''''lr. I'clltict. 125-.\01_28 ("''''''''1iM m;"")."N£. l()lJ7b20-t~18. 1168b2\l_1HJ9.>11,.. Fo< a fill .... ~,,'""" clllllo .'l!" !lt:>;Iforitk T. u..~ •...."""'10·. C"""'P"

,io<> aI F_m," ll,nW, <fMd.~~~ U l~)o 1$1-$4... ....""'~II:. 1W~"'f. l~4bZJ-l-l ... a. tt~on u.. fow>d<-ro cI AlIwn"" d<n"o<l<'><r' .Th<:y ~'«I that ;, "'Of ay

cI w;!d bNm 10 be fon;;bty rul<od by _ aro>IIo:o. bou' """ !t>< p"",.,- ,,'ay fut to_ juoIi<'< by low. k.<;IJft"""'" by ......... ond 10 ........ bo>Ul by oIw;, _ .. ," (qu<>O<dit> K.oth""'" Frw-nwI, «I.. Thr M.n1r>"offl"'*>. anJOtIorr 1hoIoJr- tIot i1,,..,,.... t- ""'rIOIlnd.....P<>I'" ILod.ett I'ub~ 19\1IL VH 8o>Ih A"""'II: and l)"iao an ltDnkin:ll prt­"",nlyoi tl>< _ 01 J"""U"om "".. k>roe In ............ll""""" 01 <uII«d•••fI.;.... but .....N"'" plinciplo to "'" to """'y in ,.... e... <>I """"""'''''' ;n..."".,.., .......1. (CI. J<ohnt.ode- S<wnd T",,'I of~_. Il ~~)

 

'" ROO€RICJ( T. tOI"C

ends, If this high· level human~ p~" «mSlrainl on the pursuit oflower-]",·"l, animall.'fld~. SO be it

Thill. however, giv" '" only the IkomJl'Qf'l"'I "f principle (I)-theprohibition on using the righu.-.....lder as a rnt'I'" means. This. by itself,doe!! no! entail the C-rornp<ment -the pl'rmissibility 01 the righlS-hol.wr's(or her agent's) rompelling 01"""" 10 romply with this prohibition. I sug­gest Iho,1 whal legitimates the C<Omponent is 1M II<.'<.'d to avoid tileromsponding godlike type of vice, the p""-' pacifIst position that "-~

quin'S lhe virtuous agftlt to ding to roopo-ralioTl ""en whm 11K- otherp"rly abandons cooperation aAd n.....;orts toaggN'SSioo. Thesainlhkc rom­milm....110 tum lheothl'rch~kocrords 1_ 1'l'Sp«1 toone"sown material..eNs than they deserve. I"rinciple (I) can thus be~ as striking anappropriate balanre-a Gold"" Mcan-bctwren subhuman aggn'SSKmalld s..peffluman pacifism.

But hi,...· does this principle afk:<:t the legal relev""", uf n:sponsibility'

1Il. Two KINOS Qf RESPQ,"SIB'UTV

The law is ordinarily expected to take rogniZ<lllCl' of two kinds ofre;ponsibiJity. The first kind is tttl'tlSptt:lfpt responsibility, ~s when ~ per­son is ~Id '6p<>nsible ~ acoountable for actions she has oommitted. Inparticular, tl><o institution of J,,"'i5/I ...,," i••upf""""d to aim al inAiningJX'f'altie!l only On th06t' who ha,'e T<SI'.msibJy commilti.'d SOme sort ofwrong or offense," Wrongs oommitk.'d through {noocuJpable) ignOl"anci',such as nut knowing t~ gun was load~'<l, are regarded as having at INsta Strong daim to immunity from punishment, as are wrongs rommiltooby ""h,rnal oompuls;on (for e.lample, my Injuring yOll because someonee1~ forcibly sh<.>ved In" into your palh, tripping you) <)1' by loss of ordi_nary m.... tal control (as when an offender i. iudged "not guilty by reasonof if\S;lnityi, In allthes.- cases, tn.:- inflicting of 1"l;iI1 punisllrn....t is heldto ~ ronditional on the defendant's responsibility for an action thaI has~ rotllrnilled. I call this IJnd of respon~ibility "retrospecriw~bo:causeit is backward_loolJng; it~ an ~gent's relation toan l:\.'ent that hasactually oc<:urred (and SO lies in the past).

This is the most familiar kind of ~p<>nsibility,but we also use thl' term"re;p<>nsibility" !() de,;cri~ an agent's ",Ialion to an action that has not~t <J«U~, one which the agent is able Il) pe.fonn, and mayor may notpe-rfonn; this i. the kind 01 responsibility I call prospmivt re>p<>nsibility.W!lro so,""""" lo1~, "It is you. responsibility to keep the dswm filled,"it is this forward-Iool<ing kind of l'l"SpOOSibility that is boeing in"oked. Thissort of ~ponsibitityseems to ~ a combination 01 authority and obliga­tion, in the present e.>:ample. h~,"ing the rt:5ponsibility to kl."l.'p the cisWmfilled involves both having the Slull_fly to fill it (though not ~rily

.. E._ In ~.... 0(~«>mm~1ed tkroup> ....,.,.Igtn«, "'" "f'l'Ii<:al"'" 0( IqtoJ .....,._ """_ tho, 'hI: ...' io -""'I< lor~~,

 

'"the authority to enlist_much less mnscript-ol~' aid in filling ill andbeing obIig4/ed to fill it.

1'he'le ""0 lcinds of NSp<msibility-J\1I'05pedive and pl'Oipedive-a",link.,.:!, in Il\allhe wnmgs we can be held rell'01'lf"'Ctively responsible fora", precisely those thai ;t was (lur pl'05pective responsibility to avoid.I'rospocth'e re;ponsibility, too, i, Ih<.ll.ght to oc lhe pl"Of'CT pro>'irw::e oflaw; paTt of the job of legal institutions is 10 .....UiN people to mt"t1 theirresponsibilities

My ronlt'llhun. howe>"e<, L~ that neith".,. retrospective nor pl'Oi5J"f<'tivernsp005ibility ;, a proper concem of the law.'"

IV. RETROSPECTIVE RE51'O~SIBrLlTV A/<D THE LAw

Retros~liwrl'Spoosibilily is thought to be crocial k> k'S"J judgment,primarily because th... defrodant's responsibility, or lack lherftlf, fw ........­milling an offrose is thoug.ht to dNenni,w whether, and l<) what e~lfflt,

it;s permissible to inflict legal ...nctioo or punishment. In other words,the standard vie>'>' is thai~ a.., harms ....., may inflict on. responsil:>lewmngdoer thai we may not inflict on • TIO<lrespoosible wmngdoer.

This is the view I wish tochalleng<'. Myclaim is not that the responsibleand the nonrespom;ible must be acrorded. pn."Cis<-ly the same tn:atment in("'lOry respect; the responsible "'rongdoer may properly be the object ofmora) oUlrage and rondemnatio", of social Olltradsm, and SO forth. WhatI do claim is that II><:", is no use (It frnu that is permis6ible againstresponsible wrongdoers but not against nonresponsible ones.

Lct us first ronsider. tht'll, what we are justified in doing to a nonre­sponsible wrongdOolr; alld then we shall~ what mo..., ila"ything. maybe inflicted 0" a wroogdOolr who is responsibte.

Consider two possible cases In the first case, a """responsible wrong­doer commits a boundary-Invasion; e.g., Erik.a, under hypnosis_ stabsSQIIl<.'Of'ol' with a butcht.T-knjflO, In the soo:md case, a nonresponsible wrong­doer CQrnJI'tilS no such boundary-invasion; eg.• Helga, under hypnosis,passes Qtll Nazlleaflrts on the strffi, In the latter case, allhough Helga isdoing something wrong (I presume thaI promoting Nuism is wrong),

 

'2' Il(lOERJCK T. LONG

ooe cannot. in tum, innict lulrm on her .... ithool violating her boundaryand thus offffiding against principle (2)_~ 1..0:, uS focus. then. on the firstcaS(', that of Erik;" the nonresponsibJe bour>d3ry·invader. And supposethat Eri...." bO\Ul(bry-;nvasion is wrongful; that is. either il is an outrightlx:>undary-vioLolion and thus rounll."l"acts no aggn.'5IiKm (she juS! stabssomeont· out of the blue) or else it;s a boundary·in,-.sion out of propor­lion to Whatl'V(>'agg~ it rounte'a<:lS (sN- stabs SOJTl<."Onl: who steppedon her toe). What """aSures can permissibly be laken against her?

First ooe may take d"frosive action against Erika. to ~pd or "''Pel herfn)m her dctim's boundary. The fact that she is not responsible for hl.'Twrongful bQundary·jnvagiQn dOl'§ not alter the fact thaI she has commit­It'd it, and the C-romponent of the right spedfied in principle (2) li~nses

Ihe u... of defl.'flSive fom. against her. II il wel'l' wrong to uS(' foKl" againstinnocent th",als. it is hard 1o """ how the "'SO' 0( 10,"", could OOoomclegitimal<> simply b)· the addition of wich-d thoughts to the minds 0(

these threats; for w~ surely do no! enjoy rightful jurisdiction O".,r th.,contents of other people's minds,"~d, one may nostram or impri"", h.... if she poses ., rontinuing

threat to other people's boundar;"'. Why is this so? Suppose that t d....liberaMy aim a rine at your head and place my fing~r on the trigg<->r. Areyou P"""mittro to take action against me m sclf-def"""",? I mighl claim thatyou are not; after all, I could s.a.y. I ha"e not violated your boundary yt:I,and thus allY violl....1 response OIl )'our pari would go beyond what ;slicensed by prillCiple 01. But .u",ly it is mOT<' plausible to say that bythreatt'f1ing you with my fine I ha,'e already treated you as a mere means,someooe who can be legitimately subject....:! to my ends. Thus. I ha"ealready violatro your boundary, and you may respond with force,

But now suppose that my aiming the rine at you is not deliberate; anuncontrollable epileptic teizure has caused me 10 jerk the rine around tofa"" you, .nd the ...."1 spasm is likely to cause my fmg.... to depre;o. thetrigger. My liKk of mj>on.ibiJily ""'" not "'US<' "'y ",,'im, 10 cu5<' "'ing Q

h",,,,JIlry-tUlllioM, Thus, you still need not wail until I actUIIlly pull thetrigger before using forre in response. lhe broader monl is that if aper!OIl'S pattern 01 behavior poses a sufficient threat to others, that per­son may justly M restrained'" before she has taken any overt actionagainst thol;e others. regardkss of whether she is n-sponsible few heraction,;.

Third, one may forre!he nonresponsible wrongdOl'l" to pay restilutionto her victim, Here is the argument If Anita bT<'aks into Juanita's house.

 

1'H~ IRJlH.£VANC~ OF R£S1~SIHILITY

Anila is illegitimately witllin Juanita's boundary al\d may properly bee'>Cpelied. But suppose Anita leav{'S wltll Juanita's st(ore<:>, Since the stereois /uanitil.·S property, Anita is still witllin Juanita's boundary (aRd thusliable to justifl<.'d """mon) until she exits Juanita'S boundary b~' retumingtile Sk'l'!"O!' lIut sup~ insk'ad that Anita destroys the sl<!reo; then sheremains within Juanita's booundary until she repl~ the sl<!reo with anew oroe of eq",,1 "alue (or the closest equivalent pososiblc under thedrculnstances), Moreo''Cr, she must also compen... te Juanita for the pe­.iod of time during whkh Juanita was deprived of the u.,., of the stereo,si~ that lost time was. as it were. sometl\ing bekmging to /ua"ita butdestroyed by Anita. and SO Allita remains witllin Juanita's boundary untilshe giv<.'5 it (0. its equivalent) back. Mo~ broadly, Allita should be kgallyrequired to make good any lIarms she inflicts on o!hers in violation ofprindple (2).

