The state of development of modern society can be described as a systemic social crisis. The state of crisis as an integral element of social development becomes familiar to the philosophy and ideology of postmodernism, which allows not only a plurality of views, but also a variety of solutions. In any destructive phenomenon caused by the crisis, the crisis itself can become a necessary moment of the dialectical transition to a new, orderly state of the system, a necessary factor and (...) catalyst for modernization processes. Crisis-free state of development of society - a state that hinders its development. However, while recognizing the important role of crises in development, societies should still have mechanisms in place to protect people from their negative impacts, which should reduce their risks of transition and, by anticipating development trends, possibly reduce the transition process itself. Analyzing the tendency of modern society to sustainable development, it is necessary to clarify that the solution of such a problem should actually be carried out by various actors, civil society associations, research institutions, etc. However, the main part of this task depends on the political power, the main functions of which include ensuring stable development and security in society, as well as the management of society as a whole and its economic, spiritual, political and social spheres in particular. At the same time, political power must not just resolve conflicts and ensure order in society, but, most importantly, find a balance between the common good and the changing aspirations of different social groups to pursue their interests. Thus, the task of overcoming the current crisis depends primarily on the responsibility of political power, especially the state. It is the state that must accumulate all resources and coordinate the actions of business, science, religion, etc. for its effective solution. (shrink)

Treatise, with autocommentary on Jaina philosophy.

Collection of Prakaraṇa text on the philosophy of Śvetambara, Jaina sect.

Work, with auto commentary on Jaina philosophy.

This book argues that ignorance of law should usually be a complete excuse from criminal liability. It defends this conclusion by invoking two presumptions: first, the content of criminal law should conform to morality; second, mistakes of fact and mistakes of law should be treated symmetrically.

Analytical study of the philosophy of Vālmīki as discussed in Rāmāyaṇa.

Husak's primary goal is to defend a set of constraints to limit the authority of states to enact and enforce criminal offenses. In addition, Husak situates this endeavor in criminal theory as traditionally construed. This book urges the importance of this topic in the real world, while most Anglo-American legal philosophers have neglected it.

Avicenna, 980-1037; Islamic scholar; criticism and interpretation; Islamic philosophy; congresses.

Husak makes a number of theoretical observations in favor of a general conception of sentencing that he calls sentencing pluralism. This framework is pluralistic in two different respects. In the first part of the chapter, he argues that the goals or objectives of a sentencing scheme are diverse and must draw from the insights supplied by various disciplines. Thus his framework embodies what he calls disciplinary pluralism. In the second part of the chapter, he argues that the sentence offenders (...) deserve cannot be identified without taking account of factors that are not contained within the proportionality calculus. Thus Husak’s framework also embodies what he calls desert pluralism. A sentencing theory that fails to include these two kinds of pluralism is deficient. (shrink)

Study of the works of Śrīrāma Śarmā Ācārya, 1911-1990, Hindu philosopher.

Study of the Rājamārtaṇḍa Sanskrit commentaryof Bhojaraja, King of Malwa, on Yogasūtra of Patañjali, compendium of Yoga philosophy.

This volume collects 17 of Douglas Husak's influential essays in criminal law theory. The essays span Husak's original and provocative contributions to the central topics in the field, including the grounds of criminal liability, relative culpability, the role of defences, and the justification of punishment. The volume includes an extended introduction by the author, drawing together the themes of his work, and exploring the goals of criminal theory.

A comparative study of the Sikh philosophy and other religion.

Vedanta philosophy as propunded by Śaṅkarācārya and Rāmānuja, 1017-1137; a study.

Commentary to the "Harikathāmr̥tasāra." work of Jagannāthadāsa, 1728-1809, on the quintessence of Dvaita Vedanta, and on Vishnu, Hindu deity.

On indic philosophy; includes articles on Mahabharata epic.

