Emotion versus Emotionalism in Law
Emotion versus Emotionalism in Law
复制标题
法律中的情感与情感主义
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1999
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Posner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Posner
法律规定的许多行为都是情绪化的想想谋杀通奸的配偶，被剥夺监护权的父母绑架孩子，或者动物权利活动家在毛皮大衣上涂抹油漆。或者它是令人震惊的缺乏情感（“冷血”谋杀）。或者，它激起了人们的情感--通常是对犯罪或侵权行为的受害者的同情和对加害者的愤慨，但有时也会对加害者的同情，如“被殴打的妻子”杀人事件--那些听到或读到这一事件的人。法律本身通常被认为是“理性”的堡垒，理性被认为是情感的对立面，它的作用是控制引起法律的争端的行为的情感性。受法律规范的行为的情感性，以及法律对这种情感性的情感性或非情感性反应，给法律的体系提出了许多问题。我讲四个。第一个问题是，不法行为是由情感促成的这一事实应该如何影响法律对该行为的评价。情绪化应该使法律对违法者更严厉还是更严厉？我在讨论这一问题时特别提到“仇恨犯罪”法和挑衅作为刑事处罚中的减轻因素。第二个问题是法律是否应该以及如何使用情感。第三个问题是法律的执行者，无论是法官、陪审员、检察官还是警察，他们的情绪状态应该是什么样的。他们应该像电脑一样没有感情吗？如果不是，那么情感应该如何准确地进入他们的判断？第四，在执行法律的职责时，应该首先使用什么样的屏幕或过滤器来确保管理员处于正确的情绪状态（无论确切的情绪状态是什么）？第十二章
Much of the behavior that law regulates is emotional—think of the murder of an adulterous spouse, the kidnapping of a child by a parent denied custody, or the daubing of paint on a fur coat by an animal-rights activist. Or it is shockingly devoid of emotion (the “cold-blooded” murder). Or it arouses the emotions—often sympathy for the victim of a crime or a tort and indignation at the injurer, but sometimes sympathy for the injurer, as in killings by “battered wives”—of people who hear or read about the incident. The law itself is conventionally regarded as a bastion of “reason” conceived of as the antithesis of emotion, as operating to rein in the emotionality of the behavior that gives rise to legal disputes. The emotionality of acts that are regulated by the law, and the law’s emotional or nonemotional response to that emotionality raise a number of issues for the legal system. I address four. The first is how the fact that a wrongful act is precipitated by an emotion should affect the law’s evaluation of the act. Should emotionality make the law come down more or less hard on the violator? I discuss this question with particular reference to “hate crime” laws and to provocation as a mitigating factor in criminal punishment. The second question is whether and how the law should use emotion. The third is what the emotional state of the law’s administrators, whether judges, jurors, prosecutors, or police, should be. Should they be emotionless, like computers? If not, how precisely should emotion enter into their judgments? And fourth, what screens or filters first should be used to assure that the administrators are in the correct emotional state (whatever exactly that is) when carrying out their legal duties? Chapter Twelve