Note tllat in none of th~ ca>es dO\'li it matl<!. whether Anita wasresponsible for he. actions, If she entered Juanita's premises by accident,o' was blown through the window by a tornado, she <:atulot use lhat factas an el<Cuse for not leaving roow tllat she is able to do so. Likewise, ifAnita took (or dcstroyro) Juanita's stereo in<>d\'(~rtent1y, her lack of re­sponsibility for her adion dOl."S not void Juanita's claim to rompensatioo.

Now in 50rIle caR'S (e.g" homicide, permanl'llt injury, or the destructionof irrepla<:eable heirlooffi!l) it may be impososible tQ make full CQmpen­satiQll. Sin", "ouglltP implies N can," fuJi compensation is therefore notobligatory. But partial compensation is <'I'rtainJy possible. and SO mayIegitimal<!ly be required.

11 might be a'llued lhal since <me remains in """"5 victim's boundaryuntil cornpe-nsati<.>n is paid, if one commits a crim"'" 1m whim full com­pensation is inherently impossible, one remains in one's vietim's bound­ary forever and thus may be subjected to coercion indefinitely, in effectbecoming the slave of the victim (or, in !he use of homicide, of thevictim's family), This infc .......<'I' would be mi~t:aken, however. C<.>ercion Qfthe perpclraIQr is justified by principle (2) <.>nly SQ long as il is ~ed inorder to expel t~ perpetrator from the victim's boundary. If np amoont ofroerci<.>n will suffice to e>cpcl the pcrpctr~tm from the victim's boundary,

" t ",,*;, lIIo' , ~'. P"'I"'otr C<IOlOiItJ i/o <>Ii<'<U .._ ....ulion b> ",,,. I"...... ;,...mlha' """~ _ ot.., objo<.... __ ..;,......,~ """"ll "'" _ .. " -..no.m;8~' boo boc "'" prod...,..01 "'" t..bor ....n ...._ 01 oonoel_ t" """",,"_<IN,lO "'" heortl 01 boIk t.<X~.,... d,!<,ok,. 01 ""p;t.J;om _ M...W -... of"",­"boor). or boa....... R<fttt Nod<k .'l!.... (.!-.:fly, s•...,. and U",,"" INn.- Yoric _llooU, 1974L 169-70). my "';';"8 tIw ptoJ_ 0I!,,,,,, bbol Is tanto""",n' '" fon:inp;)'OU '"lab<>< 10< ont. 11'1>0 -.. .. "'- 1""""" of JUAnft>.• lobor (,.;...... d;"""ly, btu.... ,;to, ~n;" Ot O'ldOn:<lly.l><a_ ~;t with """"'Y ..... .,.~). """ Ani..·• _ .....bon01 .... _<OUJ\" indllK!~ of J>W>ito koNdl. ON! _ .. , bound• .,..if",";-'

Xl Or if """ rornmi" • ton_but""" imptiabon 01 tIw lh<ory~ ""'" .. I!<at "'­<:rimel_ d;";_ ma1 .... ...._10:. "'" ,,~01 tho,d~__[."'l'ri>r of~ &"""~ "!le!-tiMion",.ond IIamel'. s,,"" .... of UNtty. n... <rimo/_d;sr~ Is ,"" .-..<q>,;,;n ""' .... rulo:. ;"lopl ""lO<y.

 

"" ROOf:RICK T I'O'...C

a policy of indefinitely pmlon~a>er<:;Oll make no e<mtribulion III su.:hexpuL,iQll and 8Q fails !<) mnmnn k) prindple (2),

How mU<:h shOtJId be ~llired in the way of partial c<:>mpt.>nsalion?What principle can be invoked to set an uPIX" limit, ewn approximately,on the amount of restitution thai can be mandatcl? Consider the dausein (2) thai sp<!cifi~ that one's l"C!il"'J"l!le I() a right,.."iQlalion should not bedisprQportOonale 10 the seriousness of lIlal violaliQIl. (For ,,><.ample, al·though ooe has a right not to ha"c one's fOOl st<>pped (lIl. one dot'S nOlha"1: the right to uSt' deadly fo<re in order to pre-'en! someone fromstepping on one's fQot-even if in the cin::umSI3~ only deadly rur«:wOtJld prevent !he act.) The burd~'f15 imposed on the perpetrator by therestitution requi",ment, then, callJlO)l be SQ OIlero<JS 'u to be oul "'" pm­portion l<) the seriousness of the o(f...-. fur e:umple, if a billionai",'smillion-dollar vase" bmk~ by a fellow billionaire, the se<:ond billionairemay be required to pay flill ,"tirlllion 10 the first; but if the vast' is brokenby an indigmt labQrer. a milli<;n-dollar debt <;<mStiluWs a grea...r bum'-"'­ta liktiml' of debt)-a burden which. in Ihis ca.... is arguably oul ofproportion 10 lhe .....iou5ll<'$ll of the off......-and thus the Jmount ofdamal>"" thaI can be dem.a.nded of the offender is fa. Iess.n

We can apply this priN::iple 10 the problem of uncompensable wrongs:If we think of panial rornpell... tion fur an unromJ"l'm"ble crime as /iJ1Irompen.... tion f<>r pilrt of lhe crime. lhen compensation ceases 10 be rna,,·datory as soon as its burdens become di,proportionale to Ihe ...riousness(not of the ""li", crime bUI) of lhe portion of the crime 10' whkh lhevictim is being compensated. While this~ not offer a de"""uI guideto judges, it does plate gorne weight on the perpetralor's side to coun­lerbalance the victim's demand for indefinile reslitution in the case ofwrongs lhat are 001 fully rompensable. (I do not mean 10 suggt'Sl tllal ilis possible in every ca... to Idmli!Y by dl.'SCriplion a distinct compens.lbkOOmponenl of an unoompensable wrong. Bul il is possible for a""lyticpu'J'05"S 10 regard lhe seriousness of a crime as being romp<J6ed ofportions, each of lesSoI!r seriousness. without needing 10 id.... lily a partie·uL:.. asp«t of lhe wrong action i!S('lf thai rom:spoods to lhe d''gTee of....iousness of each portioo.)

I ha"e argued thaI an inroo<:<:nl aggll'lliO' may be subjected 10 various5(ll't5 of pennissible roer<:ion. including defensive fon:e, imprisonmenl,and rompuls<':>ry restitution. If we deftne p..mishm.... t simply as imposing" <:05/ om "~ In rdpM~ 10 0", p<"1SOn 'J IIm..lng rorn",illnJ "" offrIt~. thenIt is somelimes permissible lO punish the innocent-sine<:' d.."'nsive rorce,

" I' m«I>t ""obit'<>«! ...., ohio..,.",.......io4oeo ..... '*-011" ....if>I< 01~'Y~ I/><..... Iloot il.t:mond~. mIl5M <Iollots ""'" 0 b111;on.U", and d«nand~.""""'"d<>Il&rofrom. ['Iu..... do ......ri.., ........,..... <./ <quoI1 """"m.,,,- I" >flY~. l;molju~.... rnodilM>Nlly~ II>< «JoI<tf"0I~. I...... limi..li<Jol "" 'ht ,l.oi <ft!d.II.,.. <_ ....1.<0 .... _ ...... w_.-..- ,,",'.-.~ """ ..,10.-.. do ro• ~'. oI:M~'1<> poy ........ l<> ..... on .1'J'l......", nf ............ priro;;plt.

,

 

TIlE IRRELEVANCE OF RESI'ONSlDII.rrr

Imprison"""nt, ~nd rompulsory re;timti"n ~1I count as CQltts imposed onthe il\l>llttrlt aggn'SSOr in respollSC to Iwr al(gression. In none of thCS<'caSOlS, howe""r, is it cssroH,,1 10 ti10C trealm,..,t in question that it be frlt 3'5

a CO!it by the perpetrator, i.e" that it be unpleasanl to the perpetrator,Disutility for the perpetrator is a foreseen, but n04 intcndro, resuh of theffiforce"""ot of rights,·... Hence, it is importaotly diffen>ot from the kind ofpunishment with which we art' most familiar (let us call it puni"hmcnt·as-sufferillgl ill which the disutility <>x",'rimct'<l by the "ictim is the m.illgool of pUlli:;hment -whether 00 ",t,i/>U/;l!f' grounds (the wrongdoer de­5oj>rves to sulkr), de1<'T1r.ICt' grounds (inflicting sufft,ring on wnJ<\8doel'1lwill dC<;CQurage Qther wrongdoers from imitating them), or ,'\Icn ttlwl,il.;tQf;t~ gmut\ds (discipline and hardship will mtlk thc JK'lJ'C'Ir.tor • ~terperson). It is generally concedc<Ithat punishment-"""'l!ufrering is morallyinappropriate when inflicted on wnmgdocrs who ate I>Ot =ponsible.lJutdoes punishment...s-.;uffering OOrome legitimate when the wrongdOl!r isresponsible for ht.,. actioos'

I claim that it docsIlOt l1\l'only dif/erence ~wl'Ct1the~iblellndthe """,responsible wrongdoer is lhe presence 01 m~licious thoughts illthe former. Hut malicious thoughts by ti10Cmselves are oot bo<Jt\dary.inv.s;ons .nd do not fall within the jurisdiction of the law =tpI iNsofilrQl /I~ >fIIlk Q diffrrmCt' to armoal brlIlOlWr. Accmdingly_ the presence ofmalicious thoughts carmot justify any Ilddirilma! roe,,:;"" treatment be­yond what is already justifioo without them:

A restitutive theory of justice varies Ihe le"el of tqlaralions a.ccordiog10 how serious a rights violatioll has occurn>d, , .. In contrast. a N'­

!ributive theory requires that the sanctior> must be varied accordingto this factOJ and also according III how "bad" the offend... is whorommitl<'d the oct ... This means that the crimi""l is liable n04 onlyfor what he did but for uNI I... 1I'1fS rliiNki"K while he did il. ..[PI"nish""",ts for lhe mffital stote of the criminal-whether inten·tion or motivation -can be justified within. rights th.c<:Ny only if oneposits that someone h.s a right to " particular tr\Cotal srate or theparticular thoughts of othCl'1l.... IT]o cr<lract m~ than what ittak<"'S10 rectify the rights violahon he ;nfl~ is to violate the criminal'srights.""