In this article I examine one condition a minimalist theory of criminalization might contain: the criminal law should be used only as a last resort. I discuss how this principle should be interpreted and the reasons we have to accept it. I conclude that a theory of criminalization should probably include the (appropriately construed) last resort principle. But this conclusion will prove disappointing to those who hope to employ this principle to bring about fundamental reform in the substantive criminal law. (...) I argue that the last resort principle may not help to reverse the growth of the criminal law to any degree that could not be achieved more directly and less controversially by other principles that a theory of criminalization is generally thought to include. Unless we reject others parts of conventional wisdom about crime and punishment, the application of a last resort principle is unlikely to bring about sweeping changes that theorists might have anticipated. (shrink)

In the United States today, the use or possession of many drugs is a criminal offense. Can these criminal laws be justified? What are the best reasons to punish or not to punish drug users? These are the fundamental issues debated in this book by two prominent philosophers of law. Douglas Husak argues in favor of drug decriminalization, by clarifying the meaning of crucial terms, such as legalize, decriminalize, and drugs; and by identifying the standards by which alternative drug (...) policies should be assessed. He critically examines the reasons typically offered in favor of our current approach and explains why decriminalization is preferable. Peter de Marneffe argues against drug legalization, demonstrating why drug prohibition, especially the prohibition of heroin, is necessary to protect young people from self-destructive drug use. If the empirical assumptions of this argument are sound, he reasons, drug prohibition is perfectly compatible with our rights to liberty. (shrink)

Verse work on ethics; with prose commentary.

This important book was the first serious work of philosophy to address the question: Do adults have a moral right to use drugs for recreational purposes? Many critics of the 'war on drugs' denounce law enforcement as counterproductive and ineffective. Douglas Husak argues that the 'war on drugs' violates the moral rights of adults who want to use drugs for pleasure, and that criminal laws against such use are incompatible with moral rights. This is not a polemical tract but (...) a scrupulously argued work of philosophy that takes full account of all available data concerning drug use in the United States today. The author is careful to describe the properties a recreational drug would have to possess before the state would be justified in prohibiting it. Since criminal laws against the use of recreational drugs are justified neither by the harm users cause to themselves nor by the harm users cause to each other, Professor Husak concludes that such laws are, in almost all cases, unjustified. (shrink)

I focus on the set of problems that arise in identifying both the actus reus and (to an even greater extent) the mens rea needed by an abettor before she should be criminally liable for complicity in a crime. No consensus on these issues has emerged in positive law; commentators are enormously dissatisfied with the decisions courts have reached; and critics disagree radically about what reforms should be implemented to rectify this state of affairs. I explicitly deny that I will (...) be able to solve these problems, although I hope at least to identify a central source of the confusion. In my view, the problem results largely from conceptualizing the liability of abettors as derivative. This diagnosis helps us to understand why the problem is likely to remain insoluble in positive law. If the test of an adequate theory consists primarily in its ability to produce results that conform to our moral intuitions about how particular cases should be resolved, no approach that can be implemented in the real world will prove wholly satisfactory. I advance a hypothesis about why failure is inevitable and what should be done in light of this predicament. Legal realities compel us to adopt a position that is suboptimal from a moral point of view. (shrink)

I attempt to describe the several costs that criminal theory would be forced to pay by adopting the view (currently fashionable among moral philosophers) that the intentions of the agent are irrelevant to determinations of whether his actions are permissible (or criminal).

Festschrift published on 75th anniversary celebrations of Śrī Mahāvīra Jaina Vidyālaya; comprises articles chiefly on Jainism and its philosophy.

Classical work on Nyaya and Vaiśeṣika philosophy with auto-commentary ; critical edition.

On journalistic ethics of mass media in Sri Lanka and the role of Śrī Laṅkā Puvatpat Maṇḍalaya.

Exhaustive study of the philosophy of Rāmāyaṇa, classical Sanskrit work by Vālmīki.

On the political thoughts of Narendra Deva, 1889-1956, socialist leader.

A rational defense of the criminal law must provide a comprehensive theory of culpability. A comprehensive theory of culpability must resolve several difficult issues; in this article I will focus on only one. The general problem arises from the lack of a systematic account of relative culpability. An account of relative culpability would identify and defend a set of considerations to assess whether, why, under what circumstances, and to what extent persons who perform a criminal act with a given culpable (...) state are more or less blameworthy than persons who perform that act with a different culpable state. (shrink)