Question Of Guilt Research Articles

Germany in Defeat, 1918 and 1945: Some Comparisons and Contrasts

THIS BRIEF ESSAY is not intended to be a systematic comparison of the impact of defeat on German society following the two World Wars. Such a comparison would require a book, perhaps two. Rather, it is more of a reflection, drawn from work on research projects in the two postwar periods. The main focus will be on how Germans perceived defeat after each war and how these perceptions, combined with certain concrete postwar conditions, shaped subsequent political developments.' In comparing Germany in 1918 and 1945, one is immediately struck by the differing magnitude of physical destruction suffered by the country and the changed role of military occupation. Both physical destruction and military occupation were limited after 1918 but extensive after 1945. These facts are obvious and have some obvious consequences; at the same time a closer examination of the interrelationship of these two truisms will, I hope, provide some new perspectives, nuances, and implications for the study of the two postwar eras. In contrast to 1945, it was easy in 1918 for Germans to imagine that they were still undefeated. World War I ended with German troops in foreign lands; there was no fighting in Germany; and official propaganda proclaiming victory on all fronts was not substantially undermined by counterdata from outside the country. While at the Paris Peace Conference the question of guilt or responsibility revolved around the question of who had started the war-a question whose answer was a foregone conclusion

The Feminine Presence inBilly Budd

For some time now, Billy Budd has been a favorite text in law and literature scholarship, gripping imagination of Charles Reich in late 1960's, deepening issues of judicial responsibility for Robert Cover in 1970's, and provoking heated controversies of late between Professor Richard Weisberg and Judge Richard Posner.1 The controversy about Billy Budd, centering chiefly on justice of Billy's trial and execution aboard a of war, has even caught interest of nation's leading newspapers, and indeed has spread to bus iness world. Recently, for example, New York Times carried a story of Posner-Weisberg debate, while Wall Street Journal reported that at a humanities seminar a group of local executives, looking for answers to management problems, concluded that Billy was a valuable employee fired by a manager who went by book instead of following his intuition.2 It is safe to say that Billy Budd is an obsession in legal academia these days, and reason is easy to understand. The story raises not only grand old jurisprudential questions of guilt and responsibility, of legal power and its abuses, of justice and mercy, but also serves as battleground for warring factions to redefine legitimacy and limits of academy. Although embattled issues about Billy Buddare important at several levels, some aspects of story have been curiously over looked, even though literary scholars have spilled no little ink over them. One such issue is love, particularly homosexual love, and a related unsettling of gender categories in story. Even a casual reader picks up theme of conflicts between soft and hard, between heart and intellect, between Captain Vere's dismissal of in man and Billy's physical loveliness. But there is another aspect to this conflict in Billy Budd, so-called in man, which, while Captain Vere peremptorily overrules it in himself and in Billy's judges, nevertheless binds, animates, and darkens novella. I aim to explore in this essay how themes of mutiny and repression in Billy Budd have as much to do with the feminine in man as with Law and war.

The Question of Guilt in Ami et Amile

The Question of Guilt in Ami et Amile

Traditional Exegesis and the Question of Guilt in the Old English ‘Genesis B’

For many years, scholars felt that the unusual elements in Genesis B exonerated Adam and Eve by portraying them as innocent victims of a diabolical deception. In particular, the tempter's apparent disguise as an angel, Eve's vision of heaven, and the consistent emphasis throughout the temptation scene on Adam's and Eve's wholehearted loyalty to God made it difficult to confirm their guilt or to identify their sin. For some time, therefore, Genesis B's sympathetic portrayal of the first parents was accepted as one of the poem's strange unorthodoxies, yet another puzzle in a maze of puzzles. However, the more recent studies of the poem have shown its treatment of guilt to be both less unorthodox and, at the same time, more complex than was earlier suspected. Rosemary Woolf, for example, suggests that Eve was motivated, not by innocent loyalty, but by pride ‘directed towards emulation and envy of Adam’; that she succumbed to the tempter's persuasions because she ‘listened with a willful credulity springing from nascent vanity’; and that the poet's insistence upon Eve's ‘wacra hyge’ and good intentions was an apology necessary to mitigate the impression of Eve as a nagging wife. For her, Genesis B thus portrays a variation on Genesis 3.5, which in familiar commentary was sometimes interpreted to stress Eve's desire to be like Adam.

Wolfram's Sigune and the Question of Guilt

Wolfram's Sigune and the Question of Guilt

Franz Neumann

Abstract Franz Neumann would have been 80 years old on May 23, 1980. It is no accident that this German-American lawyer and political scientist, killed in an auto wreck in 1954, has only very recently been receiving the attention his work deserves. A staunch opponent of National Socialism from the very beginning, he personally tackled the question of guilt in an almost self-tormenting manner. “Why do I love this country so much and yet also despise it?” he wrote in a 1954 letter to Helge Pross, and he answered: “Perhaps it is a deep-seated guilt feeling. How often after 1933 have I pondered the question of what my responsibility for National Socialism really was. For I believe in collective guilt. But then I cannot exclude myself from it….