"Th;' <I.oi", --.:I. '" I,.. q..lifio,d _hot. In IN:~ oj_~~ I ....~Iowp otrikint; )..... bon..... I "'-' "'~ btowo <:a.... you dlsutilify .nd t lq>< !hoy will_;"gty _·01< y<>u to _ Of If I irnpnoon y<>u I .,.~ "'" "" • _ 10~ yOU.,...ri< ""'..... il j ......,........ '" <liMb "'" prit<>n wallo. """" agoln I"'I'in8 ""', oht dltulilily""...... by'''' "-I<> will molh,..... "'" 10""" ")""l! 10 ...,.pt, In _ ..- th< dlsubli1~lo u.-. 1y~ In l>o<h.- _ ... ,..,... dOt«>mlort 10 01<'OO'""Uir« l""'- on..,d ., ..td<h th< "",'rdlin8 rrnc- .. olrn<d. """ _mpl<, Ic.......~"" diootilify In "'*' l<J ...." l"" 1"'f"Ioon<d; I do ..... irn~ l"" In.,..lo,.- l<J <:a yOUdisublity

"'l\.>meI1, "1\0"";"8 luot'o:r.·~

•

 

n" II;()[l[JUCK T LONG

As for detcm-....«". the difference bem"e\.'11 defensive foret: and delerrt,nlfurtt is that dt1l"Trent force inflicts disutility on the f'l."l1X"Irator nol inorder to afft'Ct the peTpe'rIlll1,s bl.-havior but in order to affl'ct ell..". JX'O"pie's behiwior. Deterrent fol'C1l" thus fails to satisfy th.. conditions laiddow" by principle (2).

Rehabili!ative fo«e is rnO'" like ddrosive force in that lhe focus is onaffecting th" perpetrator's behavior. but ""like defensive forre. renabiJi­tlnve foro- typically goes bloyond wl\o' is necll.'d to protect any victims'boundaries Bnd thus once more violates (2). 11 might be thought thatrehabilitalive punishml'fll is ronsi.t""t with (2) b<:<:ause it involves using!he p<'rpotratOl as a meallS to her""'" ends rather than to lhe rods ofotht'l'S.

On" way of n!Sponding 10 this ddl.'flSe of paternalism i. to claim(aj that pl'QpIe's inll!n?$t$ are OOT\Stiluled entirely by their pN!ferenees, and(bl thai th"", is no I'I'liable way to identify people's pMen'f\t~ beyondSOIeing how they are expJ'l$$ed in It(lual ch<l~. H~. il would beimp0s6ible 10 promole SQmeone'$ good by men:ively interfering ""ith hisor her choice!. because wl\at~'Ver poople t'- for therm;el"es is aUI<)­matkally good for them. This subjKt;visl argument is nol the line ofresponse I shall LiI .... for I do nol believe that either (a) or (h) is lme.Instead, r shall apf'C'al to objective lealu~ of human nourishing.

First on an Aristotelian oonccplion.libcrty i' an <.'!\Sefllial romp<menl ofthe human good," 5Q thaI while freedom of choice may nol be ,wffic~t

lor a nourishing lik. it is nonetheless n~ry for it.'" H\'RCe. paternal·istic intern-renee dOCli not in fad advance the """Ua", of its rKipienl, and'" is. in reality. a subjecti<m Q/ the recipienl to the paternalist's owngoals-a clear violation of (2). Second. paternalism alSQ interferes withthe well-beins of the paternalist ~U, since by IQn;;ng her prcle",nccs

... '-8- ."risIoIl<', C""""",.... <0/F~- 7ft7-9l.,,_ ltin.....1dOl ""' ..N!. .....val"" <0/ ~b<ny to Nl< "'" ".,....;,.., p""m " ...... boc "'lh<>us~' ""', ""l"''''''''''''"'liberty (__Iw...,"- by ollo>wln8-.. p<>tili<a1 fr k. .........,....""'Y lillie 1......Jom 01 <hob (........) w.. p<trniltod ""', fo• ........"k (hi .. m·\IljI,Fo< 0 <ribciom oj Ihio v~. _ llo<Imd< T.~ -I""""""", 1.ib<..liom: 1lw I'olilico 01My'..... C__~• So<MIl'!>ilooopIoJIatOdPoliry 1Z- "'" 2 1Sutr>m« lm~ t-31

.., On .... "n-t;.., vIow• ...H.dino<l1r\l Ktivdy io ,noN! to~ (hwn.In 1Ioor­iU\~. At )ennil..,. W1U'~ .-'''"'

1'1 t-n w~i<h, QW~ 10 __~'mil> na",...1apociti<>, eMInot boN' on it>........ bu';, ....... 10 _ by _ of.".........I«I';, "'" a .....Imy ....... Foo il. ,...'-'to • "'" >tnctly~ I.. _. S;mit.rlJ 0 "'"" who. QW~ to """'"dd'oMncy in .. na'uralca~~......,. ........S" tua ........ Iii< bu' io mM»ll"'d by........ 01 anoo/wr'. d«ib<ro.....nd~ hom .. no< __"'" """" ~ ..._ ............ p;xIo and "'6"6" in ........... first _ ",ri,'d'" .. _.< ' - .. man , .. 1'1_.... 8"""'".1 _"""6on 01 w1w' it ;" to be ~u wil~

,.' 1~ Ie "'" oItupthot Irnplouolblo__ "'" to _ '" ho> Idp '" ""'" "'" to I""'"""k<r> "'"" 0... <l<lil><''''iono .nd II>< p" I' <0/ our_"' ........... ..., , and wio< ... hopponO ~,b<.

]<nolli« _,~ -""""'1<', F__ "rg."....,,~A l:ltkno<: A."';"', ~,,""- 1~ l\18ll): 4.1-46.

 

on others, she is dealing with those others by coercion rather than ro<JP"eration, and thus is living a less human life.

N; for reiributi"e punishm~'flt,il is an ~''Ol'flckarer violation of (2), sincepuni:Junent is a bounda'}'-invasion,'" and bounda'}'-irwasions Can bo£,justified only as a means of stopping priQr boundary·iJwasions, not sim­ply to inflict suffering. But if the wrongdoer's responsibility or lack of ilmak.-..s no diffe~roce to what the legal system may ~rmi.s5ibly inflict onher, then whether or not one is retrospectively responsible for the wrongsone has done i. indeed legally irrek·Nnt.

11 might seem 1h.1 ronsideratiQns of responsibility are legally rel.....antaftcr all, bec.1use th")' affect OIlr p"-'<iiclions of a m.]feasor's future bot:­hav;or, and thus our judgment as 10 wh.1 sort of reslrn;nt it may bo£,

appropriat.. to iml'O"'" If, of my "wn free willi kill a slranger just for fllJl,then in addition to the k'gitinucy of exacting lrom me (partial) ....titutionfor lhe victim'. family. it i. ~rmi56;ble to lock me up. not out of retribu­tion but because I pose a continuing danger to other people. Yet on theother hand, if I kill someone because I nonculpably skid on Une>:pecle<!ice and hit the victim with my car. thell while (on my theory) I still owecompensation. the fact that my killing of the victim was caused by anilCcidffit rather than by my frt.>e clloice means that I do not pose a ron·tinuing danger to others and SO should not bo£, incara:ratoo.

In I",t. howe"er, ....pollSibility itsell is in-ell·...ant 10 the dilference be­tween the two cases. What really matlt"fS is the likelihood of future of/en<ies.A criminally insane offender may justly bo£, imprisoned, drspitc ht.'T I",k ofre;p""sibility, because her condition constitutl.'5 an ongoing threat toOlhers;3lI and. on the other hand, those who pose no further danger to

...... IN.., rt.., _ 01~ puniohmonIs w,.~_ wlth.~ bouodo.y-ilw-""""'" Ihty "V(>/v< /(,njI:>1t tm",_ ,~ ._ kinds. r-..I.... pri••~ __ IiI:<~,..,..,. """-. ond lh< hk< <.n b< ""'noll"'••,,, cA • """" but .~ ...,. boundo,)'.inv-..nd .........y b<~ ror _,j"", -....0.. 01' _Iifo'i""...­wi!l>oo, ,'w!Ing prirw;ipl< (2)

,. It mW'" N:<>bj«1«I ""', my f"lOitlon. .....,. it _ "y !<pI ",_i<tion"""" p«>plo.•.........1....... <ant»I <OI>I1 1ingw~ .."~ tllreolo,- oln<e....m.iu<4!lW11l "",""'...,j......,. to w~' ........1 ....... Ru' my poa;ti,,,, it _ ony<._ pof<!c'J>OOinl! """"It to ,.;"w.... "' ~ ""y N: _ .. lV""ndo fo<.....,.mint! ""'" _I<. b< tM>< <;Iu'" 1 '" <pj\<pti< _urn. I' ill "'" tht r....cA ............, ..... ;....11. "'" i..~ to in ......... _ t..inp it within ,.... Low'.p"".;"w.

"n.. lib<I.1~ 01~ prohiOO" "'" only tht unjwotiliod 01 foKe "lI-'ino<....,...... but tht w;u.oif...J ,_ 01 10= .. W<lt ..• It io ,.... right 01 ~ ,....P'""II> """"'" to """ 10= to..-p<l. th_ 01 w~1 t..rm """'" 'ho """" <J«u,.."lllo........ 51....' .... tfLWrly, 185).

II I po::omt • 8un .. j'QU' hrod .nd '" ptoy R..- toul<tt<, j'QU 00 "'" M"" to w.>il1111 • ...." to 6«<1-. ..Itin& d<knoi, To 'Olp""" on -... ...._~y hi£h rioI.01 ro..nd.ory.irwuiotl io i""lf. bound.ry..irw Henao, p__"" ...str.W <on b< jut-tifiod. N<f<l'- to "y, gi.... tho ~tlol for mitb...__• lh< ""OJ'< for rn:v<'I"'''""",".;", should II< ...tr<>w. A, 11"........ w'i.... "I "vuld limit tht u,. 01 pte'_i""-.",,,... t1..,.... p<:t>OI'lI WN> M~' """'""""""'t«l. th"", to -... by""'" f¥>I crittrinoI_....... I """,ld w'g<'I' tho, the odd> 01 • crime b<i"ll """,,,,,tII'<! by _ who k>s.1~y conunitt<d • ".;..... 8""lIy................ odd> 01 .".;_ bI:i<'3 """",111«1 by """ ,,'N>.... """"" rommi"rd. ".;"",- t;bid .. 213).

 

'" K(lOEKJCl( T. tC»lC

others should nO'l be impri!l<med ev~ jf they an;> retn:>lipectively R'Spon­sible for their criJnl.'!l.... It is not u,., R'$~iJity as such that is "'levant.

Retribulivists will "'Si$l the id\'ll that evil moti...",", should not be tak""into ao:ount in the legalln-... tment of criminal... After all, we all rerogni.....the importan(>l mmoti",,. and other inner sLltes ill our judsm~'flt sndt"'atmetll of mile. people genernlly; why shouldn't we lake them intoae<:Qunl in legal oontexts illi well? My answ", i5 lhatlegal ronll'xts involveall element thai is ordinarily absent from """'Yday inte.....:tions. namelyfor«. The imperal;\'\' to 1....1oIher peop)" as CQIlversalion P.1ft""" ratherthan as Qbjecb of manipulation c",ales an extremely strong p~umptionagainstlhe use of fom,>. The net'<! to......".. to force to def""d <me's rightswhen an a~'s aclil)ns rend", peaceful coexist"""" impossible issufficiently weighty to <Werrome the pre>umplion; 001 using mort fo....than is ne<:e\Sary to p~t one's boundar;"" is harder to justify, and thepresence of malicious intentions ;n the malefacmr's head does not~

.., M~ """lion ,.. 'ho' III oI'Iendef ~~. Koolo F.~T","" -... (on .... mu"""","..ho w" """"' ;" T.... in 1\I'lIlIl oh<luld "'" ",",,,, '-' ""'" in rri><n "'alo:.ov: .....,.t«l.0;..,. <Ii) an ~''''''''I''''' I»d "'"""'" _1""1«1. _ 1<1 _ Imp"""''''''''' "'"<>:onrtio<I COIOld _ ........ 01 pnnnrl< (11. Mot<~~Iy. It ........ Ituo, • p.on>d.""'" in 5""'><id< I"" Molt Ei<I<m.>m _1<1 "'" ""'''' ""'" Itnprio<ne<I .,. o«ut«l bo-<>uoo~ ... -"""-* 01 _bu'""" h< stin fU«I""'~ dol.... to .........._'no 0l>Il EidImann ........kl OliIl_<OI"I"'........, to .... f_oI",,;,.-. '-""" .

