Faith in the power and righteousness of retribution has taken over the American criminal justice system. Approaching punishment and responsibility from a philosophical perspective, Erin Kelly challenges the moralism behind harsh treatment of criminal offenders and calls into question our society’s commitment to mass incarceration. The Limits of Blame takes issue with a criminal justice system that aligns legal criteria of guilt with moral criteria of blameworthiness. Many incarcerated people do not meet the criteria of blameworthiness, even when they are guilty of crimes. Kelly underscores the problems of exaggerating what criminal guilt indicates, particularly when it is tied to the illusion that we know how long and in what ways criminals should suffer. Our practice of assigning blame has gone beyond a pragmatic need for protection and a moral need to repudiate harmful acts publicly. It represents a desire for retribution that normalizes excessive punishment. Appreciating the limits of moral blame critically undermines a commonplace rationale for long and brutal punishment practices. Kelly proposes that we abandon our culture of blame and aim at reducing serious crime rather than imposing retribution. Were we to refocus our perspective to fit the relevant moral circumstances and legal criteria, we could endorse a humane, appropriately limited, and more productive approach to criminal justice.

John Gardner was one of the most prolific, widely read, and influential scholars working in philosophy of law. This book celebrates, explores, and develops themes of his work during his sixteen years as Professor of Jurisprudence at University of Oxford. Written by a team of contributors whose own work has been influenced by Gardner's and with whom he has worked closely, this book engages with many of the concepts, themes, and issues that were central to his philosophical work and outlook. It expands on his arguments, offers original rebuttals to some, and draws connections with parallel and emerging fields that have been influenced by his work. This is the first book-length treatment covering the entire range of his scholarship, and will serve as a handbook of sorts, for those scholars seeking to engage Gardner's work and make connections across the wide range of topics on which he has written. In particular, the volume comprises discussions of duties to try and succeed in relation to Hume's maxim that 'ought implies can'; the role of continuity, conservatism, and corrective justice in private law, the interrelations between wrongdoing, blame, punishment, and the justification of criminal law, justifications, excuses, and responsibility, the distinctiveness of the wrongs of rape and discrimination, as well as general jurisprudence and how it may, or may not, illuminate the questions of normativity and the nature of constitutions. The volume also engages with further concepts and questions addressed through the prism of Gardner's work, include Indigenous rights and law, Equity, corporate responsibility and the possibility of state crimes, and the nature, structure, and phenomenology of virtue. Together, the papers collected in this volume pay homage to the breadth of John Gardner's legal philosophy. The conversations begun, or continued, in this volume will continue to inform the contributors' future work, and thus increase the likelihood that John's body of work will have an ever greater influence on the future of legal philosophy.

Studies the case of Formula 1® to show how businesses can achieve optimal performance in competitive and dynamic environments.

Why does regulation vary so dramatically from one area to another? Why are some risks regulated aggressively and others responded to only modestly? Is there any logic to the techniques we use in risk regulation? These key questions are explored in The Government of Risk. This book looks at a number of risk regulations regimes, considers the respects in which they differ, and examines how these differences can be explained. Analysing regulation in terms of 'regimes' allows us to see the rich, multi-dimensional nature of risk regulation. It exposes the thinness of society-wide analyses of risk controls and it offers a perspective that single case studies cannot reach. Regimes analysis breaks down the components of risk regulation systems and shows how these interact. It also shows how different parts of the same regime may be shaped by different factors and have to be understood in quite different ways. The Government of Risk shows how such an approach is of high policy relevance as well as of considerable theoretical importance.

Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy is a volume of original articles on all aspects of ancient philosophy. The articles may be of substantial length, and include critical notices of major books. OSAP is now published twice yearly, in both hardback and paperback. "'Have you seen the latest OSAP?' is what scholars of ancient philosophy say to each other when they meet in corridors or on coffee breaks. Whether you work on Plato or Aristotle, on Presocratics or sophists, on Stoics, Epicureans, or Sceptics, on Roman philosophers or Greek Neoplatonists, you are liable to find OSAP articles now dominant in the bibliography of much serious published work in your particular subject: not safe to miss." - Malcolm Schofield, Cambridge University "OSAP was founded to provide a place for long pieces on major issues in ancient philosophy. In the years since, it has fulfilled this role with great success, over and over again publishing groundbreaking papers on what seemed to be familiar topics and others surveying new ground to break. It represents brilliantly the vigour - and the increasingly broad scope - of scholarship in ancient philosophy, and shows us all how the subject should flourish." - M.M. McCabe, King's College London

Faith in the power and righteousness of retribution has taken over the American criminal justice system. Approaching punishment and responsibility from a philosophical perspective, Limits of Blame takes issue with a criminal justice system that aligns legal criteria of guilt with moral criteria of blameworthiness. Many incarcerated people do not meet the criteria of blameworthiness, even when they are guilty of crimes. The author underscores the problems of exaggerating what criminal guilt indicates, particularly when it is tied to the illusion that we know how long and in what ways criminals should suffer. Our practice of assigning blame has gone beyond a pragmatic need for protection and a moral need to repudiate harmful acts publicly. It represents a desire for retribution that normalizes excessive punishment. Kelly proposes that we abandon our culture of blame and aim at reducing serious crime rather than imposing retribution. Were we to refocus our perspective to fit the relevant moral circumstances and legal criteria, we could endorse a humane, appropriately limited, and more productive approach to criminal justice.--