Michelle Dempsey

This essay is a contribution to a symposium on Adam Kolber’s Punishment for the Greater Good. As the title suggests, the essay focuses on the issues of punishment and regret. Its main thrust is a critique of Kolber’s failure to acknowledge the salience of retrospective normativity. This failure divorces Kolber’s attempt to justify punishment from our actual current carceral practices, which are fundamentally backward-looking responses to past (actual or supposed) wronging. It also limits Kolber’s ability to account for the normative reasons we have to regret these practices: mistaking regret as solely a matter of feeling and human psychology, while ignoring its backward-looking normative force.

According to Jeff McMahan, a person is liable to be killed in self-defense if the person has acted in such a way that to kill him would neither wrong him nor violate his rights. This account of self-defense has spawned something of a cottage industry in the philosophical literature of such “liability-based accounts.” Liability-based accounts of self-defense, however, are deficient for two reasons. First, they fail to account for the moral residue that remains in the wake of the justified killing of another human being. Second, they are incapable of explaining cases in which people rationally opt not to kill in cases of justified self-defense. As an alternative, the chapter offers a reasons-based account of self-defense and demonstrates its capacity both to avoid counterintuitive views regarding the moral position of those who kill in self-defense and to explain a wider range of salient considerations regarding the morality of self-defense.

This article is a contribution to a symposium on Kit Wellman’s intriguing monograph, Rights Forfeiture and Punishment. Primarily, the article grapples with Wellman’s claims regarding the moral permissibility of sadistic punishment. The metaphor of “philosophical languages” is employed throughout, to compare Wellman’s use of rights-forfeiture discourse to an approach that is grounded in practical-reasons discourse. This study in philosophical translation allows us to reassess and critique Wellman’s conclusions regarding the moral permissibility of sadistic punishment. On one level, the article is an attempt to engage with Wellman’s book and rights-forfeiture based arguments on, and in, their own terms. Yet, the article is also an attempt to explain and defend a practical-reasons based approach to appraising moral permissibility. If the article succeeds, it both pays tribute to Wellman’s masterful rights-forfeiture arguments, while making the case that practical-reason arguments illuminate a wider range of salient considerations that we should wish to keep in view when considering the moral permissibility of sadistic punishments.

This chapter examines applied ethics regarding prostitution and criminalization. It proceeds in three parts. Part one examines different ways of defining prostitution, part two reviews five objections to prostitution that have framed standard debates regarding criminalization, and part three examines issues that have arisen in ethical debates regarding prostitution and criminalization in recent decades. Along the way, the chapter illustrates the extent to which debates in applied ethics regarding the criminalization of prostitution depend in large part on what prostitution is like in a given social context. Further, the chapter emphasizes that satisfactory answers to this question depend not only on empirical evidence but on ethical disagreements regarding underlying concepts such as choice, freedom, and consent.

This article explores some conceptual issues regarding criminalization at the domestic and international levels. It attempts to explain what it means to say that a particular kind of conduct has been criminalized, and considers how the processes of criminalization differ in domestic and international law. In unpacking these issues, the article takes the examples of rape and sex trafficking in domestic and international legal systems, explores whether these offenses are criminalized more broadly in international criminal law as compared to domestic criminal law, and briefly outlines possible explanations for this disparity.

I am grateful to Criminal Law & Philosophy for organizing this symposium on my book, Prosecuting Domestic Violence: A Philosophical Analysis (OUP 2009)—and am especially indebted to Professors Kinports and Cowan for their careful, generous, and challenging engagements with my arguments. I am relieved to find that Professors Kinports and Cowan are mostly positive in their evaluation of the book’s merits and delighted to find their critical reflections have offered me the opportunity to think more deeply about the project I undertook in the book.I found much with which to agree in both commentaries. Indeed, I will have little to offer in response to Professor Kinports’ article until the end of my own comments here, except to note that I found her critique of prosecutors-as-community-representatives as illuminating as it was disheartening. Perhaps one way to increase the likelihood that prosecutors might someday act as genuine representatives of their communities (in whole or in part) wou..

In whose voice does the criminal law speak, and why does it matter? Miriam Gur-Arye argues that the answer to the first question depends on the kind of duty violated by the crime at issue. In some cases (say, election fraud or tax evasion), the criminal law speaks in the voice of the polity—but in other cases (say, murder or rape), it speaks in the voice of human beings. Or so argues Gur-Ayre. Not surprisingly, perhaps, a lot depends on what one means by the voice of the criminal law. In this paper, I defend two related arguments. First, the criminal law typically claims to speak in the voice of the polity, even if, in practice, it often fails to do so. Second, where the criminal law does speak in the voice of the polity, its doing so can contribute to its own justification.

This chapter examines three approaches to applied political and legal philosophy: Standard activism is primarily addressed to other philosophers, adopts an indirect and coincidental role in creating change, and counts articulating sound arguments as success. Extreme activism, in contrast, is a form of applied philosophy directly addressed to policy-makers, with the goal of bringing about a particular outcome, and measures success in terms of whether it makes a direct causal contribution to that goal. Finally, conceptual activism (like standard activism), primarily targets an audience of fellow philosophers, bears a distant, non-direct, relation to a desired outcome, and counts success in terms of whether it encourages a particular understanding and adoption of the concepts under examination.

This article examines the normative force of consent, explaining how consent works its “moral magic” in transforming the moral quality of conduct that would otherwise constitute a wrong against the consenting person. Dempsey offers an original account of the normative force of consent, according to which consent (when valid) creates an exclusionary permission. When this permission is taken up, the moral quality of the consented-to conduct is transformed, such that it no longer constitutes a wrong against the consenting person. Building on this account of how consent works, Dempsey identifies two sets of cases in which consent fails to transform the moral quality of one’s conduct: cases in which one is consent-insensitive to the rational force of another’s consent, and cases in which one acts for sadistic reasons.