",., _ 01 """'_""" ;" th< "- 01 U<Iunann ;" p"niNl.I, ""'y """'" 1""""-FIto~ ...... """" who ><r<p1 .... notion d porfi.ol~ to th< l.mU d homicid<.i<timo """~ ......... how .n indi.id",,1 of '-'ll" "...,... """Id "",k y ....,....mJ"""'P""MWn to It>< """...... 01 ;a..... of v!<tl_ to ..- do:o'~ F.I<hmonn_<rib-ut<d. s..ron.t.~ .... n£Oottm&nn _ _ """' ;;.n.... I' """y ...... gn>HIy .....1'1n!;to til< .rli.... 01 .., i""" .n <'VII .. til< 11.-..... l<> thtrn l<> O<C'J"poynwn' in Ii<\! of.... pt<peI,.",,', puniohmoonI.

Ilu1~ F............._"" theory. 'hor< io "" punWuno:n' h,.. O<hmann ,,,,",........1eI .... to< ludlcrouoll' ioIa<I<qu.ol< to hio cRmo. W< CMInOl.-..1< EidIm.IM oil< m~l"",

b...... And ..."", if ouch ...." _ pIlysically pooolb"..... """id .... <arry it "'"wll "ll ""_

F<or INI ....""" •• p"mr P'......tI<poinl "' ~ ...., iI_""""..., legalproI'_ ,.,. punioIlinll &:tun.mn. tt.., id tt.., ..., """Id II," In ","pry 1m'puruty.~.... III:<~ ,..,., hI< _y .nd 1<><:0""" ...,.,."'" _ ..........1iI......., <ffI.Ilnl~'" tho .!<tim 01 pri...._~ on<! ,..., p..,p...."" of 'ho' ""'""6". (Iunlil:<ly to ..m ,.",...... _. """"'" abo ",""" to bt ......O!'d. A, 5o<It w')'ly "'8Il""""

I'" '.. ""I-' ony _ """"II)' "f'<'" ,..., m_ 'h.n tho."... ..., ....y ......""'" ~ 01 .... frio:nd' ond f.m11y of him ..., bo> t.11l.d. -I S''''' youpo"" • ..01 l<>uio XV b>CharoLoio who. b>dtwn ,"modf. NiI;..o' IUllod • """.. "bIo11.100 ponSon """,,",'tt" wm kill you."

D<>ou......AI~F,~<I< $<0<1<. ·Y... A_ EtIon.F_ II Y"" \\\>uk! B<­oom< Ilq>u~" In Tlw~"1M So>/<: 1lw (""'fIno ,......,I~ iIo tIw IWn>ooo...Qrjw,. I'/,;,;"g.. <d."'; lr...... _til SN_and A...nyn Woinl>t>u>< (Now Vorl<: Gnn-..r-. 11161>1. 1\I6-J.)9,

10 _I, ....y -... po,ado>.i<.1 ....~.n..bring 1<1 hi3hI~ crib<.l (_<Ttli<:ol "",n~ willmin~)d public _ ...... I """'klolfo,- pri••", """""'"'" .. In ...............,..."'u"'l'~"'. lrl "'" <latif)'. I..., ....~ ....ril>ubon. rit!l« puIlli< '" pm..... (I do_~ pri'"'' _ 10 01.." """" ...........010- 'h.>n publi< _'i<Jo\ bu' that <Int'o .........1;,: ~ juoI.l M~ poin< • oimply l!I.ll gi'''''' hu...... NlUrt .. i' Is, th< thrt., of ptiv.",___ bt. 5"'"";.", ...... W>d<r ,..., iyot<m I """""'I<. >nd Uu'""", of lh<_01 thl& I........ "'" unW<lrorno las. tlot«....~ foo """"pI<),

 

11 IE IRRF.UVIINCE OF R'ESf'OI'.'SIBILfTY

a weighty mOtrgh consideration to warrant a further ~us~ion of thepresumption against for«', This is JlOt to 53y that alhe. forms 0/ punish­ment. not involving for«'-e.g,. ostracism and tl\/.' like-might not bemorally justified. Cl'l1ainly w(' ousht to t<'Cat responsible wl'Ollgdoer!ldifferffltly from nrn1r"l'5ponsible ones, in all sorts 01 ways (iIOmc of whimmay be quite eff«live as deterret1ts, incidentally). What I dmy is that thes<'Cater dt'ffiCrit of rt'Sponsibk w',ml;doers is grounds for <'Claxing thev<!'r)' stringent presumption against the use of wr«'.·'

Rejecting the legal relevance of retrospt-ct;,'e responsibility in"olvesI'I'jecting the time-t.onon-d legal standard of 1fft'JIS """ ("aocnuntable mind").which mal<..., the imposition of Criminal pmalties dl'J't"1d on showingthat the lawb<'C.l<...... a<:ted with 'n«'lli. Dispensing with ",m5 "'" will strikemany, p.~rtiruiarly tlwst- of rctributivist persUASion. as glQS.'lly counler­intuitive,'" Roger Pilon offers a <'Ctributiv'st <Iellm.,., 01 """S ml:

Are we "",lIy \() lre.ll. by way of remedy, my a«identally hitting youwith my automobile and my intenlionally hilling you with a club asitCh of the Solme kind? Is the "leI'S "'" elementlQ be allowed "" pia<\'in the calculation? E"en if we include in the compensation due the

..... ><ii' ...,.."". <aot 10<~~ m my ~_, ... "'" _ 'N' p..rn.tunen .-'"....... "_g<.- -n.. >CI cI puNsIlm.," ..,..",~"... 'ymbol'" do 'ho do·kn<I.. fo< "" _. M ...rn ~ ...-. '" uphold on<! """""" ..,1lr<ln-.. ....,... __......"'" by Iho rnmin.lL" se. Fr.ntJin G. Mil..... "_M"", """ """""""'. " IIq>ly 10llomd~ - F.1l<i<> 88. no. ~ (July tm), JYI. I lind "'" _ <II~.,. n,......m.~.....,.

• n.twr di."'rtnng _. In y.-. '1>< .- '"""_ t)'mboI'" a>ndomInotion 10 _Iywl'lsh'Y ...,.,.p. to "" lht p-..npr;oo 'gol"" ~, lP- .... ......-.. _method...·.II.b.. fO< .,.~ oymbut'"~

.. I. _ br -. """'....., _ our _n lrg.>1 .y..rm·, «l"I"U"""'" '" _ ... if "'"W'WIrrd>1:""""

FnoqumIly. in tlw mo<lem ........ AngJ<>. ...".;c.,. <rim.... low ....~ I_lilywi........ ~ui""tl: .1>< ",-inS'" • _ or gull'y mind, .. , Cri".;.... ""u"," .'"..........dy oilrnt on wNt II<H1 '" __, If "'y, """" to. -.. •.. "'"N'''~ 5/tW~bo",B...-, wrib"l! in the 1!kh <r<Uury; .-nod tNt .... _ .. 10.., iolod...~_. nf • crirnr.de-~" Itut tu,,, """"md I.ltgrlr oi~ tho••im<flo,. <n>oted •~..,..-r <IIptnol,~ whidl 1IO _.,. _ ........1..... .- be _ ...-.,. ", "'"__ ""fU, <tu.lo<tftiN>. few _

Ii.........10<)' '"I"', In w~"'" _Ir.lg< ..... 'ho gill ioll<low .he its'' do-'... "'"--rr~'Iiobifily. ond '"3""'1. wbi<h in """" juriodi<.;..... ....ybr~_u-sn .... pootirf t>o:t""", In """pIrt<~ 1.lth , lh<y .'" I '" """Y. f.oo .".""* port.~. _u.. 1;.u.iJ;'y ""' boom ted by do.fIninlI oi"'-IOw!lkh ""'I' tligll' or _'''''I''''''Ibro.", .,tadwd. 'n- oIIenoro. _ .,.11r.l'publi<-wdIo",_." ."' I~ly_ with """"""'''' ""u..tion orw\l*' prole<lion 01 .... pul>ti< th ond ..!tty ... Thr onuim ;g-tioJ«ri""""("~"",",<III"",...,....,.,..,.,....,.,.. 01 .... - ""<Io<t<in<-.• _ On "'""'''''' """"- .... "~A""";"'n .....~ tlw mo>im iJ-'""P--......... (·'S""'''''''''of .........' -..-",,__") Thr ........... "'"' .......boo/Lowdo ""' ......... """"" ,"""",l:oIy supp<:Jttob "'" <>Ifrnoo~ rondU<1_""""Id br~ .. """ll""""".-l in.."""t by ..y~ od"lt. Tho __.. mum ... ik, """''''"ft, wtwn ........ is ont' 01 .......""Y~~rondun "'"' io "'" """""""'>"~ or """"...1

f,onci> .... Atlm. -erim...t Low; in F.~io 8...._, ,..,..~~ Williom e...."""Im~765.

 

13< ROOERICI:: r. LONG

victim ... spo.'Cial damage. ineluding tt.e costs of appreho:.nsiol\, trial,and legal fC('5 for both sldl"!l. and general damage!<. including pai".nd suffering tl1.crc still remains. crucial ek'lTl~1 lhallho::se cOn­sider.lions do 001 touch. For thus far the compe......tion is identicalwith that iooUy d~ the victim in " simple civil action. n...I't.'duetion 0( criminal wrongs to <:tvll wrongs Or at least lh~ ad·dl1'SSing of criminal wrongs with civil ~hies. bespe,lks an all tooprimiliv<.' vi"", of WMI in fact is M issue in the matl(,r of crime....For the dCml.'rl1 missing from the mNe IOrI but plt'Sl.'fl1 in the ...rim­;nal.ct is the guilty mind. The criminallms not Simply hann<"d you.Hr IIIl$ "/fnmlal your dignity. He has inlnlrimulily used you, againsty<:mr will, fur his own \'f\d,. He cannot simply pay damage< as thoughhis aelion we"" acdd~..,tal or unintentional. How would this righllhewrong? ... IHjow would compensation make the victim whoII' again?For mmpensalion dQe,o; not "'ach the whole of what is invol"ed -itdoell not """,I. the "'tIIS "" element. The... is simply ron amount ofmoney th.1t will "",Iify ",-"rtain wrongs.'"

