Forfeiture Theory and Symmetrical Attackers. Issue 2 (4th May 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kershnar, Stephen
• Is Part Of: Criminal justice ethics. Volume 36:Issue 2(2017)
• Page Start: 224
• Page End: 245
• Publication Date: 2017-05-04
• Subjects: forfeiture -- punishment -- self-defense -- proportionality -- rights; Criminal justice, Administration of -- Periodicals; Criminal justice, Administration of -- United States -- Periodicals; Social justice -- Periodicals; Social ethics -- Periodicals; 174.9364
• DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2017.1341226
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0731-129X

Abstract

Abstract : This article defends the following thesis: The Problem of Symmetrical Attackers does not falsify forfeiture theory. The theory asserts that except in the case where violence is necessary to avoid a catastrophe, only those who forfeit their rights are liable for defensive violence. The problem arises from the following sort of case, the Symmetrical Attacker Case, in which Al and Bob are doppelgangers. They both mistakenly but justifiably think that the other is about to attack them. They both respond with violence that is necessary and that they think is necessary to prevent the attack. The problem is that one person forfeits his right if and only if the second does not and that it appears to be impossible for both or neither to forfeit. The article argues that the forfeiture theory is not falsified by this problem because the problem is equally damaging to every plausible theory of permissible defensive violence.