Means and Necessary Consequences. Considerations about Criminal Responsibility and the Doctrine of Double Effect

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to analyze the distinction between means and consequences and to stress its relevance for understanding the attribution of criminal responsibility. Some arguments borrowed from the doctrine of double effect provide the conceptual context for justifying that instrumental and incidental harm must receive different punishment. However, such a distinction has been fiercely criticized in contemporary moral philosophy. For this reason, in order to defend the doctrine of double effect, this paper underlines not only the moral relevance of the distinction between intention and foresight, but it also claims that instrumental harm —unlike the incidental harm— counts as an intended one.