It is quite true that ~ritution cannot always make the victim whole.... Butpunislting tl\(, Jl'l'~TatOT cannot make the victim whole either. Restitu­tion at least goe!i some way toward ma~ing the vkrim whole, whilepunishment d""", nothing of the sort

Pilon suggests that retributive punishment does s.atisfy tl\(, intent be­hind the requirement of making the victim whole. for it restores equalit~·

between the two parties;

'The original act ... creak's a right in the victim (or his surrogate) touse the criminal as he himself was used. Only so wHi the parties beI..... ted as equab. For only so will the dl/lnUf.., of the original ad be~ted in the remedy. Money damages simply do not do this. II islhe using of one person by another-Ihis affront to lhe victim's dig­nityo. integrity-lhat must recaptured in the criminal "-'medy, Thusthe vicnm's treatmenl of the criminal is equal in character to thelreatmenl he himself suffered."

I have two problems with this argument. Fi~t. in the case of .....titutionthe mtent is 10 restore equality by making fi,., PUti", Mt.., cfJ at tire aprn'"of the prrprfro'or. Retribution merely makes the p"~rator worse offwithout improving thep~ of lhe victim (unll.'S5 the viclim's 101 is

"~Pilvn. -Cri",iNl _;.0. !l<>l1'''lm 1'u~1.Of \loXhr F.we. 8&,,..;,.I]~tm~~

I WOIOld <fuo3"". ~......". "'i\h I~lon·."",,-.ion ""', in lh< ._01 intMbon>.l Onjuty.no """""I 01 _tim rould ma~ lho vir!lm wholo. If!liU G.l~ ..."'" 10 <m1"Y ~ l>uck<tof I<'UoO .,...... my hNd. """ ...... oW> 0V<'f '" "'" holl .... Ionune by ....f of ,....;,,,,,,,,,- I..""ld~ m"..,u .. __ od<oq...lely «>rnpf'R<.Olfd lot hi> _ IBiIi c...... ilI""'''' ~In« Ihio. r~ \aUo _·l

.. P\lon. "(;nmi... llem<diot..)55-S6.

,

 

suppoK'd to be improved simply by the e~peri..."ceof ~tributive satis­faction with tl\(, fX'rJX1rator'S punishmml), In any case. the point 01r\.'Stitution is nOl to r\.'Slore •equali!)," but to md the perpetrator's ongo­ing invasion of his victim's boundary.

Se<.:ond. the """ion Ihalthe remedy must have Ihe sanw (haracter as theoriginal olfense (and so musl be a harmful using of the criminal, asopposed I<) me~ fjnat\(ial O)mpensalion) has unsettling implications. Forit ",as a crucial asped 01 the original offense that it ",as unjust and=~""; that is precisely whal is ho,n-'fIdQUS about il. So musl not the~medy 100, if it is to share the character of the offense. be unjtL~1 ande>l<X'S/;iw? The logic of relribution points in thl" direction. not of an eye loran eye (for oow could an l")'e juslly tah'fl be any match for an eye unjustlytakenn, but of Iwo "y~ lor an eyl", Or a life for an ~j·e."

Pilon insists Ihal because "the criminal inlentionally used the victim forhis own ends, and against Ihe vktim's will ... the criminal alienated hisown right againsl being similarly lreated b)' the viclim (or by an),one else;>(ting on behalf of lhe viclim),"" Bul ~member Ihal the criminal's righlagainst being ill treat<'<! is gl'OWldl.'d in lhe dUly of olhers to Jive a life ofrational cooperation. and that this duty, in lun•• is part of living a Inli)'human life. Thus, il is not in lhe criminal's power to alienat.. this righl; itconsists in facts .bout olher people's good that he cannot alle'r by an)'action of his Own.

Advocatt":S of a dd..rrcn«: th~'Or)' of punishmt'flt will offer somewhatdiff..""nl objt>clions. From the poinl of view of deterrence. 1M differencebelween responsible ar><! n"".-..sponsib'" wrongdoers is Ihat tilt' behavior01 the mrmer (but not of lhe laUer) is responsive 10 incenliv~, and the....fu"" it makes sense to apply legal sanctions to the former but not 10 thelatle'r. The faCI """,ains. how",'"", IhaL the prospecl of having to payreslitulion certainly will have some deterrent clf«t...,'m if such deter­"-'fICe is not Ihe juslificator)' ground of the ""Iiluhon policy.

It ma~' be lrue ll\at a gm11er dcg"", of det~·r","cecould be achicvl.'dIhrough a polky of punishment thai gO'-"S beyond m...... reshlulitm. Bulsuch a policy has a high moral cost, once we lake inw aewunl Ihe facl thatsuch punishment will be inflicted by fanible human beings, As Ba..-...upoints out

lAIn)' goins oota;nl.'d by inc",asing S3t\(lions beyond whal is I'e­

quired 10 compensat.. victilM will inevitabl)' inc",ase Iht: sufferingof thos<- inr>O<X'fll ~rsons who h,l"<' Ix",n wrongfuliy accused 01

.. 0.... .. """ID<lO;d oIlh., ""'._MinMh ... Ih., _oJ II...·• 11op<.• ,'I<;im 01""";1>1<injuobc< who> uld.~.... """,,",'" ~f!:". \\ l<>I<l ,I\aj~ .. ju"if....""ly -0/ you "'<njl>' yoo...tl OIl _ who> II.umod you I noI. ooy. lI>e;r 10>"'" _L.ndonly If yo,", "<Ill!"""'" .. <'qU01 '" Ih., """"l! _" (lwO --.II' """ ;0 ,,~._h~,"I.... .........y.__ ..... ...,..". "'y '''''~ monotrouol)'-;...I ...",,-'!>r "';'1ioNl.- Ono<> Soon C.nl, H""" H.,.. (:"I"", Yorl<: Tor IIool.o, t9llJl~.

" 1~1on. "C"",,,,,,' !l<m<d"'," JS5.

 

", RODERICK T LONe

crime!!. Every incN'ase in the h't'tl of punishment to ",,""nee de­tl."m.'nCe 01 the guilty IncrN5eS the harm innictt,d upon the w"mg_fully a«us...'<:I, TIlat is. once Y,e aSSume-as we mUSI if we wanl to t:o;,R'alistic-the inevitability 01cnf~t Mrot a Twl, requiring pun­ishment in addition to full compensation COI'IlCS al the diroc1 ~pl.'f\Sl'

of th<.- innocmt. I" sum. absmt pcrfu<1 information. a stratt:gy ofpunitive d..tcl1'Crlott J't'quirl.'S that !lOme pl.'OpK, who are wrongfullya«uscd be SilcriflCN to dele. mOre cri""":"

Of course, my (l;Iim is that punishment-3s-l;uffe,.ing is unjuSl even whenthe pef"5Ol'l being punished is guilty All can ag~, howcn'T, thai it isunjust when the person being punished is innocent; and as kmg as pun­isllmt..,t institutions are in the llar>ds of human beings and not of anKe!,;,then: seems 10 be no way 10 gain tht: bent:111 of greal,,< dt~errence throughinc",ascd punishment without paying the eo>t of g..... ter suff"ring for theinno(,",,1.

My use against punishmenl-as-sufk>ring is not a ronsequffitialist one.Howe-'er, [ do not I:Ik" the vjew that pragmatic objections can be di,­missed out of hand. If a virtu~'-based or righls-based poco;it;on we~ 10 Ic.>dto hor~ou, ronseq~ when pul into pr~ctire-if, for t-,<ampl('.~tril:ting punislune!1ll0 re>htulion wen. 10 lower dl'lerl't.'flre SO far as tounlush a lQrrent "f oime thai only a mOt1' robust praC1ire of punis!mwn'rould reslra;n-thal would be. to my mind, a "tmng argumcnt against il.Soxial (()I'Ili(.'(jUet'l<:'e'> a", not Ihe foundation ()j my position, hul lhey a~nol i....I""",,' 10 it either.... Once again, nowever, r dQ nQI ,.... that thethreal en mandat"')' restitut;"" (and, in the case en criminals who poseserious ongQing th"",ts, preventive "",traint) is a negligible uet.=en.l.Or.e must als<> keep in mind that Ihe ""'... senre ~ """,'lty is. the ""'...reluctant a jury may be to imP'"*' it; thus, increases;n S<."·erity may be alleast partly offset by d...:reast'S in certainty.SO

.. ."."""" $I""",,,. </ l.iIIn1y. 1ll5, m

.. 0.... '" Ih< _ '" ,'j" III< pubIO< ....,If• ..., md """ C<Ionf'O"<'" 0111>< puI>b<_ ...... Ihr -.I"'""""" lJ> '·1 no.... 10 my miAd. _ ...... tho """'I............. '" ~I"urnot'Iw. """,I.........,..'" I"'bti< lftIb an br _ in rompl<tr Owlt ..... od<"'" ,,0/ ,....._.To br ....... """" .... _ ~ty_It """"'1t W' • fun "I""'"ir..-Olion 01""""will br.~ '" _ md mu/u.ol odi_l Tho~........... ",~;m.., pu' ..,....rnnoI,.in, on ..."", un br __.. lIft'uinrly in Ihr public in......., b'" ,Iw. .......... ;. .....-'" !lun." (In $,,,.,,... 41.io\nfJ. ~) """'" .ddl.."... ,.,....... 1<.. ~K1;ng tho ...~....lion or-.. .. "" 1l<Itqu.o..~~

I'uU~bon In<h>doo """'I"""'bon lot tho 0l0IS oil-..~""" ~rion.... In _ • ~ II io tll.tly ...., Ih< oubjr<"ti,.. .- '" "",1J"Il_I!ution witt tho oubjortiw I:>r<>ffi' 5'1nr<! f""" Ih< rn....... ... F\,,,,_tution ~-on ...., u.:- tho ~1n'Y 01 _ .... _ ....... I""'.....'Y '" thooIIrno<. koti'ohon lno:_ ;,...",~,.",lot _1m< .. rq><o1oI~.oo 1O«>llf>d'"...ilII I.I...~, .uthoriliH. ..• M_, lintt tho """I 01 .....lJ"ll ....ritulion~_ .. ~"'" """""" Ibta_ ""'-I root< "'"'~""" to om>m"l.1lol~o/fo:n<l<ro ..'iU ""'w -on _10 'VnMlp~""'~.

 

~o

_r,;~ ~-' >t-IL _ " ' 'i",It! < ~ ~-~.." B~ft' .I,um ~l·.:. Ii,. 'H.i! 5" ~ !. ~i ~f "IHct< ;~l"!;!;.~:...' ~ _~l"':II~!ft<

t. l'! .. :I ~'iPi.t'"·j; I' J,4i! ,,!;V~odo,!r,l h,';IO~i unHr [I!hi!•' ~,!h!i' !fHI~If j(m·J ' ~ <11L~~iHH~ lINi '."'l"! r"t,r it,S' .i 1~"'5~, ,_: i"· H"ijf fm~f! lHh, r iw' ,/.!H~ ,h11,1 ~.,~if "j, ..,l -1".', .1 ••" I"'"• " "I•• ,"J.>r~.~ ?E-,'. _.

3 0 •_. - '$:::r." .H1-;;" 3' Q,

a'4 ~, ;:I. S-

o , •, -­. -:; ,. ~

- ! ­~-g-:;- Q. ..

'" "" ~rq ~~;1S.,..~ ~, _.§~

l:,IiE:_.',.

