Too Objective for Culpability?

Abstract To help explain in a principled way why criminal law doctrine tends to abstract away from motives and other individualized circumstances, I have defended an insufficient regard theory of culpability that is more objective certain respects than views the same camp. This has led Alec Walen object my view too be account better understood as wrongs. challenge important not least because it requires getting clearer about what wrongness are roles they play on legal moralist picture law. Here, argue Walen’s objection mistaken. Once we get distinguishes culpability, becomes clear best seen culpability. so even though calculates degrees views. Besides just defending objection, this paper aims make positive contribution by developing sophisticated version Manifestation Account proposed earlier. do this, focus main area where comes apart – namely, excuse cases. My earlier implausible or at limited nothing distinctive say how determine excused misconduct. Accordingly, would be, if outright false, incompatible with orthodox theory, which takes excuses accept wrongdoing but deny solve problem enhance Account’s explanatory value, show extend for wrongs putatively excusing condition play. only fills gap further benefit providing unified reasons-based categories misconduct law, shows separates both justification cases The hope effort will shed light distinct theories provide understanding when justifications issue, also involved.