Grading Arson |
| |
Authors: | Michael T Cahill |
| |
Institution: | (1) Brooklyn Law School, 250 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Criminalizing arson is both easy and hard. On the substantive merits, the conduct of damaging property by fire uncontroversially
warrants criminal sanction. Indeed, punishment for such conduct is overdetermined, as the conduct threatens multiple harms
of concern to the criminal law: both damage to property and injury to people. Yet the same multiplicity of harms or threats
that makes it easy to criminalize “arson” (in the sense of deciding to proscribe the underlying behavior) also makes it hard
to criminalize “arson” (in the sense of formulating the offense(s) that will address that behavior). This article asks whether
adopting one or more arson offenses is the best way for criminal law to address the conduct in question, or whether that conduct
is more properly conceptualized, criminalized, and punished as multiple distinct offenses.
|
| |
Keywords: | Arson Criminal codes Endangerment Grading of offenses Mischief Property damage Special part |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|