" 0

Ii[i~[• •

s,;:l :::.·P( ;'3l'2.* g~ ~ <-~Q..-"'2"'" ", .. _. 0._~ ;; .. g ~ ~ lr "'. if, :; 3 ~-'1> ~:;";1 .. -. - ~ ~ is. "..~: .. 0 ­

" ii3 E.S.=33"5: o : s-i': 30Q,"~""og'=:_~ ~·~,.;;l*~olO .... 3;l:r-:-"-="'j' ~-;; ;..."Q..Ii'l'~., ,.-=: - ,,,0" "' ... -'~ -,.. a-~Q._<:-- .- _g.;tS'2,~~·&.g~ ~~~.n> --'3"'0_...

I'" ~~ ~ ~g ",-g ii g 8;9.to -""-I>Q'-C ~o 3,3";;'2" ., :l.;:; -., 3 ~._, ~ !-. ~;;. §: "0 i ~ :;-< _

~:'Io "'''l>.,'g_ •=-:::. 38"'<:'" a'l2"1'" 5' §: :=.' '" 3 ~ o'i'! ~,., -:;­"0 ~ g-1'" 3l>.!i ",-;:1.<;.0

! _~ ci ~ _.;:~g ii"3 il; §i$:... ~ i 11:!" ~..g 5:] ~. ~ 5:

!-=&"3 -<o:g-1O~~..",1r~ !i.~-''''''''~'[-:i!'..~ .... " .. ;.~,<=Q. ":1"-i;;l--"'i'<

"0 :='·i"~:;:l:~.~~lt=3~ 3-::-'0 -l,iSl9 ..,. ,,'J: i '- f- ~. -.~ q- <'--,~ .g 5.,"0 '" ,'" i" .. --~_,S"g",~:; .. c::l"'~ii!;:;C=-.~.,= .. ~'tl~E.~1ii' ii"S:=2"01l:~.-"i5.?-102"~_'!·~7"""'~3'::;9_,;,·'i'

1>] ii!~!~Jlgg'~" -' ..; :;-- §: Ii s; ~ 0 _tA"",!. Oi!'..""-'3_·-··'·3- "_-, :T .. l>. ,.a'l?! ja'" - ig-"'-g".D ~a3l~1l ~£ ~~.~.g.g·9.~1!:.~ [Ii-;'~g -,_.3Q.~"_·3 '" "1

'" " .. C _'''0 ;I:_. ~ =I<;'5'~~~~ ~:'~'g, ~ I!; ~ ~'_ii! ~ '"

i~~. ii~!i.~~~.~ ~-"00 5'~5'''3=- .. ~S ~ [ ~ '" ; ~ 3' g.~ ~

"0 0. "0 ~ "''' :or "'" '"g2;g- ~~~~:'I;"'3 ~.~, 3'" "'", .. '",

'," -';;1 ~'< _. ~. .. 0' ii!" "' ...'<Ii. .. '<",. o..5'10~:::'ii!'" :r"'g-""3.

'1-5' "-3:l,_. ~;::':. ~3-!l"':l. !i!!.O' .'0',.,g. 8" ~·ril. ~ S' 9: =>: a =!"~ Q.23~~g:o~~ i~~~iiig' or 10 '" EO:. " g 3'

H !~ -no:."'. L-ll::l[ ~'iS'g.~"2~ ~10 <;.3."" ...._.S' -"'16 .....'i'... ".

 

", ROOF.RICK T. 1.oNe

Restih'tion. when it is awarded. goes to the victim_or, in the <:ase ofmurder, 10 the victim's heirs. But WMI happens in cases whe"" lhl~ a",no heirs? Can friendless orptlans be killed with impunity'

I suggest thilt this problem can be handled by making ..... right torestitution lr.>ns(<-rabk hk<- any oth", property. In the restilution·b"so...,jsystem of medieval keland. a victim of modest means could sell his claimto romp'--nsation (or part of it) to a w..-althi..... anod m""-' powe,ful indi­VidUdl wno was in a bell"" position to extract rompcns.ltion,5.l (This isperll.aps 1>0. SO diffe~1 from hiring a lawyer Of\ a rontinsency f.....) MypfOl'O'!"d system would incorporate the idea of claims to "",tilulion astransferable property, but with the additional feat"re that such claimswould survive Ihcir ~r's death and. in the a~e of specifkheirs, become abc",d""d P"'ImyIlwilaN, joT Ittmll'SlrAding. That is. the firstper50n to claim the abarw:looed right by initiating a suit against the killer(thus mixing his labor with the lighl. as ;t we~) would lx'COme rntitltodto oomf'<'T'S"lioo; and this would creal" the "'-'lode<! ina'nth'e for pros­ecuting murder<>rs ....\'fl when the victim dies without heirs.

Franklin Miller puts forward four problem ca:;.es lor advocatcs of a~tilutioo-baiied legal system. Fin;t, he a.!:s, in the ca~ of cruelly toanimals, "to whom should re;titulion be paidr"" \Vell, it depends. De­ciding the queo;tion of animal lights Hell ""yond tM~ 01 my p~tpfOie<:t. But either animals ha,'" ri&hts or they do not. If they do, thenoompffisatioo should be made to the animals. (Su;t would presumably bebrought by !IoOmoone ...:tins un behalf of tt>e mlstreatl'd animal's intert'Sts;in this rl."Spect. animals would l'l'ljoy a l"8al Statu. similar to ttlat of youngchildrt.'f1. 'The R.>eipk'f1t of the <:ompl'nSiOtion might be a fund to pnwidecan: to theanimal. If the animai is no longer ali"e,oompensation might goto a homesteader, as in the casoe of fliendless orphans.) if they do not MV"lights, !hen ooo'P<"'""'tiol\ should be made to the anim.:!.ls· owners; ii theanimals are rightleslJ and unowned (or ownl'd only by the peJ"S(lr1 inflict­ing the cruelty), then no oolllperu!3tion is owl'd to anyQne, and the ad,while morally repellent, is perfectly legal. This admiltedly leaves no roomfor the position, held by many, that animals Mve no rights but noneth,,­less deserve legal prote<:tion; but if animals iOOa'<! have no rights, thencruelty to animal5 is a victimless crime, and punishing vkliml,'SS crime-!

., ,..... L. Ily>xl;. ~__S«Wty. Sopto. _ -... 18<11«1<-)': Unl,.....'Y <of C.I·if<lml.o r-. '\168)

.. MilI<t, 'R.:itiru_ ond~.'m

.. u.- "'" I"""'Mpbon opinsIlotc< .nd In lavor 01~ .. l<M '" "'" ""',.....wi'" .nI......?1 .", In<Iin<d '" ....-. oIontl "'" loIIowing 11.- In !he~ oI.ni",," "';'h...hom"""" """P"',1lon .. p<>OOibI<. "-tho <hoi<f--.«>ope.--.tioo ."d rompui>ioo• -OWy • ..--niniY'd _.tht-tt 10 , ....... an..:;,." .,......!<'<Inn.. ;n "'hi<h "'-';"",1,row>' .. <OnVft>.Onon po.......... and IhIo proNbIy Ii<oni<f Ih<"'_ It> th<dl <>I ..-ripl... oonoi>I>ent ith Ih< ijmllohono "" Ih<-ir c.pacily thot justify 00CI.lu. form> f'I ""_.......... "Tho "' ' <>I _ ,.h.. ""y <I<p<nd on ..... <klv<.. 01 ""'1"""'''''' ond """m...._ thol • poooIble. Anim.olo fu< ...hom~..." bnlt ...,,,,~.- I..... 1o..."..;No ylIOOOfdingfy be lad<inl! ;n np.,"..,,;my(~ ....... """""""" 1'" OlIr I""';,,S __.......rigt.-...L..-.;I~~~-""".t«<iVt _.rd "'"'-I·

 

is a dcar C,l<;(' of a boundary·violatioo (i.~., a lresp"~ 00 one rights·""lderthat is not a I'l'Sponsc to that rights-holder's tre;pass on another rights­holder) and thus runs afoul of the prohibitioo On using ronver.;;llionp"rtnCrs as mere "",ans.

Miller's se«md problem case is tMt of harm to public institutions, HTh,c

rights 0/ privat~ persons are not nt-ecssarily violated by instat\Ce5 ofsuch corKluet:" SO who is entitkd 10 bring suit? Here [ sugg""t thaiharms to large, dispersed groups could be handled by da....actioo suirs,We have a preced....t in ancient Athenian law. which, while nol exclu­sively re;litution-~,did lreat crim"" as torts to the extent that all legal"".ions againsllawbreakers were initiatl'd and ronductl'd by individualsrath,... than public prosecutor>. The clos<!$t Athms came to a crimeltorldistinclion W"l; lhe difl""""""e tJ",tween bringing a taW5uit on one's ownbehalf, to rectif~- a private wrong.. and bringing a laW5uit on b<.-half of thewider public of which one is a member, to rectify a wrong aff«ling thecommunity as a whole" If possible, compen""tion :;hOllld be paid to allthe m~mbers of tho.- affected group. When this is not practic.1ble (if, forexample, lhe group's nu.>mbers cannot be easily identified), !heir righltocompen<;ationcan be regarded as an abandool'd right thai has~ home­steaded by the pers<m bringing suit." A class-action Suit could also bebrought 10 msure prevenlive dctenlion, if warranted,

Miller's Ihird problem caS<' is lha. of altempts;

Allemptt."<i crimes may not cause any harm to particular indi,-iduals.fur example, a tem)rist is apprehended planting a bomb in the men'smom of an office building, Wh~ individual rights has the terrorislvioLlled? Re!;lituliQn to the Qwnoer of the building "",rdy for trespasswould be far oul of p"'f"'rlion to th" gravity of the act.'"

But Ihis case too could be handled by a daS-S-l.dion suit. Endangt...ing thepublic allarge is a ,-iolation of Ihe rights of those pt'rsottS SO endangt,"-"li.

.. Mil..... -Il<oll'u""" ..... ~,.-~."" Tho d_",," in .n<i<:o-o' "''''''''~ pm·....nd pul>li< ,ui <k>oer "" INI

bt:!Wftnord....'Y.nd d" ",,", law...l," ,lion -...... <I,II • ...t <tim "'*-'11,~n with. "'", "" ""bh< p"-",,IU<. Tho Su,," t.,,,,,.., n:>gni~;of .nyCtima mUldot.......... ..,.,.,..;tt<d ....... II><Jf: ,two, • '" Ny. 5l.>'" did"'" J"<'OC'<U" h 011..-- """" com......,..)y f<'gOfdo,J .. comml_ .go It., .......munll)' bu, ""Iy for oIIonc<o o~ino' .... ""'....1 odnUni>l'.tiI>n. ...... os _ or~,~ "'" puI>Iic -..y Until 5<>1<0>', doy. p~tioo ...... allow«! only '" ,hoP<'f"'l1l1ut<d or .... """ c.l1<in; .-Solon-. t<funna, ",yo,l"..., ...Iw> ....w-,..d «JuIdbring.n Ind;"....,.,' ~I..., .oother, ... Any ............. em.... <t>uId brintI. pubti<""""'" bul 0 p.-h'o..-. had '" "" bn>ugN by "'" po-tWf'l dlroctly in.......... or ...by !'lis or "'" ltopI p-onlW>. (f"""",,- M.tJ<.- of 1Irn>tJN, 19-1S)

.. Tho; t..~ ..."" nnt."" this comfl""S'_ «><lid. in 1Urn. M .... obi<'<' oi •</ , lilt tt.onspiteo """ "ieuo.........y oi i<k-nIif)'i"6 or>:! ~Iing ....&"",p oll.obi< b... IS"""""· IA row' mW" ...., ""p"'" 'ho poaoObility '" _ b<ingw~~ 10 com_I< a group ...Ithout idffitil)'in~ I..........bt>tf.)

