Law I / Justification and Personal Imputation
Practice question · Fill in the blanks

Complete the account of the last two stages.

Conduct is formally unlawful when it contradicts the legal order and materially unlawful when it harms or endangers a ______. Where the essential requirement of a justification is present but another is missing, Article 21.1 provides an ______ exemption. Article 20.6 exempts a person acting under ______ fear. The modern reformulation of what culpability rests on, replacing the claim that the person could have acted otherwise, is normal ______.

Word bank: legal good · incomplete · insurmountable · motivability · proportionate · justification

Hints
  1. The second blank names what happens when excessive means are used against a real aggression.
  2. The last blank names the reformulation that avoids a claim about free will.
Show the answer

Conduct is formally unlawful when it contradicts the legal order and materially unlawful when it harms or endangers a legal good. Where the essential requirement of a justification is present but another is missing, Article 21.1 provides an incomplete exemption. Article 20.6 exempts a person acting under insurmountable fear. The modern reformulation of what culpability rests on, replacing the claim that the person could have acted otherwise, is normal motivability.

Why

The last blank is where the philosophy meets the courtroom. Normal motivability asks whether the person was accessible to the norm's demand in the way an ordinary addressee is, a question about capacity that evidence can address, instead of asking whether they could have acted otherwise, which no trial can establish about anybody.

Read the lesson: Justification and Personal Imputation →

Practise Justification and Personal Imputation

The app has 6 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Law I is free to start.

More questions on Justification and Personal Imputation