IN DEFENSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS (OR ANYWAY, PROCEDURAL DUTIES): A RESPONSE TO WELLMAN

David Enoch

doi:10.1017/S135232521800006X

IN DEFENSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS (OR ANYWAY, PROCEDURAL DUTIES): A RESPONSE TO WELLMAN

David Enoch^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

In a recent paper Christopher Heath Wellman argues that - with some important qualifications - there are no procedural rights. And it's not as if he is squeamish about his examples: even someone who is convicted and punished by lottery is not wronged - their rights are not violated - if in fact they are guilty of the relevant crime. I respond, rejecting Wellman's conclusion and argument. I also show how the discussion has important wider implications.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	40-49
Number of pages	10
Journal	Legal Theory
Volume	24
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/S135232521800006X
State	Published - 1 Mar 2018

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018.

Access to Document

10.1017/S135232521800006X

Cite this

@article{5b69e21c4f214f2fad63ef7feb9220d0,

title = "IN DEFENSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS (OR ANYWAY, PROCEDURAL DUTIES): A RESPONSE TO WELLMAN",

abstract = "In a recent paper Christopher Heath Wellman argues that - with some important qualifications - there are no procedural rights. And it's not as if he is squeamish about his examples: even someone who is convicted and punished by lottery is not wronged - their rights are not violated - if in fact they are guilty of the relevant crime. I respond, rejecting Wellman's conclusion and argument. I also show how the discussion has important wider implications.",

author = "David Enoch",

note = "Publisher Copyright: Copyright {\textcopyright} Cambridge University Press 2018.",

year = "2018",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1017/S135232521800006X",

language = "אנגלית",

volume = "24",

pages = "40--49",

journal = "Legal Theory",

issn = "1352-3252",

publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - IN DEFENSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS (OR ANYWAY, PROCEDURAL DUTIES)

T2 - A RESPONSE TO WELLMAN

AU - Enoch, David

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - In a recent paper Christopher Heath Wellman argues that - with some important qualifications - there are no procedural rights. And it's not as if he is squeamish about his examples: even someone who is convicted and punished by lottery is not wronged - their rights are not violated - if in fact they are guilty of the relevant crime. I respond, rejecting Wellman's conclusion and argument. I also show how the discussion has important wider implications.

AB - In a recent paper Christopher Heath Wellman argues that - with some important qualifications - there are no procedural rights. And it's not as if he is squeamish about his examples: even someone who is convicted and punished by lottery is not wronged - their rights are not violated - if in fact they are guilty of the relevant crime. I respond, rejecting Wellman's conclusion and argument. I also show how the discussion has important wider implications.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85045903059

U2 - 10.1017/S135232521800006X

DO - 10.1017/S135232521800006X

M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.systematicreview???

AN - SCOPUS:85045903059

SN - 1352-3252

VL - 24

SP - 40

EP - 49

JO - Legal Theory

JF - Legal Theory

IS - 1

ER -

IN DEFENSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS (OR ANYWAY, PROCEDURAL DUTIES): A RESPONSE TO WELLMAN

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this