Mil"". "Re;tl""""" • ...t 1'uni$Iunml:~.

 

"" RQVEIOC" T. LONG

even if lW) ac:lual injury n.sults. 0n<'e ag~in, uru<'S8 some practicabk! wayof oompcnsaling the public <;;In be found, compensation would go to theperson !l<.>Jne5leadin8 the Maband.,...M" right 10 oompens.alion by bring­ing suil. The ""me reply can "" giH'll k> Miller's fourth case, thaI 01re.:kk.'S/l driving thaI endangers the public. (Similarly, if I subjoocl you to ag;>me of Russian mulct«: r am violating your rights.) Hl-n<:e. I cannotag~with hiscondusion t!wt MUll we dono! wish to give lip ~lIchnimes.

then w.. cannot a«l'pt a "'lradigm ofpu~ I'l"SlihJlioo.N60 In short none ofthe pragm.;:olk objections to a purdy re;htution-basl.-d system Sl.-em to meserious enough 10 justify "" ..>turning lhe monl case against punishment­M-Sulf~ing that is mandat<.'<1 by the principle 01 respect for !X>f'50AS.

V. PltOSrECflVB RESI'ONSI81UTY "ND TliE LAw

I have thus far di$<:tWed the role of ",t"",pective I'l.'5port:libility in aregal system. What abo\ll prospective re;ponsibility! We often hear la­ments over the decline of personal responsibility. ronjoincd wilh calls forpemmenllol aelion. fur l:>l~mple,on lhe Iefl, it is sometimes said thaieamomic advanco:ment for the poor is the re;ponsibility of those morefortunate, who a«ordingly should be legally <equi.w, OT ~t least ~'flOOUr·

aged, to dOl\llle their time and mone)' to helping those who an: lesswell...tf-while on the righi, it is §Omelimes .... id thai economic self·itdvancernent is. on the contrary, primarily the responsibility of the poor~mSoelves.and hence thilt government welf~re programs should oc "'....tailed o. climinat~'<i. What are we 10 m~ke of such claims?

Wdl.let uS take the two specific claims I mentioned-lhil! the welfareof lhe poor is lhe responsibility of lhe more afnUC'flt, and thai the welfareof lhe poor is lheir own responsibility-and see whal implications either,if true, might ha"e /or legal policy.

SUPP'J6" lhat the poor are (prospectively) responsible for their ownewnomic welfare. Since this responsibility is a prospective 01"1(', it enlailsboth the aUI/rQrily and lhe ob/igalicn of the poor 10 be so:if..;lepl.'fl<:knt_Il\SQf~r as the p<)Or tu.Vl' the authority 10 be ,,,,If..:l~'l''''''knl,·' they a.....entitled to legal pmto.."Clion of lhe authorily; bUI this is presumably be­cauSOl' ""l' oould not interfere with that authority w;thQut violating prin­ciple (2), But what of the obligation-is it ""Iomo.ble?

When Ihis claim is invoked by opponents of ""ellare policies, it .....msas though they are saying that lhe govemm""l should make sure thatpoor people meet this """J>O'1Sibility, nthe1-lhan boeing allowed to escape;1 by gelling gl)'(emml.'fll handouts. In foct. however. this Cannot be whatis meant; for those who make this claim do not, in lOCi, I.vo. roforeingthis responsibility_ For e"",mple, if a poor perwn is dl'flied public assis-

.. Ibi<lv JKI.

., ". I 1m~ ..... ""'" ".utho>ri'y: "...."'.n ..."" "'" .n'horil)' It> do X_, _"";!y ""_WIg ..... ,"'horily not 10 do X.

 

TIiE IRREUVANCE OF RESI'Ot'>'SI6IuTY

la"""", bUI flIlds privat" charities willing to subsidile her iR5tead, OPI"'"rents of wellare programs will not generally COIn for the slate tofiJ.bid herto acreptlhi. private assi5tance. They may belie,'" Ihat it would be betltrfor he. to shoulder herown burden~ rather than becoming dependenl oncharity, SO tlK>y do belie.,.e tMt her welfare L~ her own prospecti.,.e "-~

sponsibHity. morally spo'al<ing; but they dearly do nol regard thili I'l'\Ipot>­sibility as pmperly ""forceable, or else they would be set'l<ing 10 oullawprivate welfa", programs, "'" jusl public 0""".

Ifp~ to explain the difference. they will prob.lbly point to the facttMt contributiom; to private charity are voluntary. while public welfa",programs are funded byrornpul5ory LIulion-so Iheir real objection is totrearing the taxpayers as mere means to the ends of lhe well.", reeipi",,".a reason that has nothing to do with welfare recipients' alleged prospoc­Ii.,.e responsibility for Iheir Own welfare.

My point is this: When opponents of welfare programs ad"ocate~in the law If) make poor people Mresponsibk'" for Iheir own welf."" itmay sound as though they aJ1,' comrnill~'<I1O Ihe position that pl'Ol'lpectiveresponsibility is legally relevant. As I ha,-c tried 10 show. however, acloser examination of their position sh0W5 it 10 carry no such commitment.

Consider now lhe contrary proposilion, that the economic welfare ofthe poor is Ihe reo<ponsibility of the rkh(t't). Should Ihis obligalion 10 thepoor be legally enlorceable? This d~"ends on the gl'Qunds of the obl;ga­tilm. SupP'l'l" the argumenl is simply that Ihe rich M"" a duty of cmn­passion to Ihe poor, If lhe rich then refrain fl'Qm fulfilling Ihat duty, theymay be behaving reprehensibly, ar><! may accordingly be subjer;:tlo moralcoru:lemn.tion .r><! various sorts of nonooercive SQciaI ~ru:tioM; but by~ly lail;ng 10 help tm.· poor they haw not invaded the poor's hound­aries, and thus m.y not be roer«:d consistently with principle (2). As Ihave argued elsewhere." posiri"e rights arc inoonsi.tenl w;lh (2) u,,/essthoeie p""'ilive righ15 can be plausibly interpreled as necessary lor 11M:implemenlalion of Ihe more basic negal;ve right not to be lrealed as DmeJ1,' means.

1/, instead, the case for the obligalion ;s Ihat Ihe more affluent ow(' theirposition to the,r r:IJ'IDit~li<m of Ihe poor. lhen their 5latuS conslitUI~'S 8wrongful invasion of lhe poor's houndaries, and principle (2) tl1us Ii­ct.'l'ISl:S compulsory fl;':$tilulion to I~ poor. In Ihal case, lhe fl;':$p<>nsibilityto ....lp the poor is enforceable, bUI only because it;'; a special case of (2);the poor's p""';ti,"e righl 10 8!i!lislance is deri.,..",",:, from and parasitic onthe negali'"e right not 10 be e:<ploited.O> Certainly lhe responsibilily tores~1 people's boundaries is enforceable; thai is just whal (2) ~ys.

Yet even here, il is not preci5ely D' a responsibility that Ihis responsi­bility is ffiforceablc. Suppose Scrooge OW"" his w,,"llh to unjust e"ploi·

..~ • Abon"",-•

... For Iht~ of Iht ,-.~ I dQ .... <.l\ank good.......'! NY<' '" __mine "'Nt r--Iy ..p.....1"'" "'........ m'" ..'h<lh<r ..."")" "'""" of ""pWt.__."''''' • ....,..•.,.. of prindpl< (~).

 

142 ROOf.RIC~ T liJNC

tation of C"-dtl:llil. 50 thaI he owes Cratcl1i! ComprosatiOTl. Yct supposefurther ,hilt Scroos<' is CUl1"ftltJy sroile Or in a roma, and is UJ1ablc tolIl\de",land or act on this obligation. In that case, compensating C.alchitis ""I~·spros~li".. rrspon$iltility. slriclly s~al:ing; for our pnr• .-li".. respoosibilitiee a", ~ things WI' can be held relfQSpediwlyresponsible fur failing 10 do, aoo Scrooge is not a responsible agent. Hemay now bear lhe rctrll&pt'ctiv<'l't'SpOI>Sibility for not <Xlmpo..'I\S,lling C.atdli!Nrl;"'. whro he was still a responsible agoml; but h.. l\as no prosp.-'droer<$ponsibility now (for he will have no rel""'J"X'tive responsibility to­morrow for his failure 10 act today). Yd Scrooges lack of pr05pl.'Ctivcn'SponsibHity IQward Cratchil dOO'S no! """,n thai a court cannot legili­mately demand a transfer IoCraldul Qf SQme 01 Scrooge'Sa~s; ifCrsteWlis legally entitled 10 restitution from xroot....., Sc:rooge's mental 51:11.. isirrelevant. Pmspecti\'e re!iponsibility is simply not the law'. ooncem.

VI, uCtM"ION.

I MV" said lhal both retl'll6p!.'Clive and prospediw responsibility lieoutside the Iegitimat~6OOp(' of the law. n.e~ a~ a fl'W cases, howC"'cr, inwhi<:h il d.- seem 10 m~ that legal inslitutions ~OIJld take rognizance enisis..,," of monl """ponsibilily, None of these I!l«'I"plions. how""·..... ,.,.ri·ously aff.ds I.... <'enlral poinl of my argument

The firsl e~a.'Ption detives from principle (2)'s pl'Qvision t!\at one'sresponse to a wrongful boundary_invasion must not be disproportionateto the seriousnt5/; of t.... in''lIsion. This proportionality rt><tuiremffit plaC\'5• ~lriction 0fI what we may do in def~ of OIJr rights. I cannot blowyou away with my bal.ooka even if t!\at is the only way 10 pre"ent youfrom planting an unwanted kiss 0fI my che<-k; nor. if you swallow mydiamond ring.. i.~ it permissible for me k} tip YUUt stomach 0P'o'" (thuskilling yuu) in ordet 10 fl."lrieve it" But althOtlgh principl~ (2) lin.-nses lhe~ of apP"'Priate k>mo again.1 inn<>t<-nl threal.,'" weh u"" of fom' doel>_m a more ..".iou. mallet, rnonlly. !han a like u... en force againsllhl'l'ats who ate not illJ1o/,lCelll; lhal is, lhe ca>oe k>r using force againsl

.. The p,..... Iio".lily ~i.......... <10<0 no< .....n ...., •~ m.... ""'...... iIIIlK1 •S-"'lo'Y tt..n ...., _._ by 'hoe~ -.,.....,

I'~ b<"~ ...., I<illi"ll <on "",,'''' to. ••_ ,....... """"""'" OJ ...~ ,"'-'"........ 0/ _til. Bu' out "'""""'" It wi'"~ bty in """"oJ _, "'"pi..".,. ..tity in phyMal -= '" doim ,..., ..~ killintt; <>on II< .......U)'•• ..".,., <In/y It>. ,......, 01 <leoti> It to....",... __~•• """"" ,lid~~, .. """.1 .ytntnohy ,j;ff~u1' ~,"""'.. ",ill> Iprin<ipl<' (2)1· \~·All<><I....·III7\

.. And.rguably.opinol. """""'" 1Iti<-Ido .. w<l. (For...., d....n<tim t..l..'-' innQ<mttil...... M>d innocft>l >hie-kh.. _ N",,",'" .l.....-1ijI; Slot<. """ w..,o;.. )4...)5,111 1..,.., • b.>l»'to ..y __ ..-.l _ 8" .1...- 1"" ",;11> • .....-. "" tho, 1"" c.onnol d<-fft>d 1""""""_, ;,,;.,rit13 ,.. 1<il1in3 til. .....,.. a"""", '" , In ;,woding ,.....~ry I ""'..,~ tho bobr into you. boundory. ond y"" ill l""" ~to~; .... lnv""'-'" nItil. boby'.1>oundMy It .... t.... bu, to"....,-.

