Our guest today, Kim Ferzan, thinks the answer is to create a third category, preventive justice, that can be used to legally impose restrictions on people who intend to cause harm.

Kimberly Ferzan is a professor at the Rutgers University School of Law in Camden, N.J. Her recent paper is “Preventive Justice and the Presumption of Innocence.”

Click here to download the episode (34:42, 25 mb, MP3), or click on the embedded media player below. You can also download the transcript.

Resources

Ferzan mentions the legal theorist Bill Stuntz. His paper on “The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law” is here.

“Inchoate crimes,” as Ferzan mentions, are those that relate to the planning of a crime. A classic example is the possession of buglar’s tools: Merely possesing the tools isn’t problematic per se, but having them is thought to show intent to use them to commit burglary. Double inchoate crimes, then, are one step further removed from the actual problematic act; Ferzan’s example is enticing a minor (inchoate) over the internet (double). For more on her views, see “Inchoate Crimes at the Prevention/Punishment Divide.”

The seminal sex offender case Ferzan describes is that of Earl Shriner.

Ferzan cites the work of Bill Stuntz and Richard McAdams on the reality of checks on the criminal law; for more, see this paper by McAdams.

And finally, Carol Hargis was the woman who tried to kill her husband with a tarantula baked in a pie. The gory details are here.

In his book When the State Speaks, What Should it Say?, Brettschneider argues for a new approach to hate speech. The state shouldn’t simply ban hate speech, he says, but it shouldn’t be silent on it either. One way the state can speak out, he believes, is by limiting state subsidies to discrminatory groups. The Boy Scouts of America can decline to admit gay scouts, but doing so should come at the price of its tax-exempt status, says Brettschneider.

Corey Brettschneider is a professor of political science at Brown University.

Click here to download the episode (26:39, 19.2 mb, MP3), or click on the embedded media player below. You can also download the transcript.

Resources

If you’re not familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a good primer. The Supreme Court case they were involved in was Synder v. Phelps.

Brettschneider mentions John Stuart Mill’s views on hate speech; here’s a quick introduction.

The other legal case that Brettschneider discusses is Virginia v. Black, which involved a Virginia law against cross burning.

Non-American listeners might not be familiar with 501(c)(3) organizations. The name refers to a section of the U.S. tax code. Essentially, they are charitable organizations exempt from paying taxes, which means they are effectively subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

Jon Quong is a senior lecturer at the University of Manchester. He has links to many of his papers on self-defense on his website. Interested readers might start with ”Killing in Self-Defense,” Ethics 119, no. 3 (2009).

Click here to download the episode (32:30, 19.6 mb, MP3), or click on the embedded media player below. You can also download the transcript.

Resources

As Quong mentions, the much-discussed case of the man falling down a well originates with Robert Nozick, in his Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974).

A discussion of eliminative harmful agency and opportunistic harmful agency can be found in Warren S. Quinn, “Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 18, no. 4 (1989).

Jeff McMahan’s views on self-defense are set out in some detail in Killing in War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Michael Walzer’s can be found, among others, in his Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th Ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2006).

Garrett Cullity is Hughes Professor of Philosophy at the University of Adelaide.

You can download the episode (40:01, 24.1 mb, MP3) or listen through the embedded media player below. You can also download the transcript.

Stuart Green is a professor at the Rutgers University School of Law and the author of Thirteen Ways to Steal a Bicycle. For a quick summary of his views on illegal downloading, see his recent op-ed in the New York Times, “‘Theft’ Law in the 21st Century.”

Click here to download the episode (39:51, 28.7 mb, MP3), or click on the embedded media player below. You can also download the transcript.

Resources

Here’s a handy illustration of that piracy-isn’t-stealing meme from the intro.

For more on the empirical research Green mentions on attitudes about theft, see his article co-authored with Matthew Kugler, “Community Perceptions of Theft Seriousness: A Challenge to the Model Penal Code and English Theft Act Consolidation.”

S. Prakash Sethi is a university distinguished professor at the Zicklin School of Business at Baruch College in the City University of New York; the Forrest Mars, Sr., visiting professor of ethics, politics, and economics at Yale University; and the president of the International Center for Corporate Accountability. An article he wrote on Apple’s labor standards is available from the Carnegie Council’s website.

Click here to download the episode (32:32, 23.5 mb, MP3), or click on the embedded media player below. You can also download the transcript.

Resources

Sethi mentions the FLA, or Fair Labor Association, the monitoring group that has audited Chinese factories on Apple’s behalf. Their report into Foxconn, which was widely discussed in the media, is available on their website.

