IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v15y2016i1p92-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discretion and domination in criminal procedure

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent Chiao

    (University of Toronto, Canada)

Abstract

Philip Pettit’s conception of freedom as nondomination is modally robust in that it requires not simply reducing the probability of uncontrolled interference by others but entirely eliminating that possibility. In this article, I consider whether freedom as nondomination provides an attractive analysis of official discretion, particularly in the context of the criminal law, an area of recurring interest for Pettit. I argue that not only does the modally robust character of freedom as nondomination have some rather unattractive implications in the criminal law, but that it sits poorly with Pettit’s more general ambitions to provide a consequentialist framework for the evaluation of social institutions. Drawing on recent work by Niko Kolodny, I develop an ‘anti-deference’ interpretation of nondomination and contrast it to Pettit’s modally robust conception.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent Chiao, 2016. "Discretion and domination in criminal procedure," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 15(1), pages 92-110, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:15:y:2016:i:1:p:92-110
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X15599104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X15599104
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X15599104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. List, Christian, 2004. "The Impossibility Of A Paretian Republican? Some Comments On Pettit And Sen," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 65-87, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Keith L. Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2022. "The effect of unconditional preferences on Sen’s paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 427-447, October.
    2. Hallvard Sandven, 2020. "Systemic domination, social institutions and the coalition problem," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(4), pages 382-402, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:15:y:2016:i:1:p:92-110. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.