Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Criminal Law and Philosophy

2013; Springer Science+Business Media; Linguagem: Inglês

10.1007/11572.1871-9805

1871-9805

Lisa Hecht,

Free Will and Agency

A provocateur does not pose a threat of harm.Hence, a forceful response to provocation is generally considered wrongful.And yet, a provocateur is often denied recourse to a self-defence justification if she defends herself against such a violent response.In recent work, Kimberly Ferzan argues that a provocateur forfeits defensive rights but this forfeiture cannot be explained in the same way as an aggressor's rights forfeiture.Ordinarily, one forfeits the right not to be harmed and to selfdefend against harm by threatening to violate another person's rights.But provocateurs forfeit their defensive rights because they bring about the situation in which defence becomes necessary.As I argue here, positing these two types of forfeiture justifications is neither desirable nor necessary.I suggest a unified rights forfeiture account that grounds rights forfeiture in moral responsibility for an unjust threat.My account offers clearer distinctions than alternative unified accounts, which I briefly discuss.Furthermore, the account can provide better explanations of intuitively plausible judgements.A provocateur will have less extensive defensive rights than an innocent victim, but will not lose all her defensive rights simply because 'she started it.