For readers interested in learning more about Sethi and his work with Mattel in particular, he was profiled in 2007 by Jonathan Dee in the New York Times Magazine.

In addition to its more recent coverage of Apple, the New York Times published its investigative reports into Apple’s supply chain earlier this year in a series titled “The iEconomy.” Charles

This American Life’s controverisal episodes on Apple are “Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory” and “Retraction.” The former episode was, of course, retracted in the second, but it still makes for entertaining listening—and by most estimates Daisey’s broader picture of Apple is true, whether or not he witnessed it. The New York Times Reporter featured in “Retraction” is Charles Duhigg, who co-wrote the “iEconomy” reports.

The Daily Show jumped on the Apple bandwagon back in January; see the clip here.

S. Prakash Sethi is a university distinguished professor at the Zicklin School of Business at Baruch College in the City University of New York; the Forrest Mars, Sr., visiting professor of ethics, politics, and economics at Yale University; and the president of the International Center for Corporate Accountability. An article he wrote on Apple’s labor standards is available from the Carnegie Council’s website.

Click here to download the episode (32:32, 23.5 mb, MP3), or click on the embedded media player below. You can also download the transcript.

Resources

Sethi mentions the FLA, or Fair Labor Association, the monitoring group that has audited Chinese factories on Apple’s behalf. Their report into Foxconn, which was widely discussed in the media, is available on their website.

For readers interested in learning more about Sethi and his work with Mattel in particular, he was profiled in 2007 by Jonathan Dee in the New York Times Magazine.

In addition to its more recent coverage of Apple, the New York Times published its investigative reports into Apple’s supply chain earlier this year in a series titled “The iEconomy.” Charles

This American Life’s controverisal episodes on Apple are “Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory” and “Retraction.” The former episode was, of course, retracted in the second, but it still makes for entertaining listening—and by most estimates Daisey’s broader picture of Apple is true, whether or not he witnessed it. The New York Times Reporter featured in “Retraction” is Charles Duhigg, who co-wrote the “iEconomy” reports.

The Daily Show jumped on the Apple bandwagon back in January; see the clip here.

Seth Lazar is a research fellow at the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University. You can find many examples of his work on just war theory and other topics on his website.

Click here to download the episode (28:26, 20.5 mb, MP3), or click on the embedded media player below. You can also download the transcript.

Resources

The modern writer of the definitive traditionalist view of just war theory is Michael Walzer. Lazar mentions his hugely influential book Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, [1977] 2000).

Lazar ascribes the notion of a “reductive individualist” view of just war theory to the philosopher David Rodin. For more on that view, see Rodin’s War and Self-Defense (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

The “foremost advocate” of the new orthodoxy, as Lazar puts it, is Jeff McMahan. Longtime listeners will remember the PER episode he did back in 2009, on proportionality.

Lazar cites a statistic on the percentage of people in modern economies who work in war-related in industries. The source, as Lazar notes, is Alexander Downes, Targeting Civilians in War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008).

The discussion about the permissibility of killing executives from the United Fruit Company, in relation to the U.S. intervention in Guatemala, comes up in Jeff McMahan’s “The Ethics of Killing in War,” Ethics 114 (2004).

Samantha Brennan is a professor of philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. For an example of her work on women and inequality, see her “Feminist Ethics and Everyday Inequalities,” Hypatia 24, no. 1 (2009).

Click here to download the episode (30:45, 22.2 mb, MP3), or click on the online media player below. You can also download the transcript.

* Correction: A commenter rightly pointed out that in the original version of the audio introduction, I grossly mischaractertized the precedent set by Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state. I regret the error. —MP

Resources

Brennan mentions the work of Mary Rowe of MIT, where she is a professor and ombudsperson.

The story of Claudia Card’s experience at the Harvard library is discussed in Brennan’s Hypatia paper linked above, and was discussed by Card herself in her book The Atrocity Paradigm: A Theory of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Iris Young talks about oppression versus inequality in her essay “Five Faces of Oppression” in the book Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).

For an example of the problems facing women in academic philosophy, see Sally Haslinger’s “Changing the Ideology and Culture of Philosophy.” Louise Antony‘s paper on the same subject does not appear to be online, but she gave a presentation titled “Different Voices or Perfect Storm? Explaining the Dearth of Women in Philosophy” at a 2010 conference.

The Walzer Christian refers to is, of course, Michael Walzer, and his concept of spheres of justice are described at length in his eponymous book: Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books, 1984).

Finally, the author of the book advising women to educate up and marry down is Rhona Mahoney, and her book is Kidding Ourselves: Breadwinning, Babies, and Bargaining Power (New York: Basic Books, 1996).