 

THE IRRELEVA.-.a: Of RESf'O:-JSIBIUTr '"ilUlocrnt th...ats, though it can often be mad".....HI always be '11.,,",, difficultto make, all "Ise being ~"'Iual. than th" caSt' for using fon:e against a"""innocent threat. "The use of force is an evil, and tl'."re is al ....ays apresumplion against resort to it. Ihough Ihis p,,-'Sumption can oft~.,. bedcleat~'(i; forre against the innOQ-nt is (ag,,;n, all else being equal) a gn'at"revil than force against the nonilUlOCt--nt. and thus the prl'Sumption thatmust be o""reome is g...at"r."" It is likely. then, that II"'.......HI be ca"", inwhich it is the aggressor's ....ponsibility or LIck ()/' it that makes thediff,,11'f!<'C bet",,,,," a de!t'fISi,-e resl""'""'S be;ng legitimate or illegitimat",and in such cases ,,-'Sponsibility does hem"", legally relevanl.

"The second t"~e<cption is IhM there a... arguably caSt'S in which whetheran .>ction is a boundary·invasion or oot depends on wlwlh... the agent isrl'Sponsiblc or not.'" Suppose that C....... r is fleeing from the murderousBrutus, only to find his path of l'SCape blocked by Cassius. If Cassius isdeliberately cutting off Ca...... r·s only way QUt, then he is an acmmp1ie<c inBrutus's attack; his blocking the exit is som~'1hing that is coordinated ....iththe attack and helping it sucn>ed, and thus is a boundary-invasion."

But now suppose Cassius is no part of the assassination plot, but sim­ply happens 10 be passing through the door when Ca"""r I\'ac"'-'s ii,causing Ca......r to pau"" long enough for Brut"", to reach him. Physicallythis situalion may appear indistinguishable from the first; bul Cassius'silUl<>eerlC<!, a,>d the lack of coordination betw~..,n his act;ons and those ofBrutus. seem to make his act no longer a boundary·in,'asion. After all. hehad e"ery right to walk through the door when he did. In this casc. then.n'Sp01lsibility beromes I<'gally rel"vanl, becausc tl'." pn.....'11oC" Or at&'f\reof rl'Sponsibility changl'S the nature of lhe act." (Not<·, hoWI...·~.,.. that thisexception does not affl.'Ct the vast majority of cases ill ....hich an action canbe detcrmi",-'(i to be or not be a boundary-invasion irl\"Speclive of theagmt's mental slatt'S.)

The third e~ception is thai persons who (temporarily or penn"""ntly)lack the capacily for responsible choice (e.g.. young child""" comatosepatients, and th" mmtally ill) an! t...ated differently in the law. in thatother prop!" an! allow<'(i to m.,kc d<ocisions for them. How is this pro,'i·sion to be squal'l'<! wilh my <,<,.Iier n;eclion of paternalism?

.. UIo.e"·",,,. I om incline.! '" thin\., lor ,......m<' "'""'" IN, ,ho .... lor~ 'SOi".,if>noce<>' >lliftd, r '''''~...ttr _leo l!w> ,hou.. lor~ ,,&,inoI i........,." oil............. "'".. t... "" _ otrinr;otn' p""umption"'m~ ~I<>ot~ 0/"«>1.."".1dOI'ull"- if> w.uf 00 -. if> "'y jud~"""'t <un>< ..Y' ""'. to~ """" 0 .....

"n... following l}'f'< 0/ <Umpl< WM _t<d to me by o",';d Iloonin-\oil,.. I.......her i, i> 000. bou...t07,,·w600 will <Iepen<l on wl>ether 1l<ulU>.t><Ic.u, ....

';5'" m.",..,ting e-, .. on ",,,,,,,,",,,,, 'h....' b, R<>nwn h<o<'<!<:>n'l... ~" Ju, " .. m.o~ " ...oo.r ,,'_It i> _ e-",,',~~,~, ..lh<t than .....

<'IlOfdi lion o/hio arnon ,,'i'" Ilnl....·.. "", .. doing t!I< ""I w<>rt. SuPP'*' c....""~w,llo.<d "''''''.Y1 <1000 j""""""ly. bu, d;d '" \"'.,...... Ilnl,,,,, ~ !Um '" ('<WnO

"''''''5''''' I"'rtino ti (wi_' ,.11;"8!Um why); "".u~Cowi ~ _ '-no,..... Ju hod I"'mc;p..t<d in --""lion plolltl""'ti"""lIy. bu' _ "'"J'OI'dibIl' In lheo<.~ <'IlOfdiN'ion wi'" 8nJ,,,,, """'" <n<>Ugh 'o<hont!< .... olgnifio..... 01C-O".·, ....<!<>pi -..c. 0/ ~li'Y'

 

I would suggl."Stthat ...!\at licenses p~tem~lis~c treatment QI children isnot till: mere f;>et that children /Jtl.qil from such lre3lmenl (for foolishadullS mighl oc'fldit from jXI1t:rnalistic lre3lm~'flt as well). Rather, lhecrocial P'Jint is that children lack IIIl: a"..aly t<) govern their li,·es byn:ason (while foolish aduhs may~ that capa.<ity wen if they do 1\(>1excrci!e ill, Just as w~ are iu:<tifted in making medical decisions for m­matO!<: jXIlients if w~ I\:lvc good gRlunds for lhinking they ",,,uld consent10 cerl~in kinds of lrealmenl if they were in possession 01 their lacuhk'S(5<) lhal, ralht.'!" than overriding !ht.';r will, we ~el ~s ugmls lor lh~'IlI be­ou~ they ",nnot cun'''''tly e~pre;s their will), SO too we m~y kgili­maldy ael as agffilS fOf I't'ThOIIS whooo;e capacities for ,al;o"al decision­making are nol complNdy blockd (as they al\' in a romal~ paliCfll) bulSimply di",i!f;WJ. through intOJ<ication. mt'fllal ill"I'SS. or. in lhe Case ofchildrro.. incomplete maluration, A child's guardian is his ugml. lreah"gthe child as the child would w~nt (so faT as c~n be determined) to betrealt-d if his capaci~t'Swere ulldiminished,"l Th..... wl\:lt justifies pale,..""Iism is TIOI benefil but rounterfa<:Iu~1COrtSI'flI."

Hene.:. one may makt: decisions for another per,;oo if that 1't'1"SO"'scapacity f," responsible choice is impaired, S;"ce a p"l"SOn'S right to aelas an agenl ~pends 0" the a~ of re5poosibilily i" the principal.n.'Sponsibilily is relevant to the legal question of what righls a p"1"SO"has.

The fourth exception involves contractual obligation, Contract L~w mighls<->em n" utler contradiction to my thesis, for l'flt<"l"ing into a cootract5<.'l'mS to invol\'e taking on a 1eg.~lly enfol'\CWble prospecti"e =ponsibH­icy. which is imp06Sible if. as I claim. p"""pe<:tive responsibility is not theronct.'TTl of the law. "'"I think this objection coofuses moral responsibilitywith legal obligation. SuPJXl6C I g;"~ you twmly dollars. On the cooditionthat you mow my law" (alld you aettpt it On that undt'fStanding.). I hav~transferred my title to the tw""ly dollaTll cooditiQr\illly: that is. the mont')"i. yours only on the condition that you mow my lawn. If lht' conditionfails 10 be met, title 10 the money l'C'\'erts to me. ~nd }'OU are wilhin myboundary un~1 you ,'",ate it by returning the money (plus damaS"" forthe inconvenience you have caused me). Thus, we have a case for conlract

,.

 

THE IRRELEVANCE OF RESI'O~~5IlJTY '"enlQr<:ementtlm makes no refel\.'f\(e to l'l'SponsilJilil)',lJul only to tile factof a lJoundary·in\'asion.72

Wl\l.'", n.'SpOTlsilJilily does 1Jerol1l(' relevant. however, is in determiningthe amlinrna' of ag<.'flts 10 entcr into contracts ;n the first place. If myrational capacitie; are diminished, SO that J. as it wert'. am unqualified to;><:1 as my OW" agent, thl'fll am not comp<.1"nt to transfer o\-e:r to you mytitle to the twenty dollars in the first place. Thus, a court, in det"nnlningwhether a boundary-invasion has tak<'n place, will have to take aerountof whetll•.,. the transfer of title was StJo:essful, which will, in tum, SOl'n<-­

times d"p<.....d on t'Stablishing ,,-hetner 0I\C (or both) of tne parties in­volved is a responsible agent. This is then a variant of my §OO)I'Id e>:ample,in Ihal while the law is C<)Il('emro with boundary-invasions rather Ihanwilh!he mental states of the persons involv<xt, there are occasional casesin which the menul states make a diffel'l'fl(c 10 wht1ht.,. something is aboundary·invasion o' not.

I have listed lou. kinds of caSE"! in which the Jaw may legitimatelyrooc.;,m itself with ql>t.'Stions of responsibility; no dQlJbt the... are more,The legal irrelevance of n-sponsibilily is Ihus 1>01 romplete. Nev<!l'thl'JCS5,the kinds of examples I have given are fairly peripheral 10 the ('CfItralca>e5 where responsibility has trnditiooally bl-en thought to be lhe ron·cern of law. H"""" these eXCl'J'lions do not seriously affOO my mainthesis

VII, CONUUSIO,.

The determination of n.'Sponsibihty is widely rcgar<k'd as 0I\C of the('CfItral tasks of any legal s)'5tt"TTI. But IIw life appropriate to a I'3tiona~

political animal is one thatlnw,ke; renouncing the I1S'l' of IQm' eJ«:ePI;n~ 10 th,' aggrt'SSive fQrre of others. Hence, the presence or absenceof responsibility Ofl the part of the wrongd"". ma~ no differetlOl' to thedeg"'" of force that may legitimately be used itl rt'Sponse to her; no morelorce may be uS<'<!. against a rt"SJ'OIISible aggressor than againsl a nom....sponsible one, since Qflly agg...ssion li<X'flS($ n.1alialory force. and theresponsible agg~r oommits no greater amount of aggJ'l.':5S,ion than thenonrl.'Sponsible one. If my argument ;s oo."",t, then all legal practi«'!o;ml"JO'ing greater costs on responsible wrongdQCrs than OIl nOl\resp0n5i­ble OOL"5 SUtld condemne<! as WljUSt.

" "'" .n .rgurnom ...., ..,fo«ing ,.... """,_~ ..-n n:quirill;\ you l<> P"~ rn<,<all>tr ...... ""luirill;\ you l<> ....... !he !own. _ 1tM1d~ It 110"""', -C"""O<t R<-t<!;"" andI....~R;~"',; 5«itI"'~.,.j f'IlIi<y~,...,. I {Autumn '9fI6~ 1!ll>-\lS