Arson and the Special Part

Criminal Law and Philosophy 3 (1):97-101 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This commentary on Michael Cahill’s Grading Arson argues that Cahill’s analysis inevitably leads to three possible conclusions. First, arson does not belong in criminal codes. Second, crimes of manner do not belong in criminal codes. And, third, the special part needs serious reconsideration. Although Cahill is reticent to draw any of these conclusions, this commentary urges Cahill to embrace all three

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,518

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Grading Arson.Michael T. Cahill - 2009 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 3 (1):79-95.
Arson, Threats of Arson, and Incivility in Early Modern England.Bernard Capp - 2000 - In Peter Burke & Brian Harrison (eds.), Civil Histories: Essays Presented to Sir Keith Thomas. Oxford University Press. pp. 197--213.
They can’t do nothin’ to us today.Kevin McDonald - 2012 - Thesis Eleven 109 (1):17-23.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-10

Downloads
35 (#653,582)

6 months
7 (#740,041)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Grading Arson.Michael T. Cahill - 2009 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 3 (1):79-95.

Add more references