Der pl�tzliche, nat�rliche Tod im Stra�enverkehr

Together with the increase in motorisation sudden death at the wheel by natural causes has also gained more importance although this is not a very frequent occurrence. Scattered reports on such cases in the literature are summarized and discussed with regard to recognition, frequency, age and sex distribution, pathological changes and marginal problems, e. g. diagnostic difficulties, risk and prevention. At the top of the list of the causes of sudden natural death at the wheel are disturbances of the cardiovascular circulation and under this heading the ischemical heart diseases with 83%. The frequency peak lies in the sixties age group and in the case of the ischemical diseases generally in the seventies age group which is an indication that driving is particularly a burden for the circulation. The percentage of women (2.6%) is approx. 10 times less than it is in sudden deaths generally, this obviously being due to the fact that women in advanced years do not drive as often as men. In approx. 50% of cases the sudden natural death takes place when the vehicle is stationary. Serious accidents are seldom. Diagnostic difficulties occur when alcohol has been consumed or when in an accident caused by the sickness the victim is fatally injured or when the question of guilt is not clear. Restrictive measures will not completely prevent sudden death when driving; it is most important that a patient with a history of myocardial infarction or of advanced age should be advised of the dangers of driving by the physician treating him.

The Children's Hearing System: Part 1. The Limits to Legislative action

Abstract In April 1971 the fragmentary and topsy-like juvenile court structure in Scotland gave way to a more homogeneous system located at the interstices of law-enforcement and social work. The reforms consequent upon the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 have been described in detail elsewhere.1 Briefly they involve taking the management of juvenile offenders, with certain exceptions and subject to specific safeguards, out of the criminal courts and vesting it in a system, formally characterised by voluntarism, informality, and a commitment to treatment. At the apex of the system is a tribunal (the children's hearing) presided over by laymen (and women), and concerned not with questions of guilt or innocence, but with issues of treatment and disposal. Reference to this tribunal is controlled by an independent local authority official, known as the reporter,2 and is to rest solely on “the needs of the individual child.” In line with this requirement the hearing's unit of activity is the child,3 or more ac...

Oedipus and Jonah

Attempts to interpret theOedipus Tyrannosof Sophocles have been so numerous that anyone who seeks to add to their number is almost compelled to start by apologising for being so presumptuous as to think that he could offer anything new. I would incline to classify these attempts under four ‘main’ and three ‘ancillary’ headings. The ‘main’ interpretations are those which seek to interpret the play as a drama, and vary according to the view they take of the guilt of Oedipus. There are those who assert (with or without qualification) that Oedipus is to be viewed as guilty; those who see him as a victim of a malignant fate (and hence innocent); those who are content to assert his innocence without stressing the element of fatality; and those who leave the question of guilt or innocence aside. The ‘ancillary’ interpretations are those which seek to find in the play a non-dramatic relevance, i.e. a political relevance, a religious relevance, or a psychological relevance.

"Stripped Clean": The Berrigans and the Politics of Guilt and Martydom

Previous articleNext article No Access"Stripped Clean": The Berrigans and the Politics of Guilt and MartydomDale VreeDale Vree Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 85, Number 4Jul., 1975 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/291967 Views: 3Total views on this site Citations: 4Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1975 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Kristen Tobey Have We Made Ourselves Inaccessible?: Plowshares Disarmament Activists' Rhetoric of Marginality, Political Theology 13, no.11 (Dec 2012): 76–92.https://doi.org/10.1558/poth.v13i1.76Mike Rowan Punishing from a Sense of Innocence: An Essay on Guilt, Innocence, and Punishment in America, Critical Criminology 20, no.44 (Jun 2012): 377–394.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-012-9155-2Catherine Lu Shame, Guilt and Reconciliation after War, European Journal of Social Theory 11, no.33 (Aug 2008): 367–383.https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431008092568Orayb Aref Najjar `The Editorial Family of Al-Kateb Bows in Respect': The Construction of Martyrdom Text Genre in One Palestinian Political and Literary Magazine, Discourse & Society 7, no.44 (Jul 2016): 499–530.https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007004004

The Question of Guilt in Kleist's Penthesilea

The Question of Guilt in Kleist's Penthesilea

Guilt, Ethics and Religion

At the outset, I would like to thank the Royal Institute of Philosophy for inviting me to add my contribution to the general theme of the present session. Mr Vesey suggested that I speak on the notion of guilt from the twofold perspective of Ethics and of the Philosophy of Religion. I was very happy to accept his proposal, for it gave me the opportunity to gather together my own reflections on this difficult topic, which up to now have been somewhat scattered. My principal task will be to determine the distinction between ethical discourse and religious discourse on the question of guilt. These will be the two main divisions of my analysis.

The Huber Enigma: Revolutionary or Police-Spy?

Any historian who deals with a period in which conspirators played a significant role sooner or later comes up against the conspirator's twin brother, the undercover police agent. In most cases, the policeman revolutionary or revolutionary policeman, however fascinating as an entrée into the twilight world of double and triple agents, offers more to the enterprising journalist than to the historian. Even some of the more spectacular exemplars of real or reputed undercover agents – Roman Malinovsky, who rose to membership in the central committee of the Bolshevik party before 1917; Lucien Delahodde, who until his exposure was a leading light in the secret societies of the July Monarchy; Auguste Blanqui, the unquenchable revolutionary who may or may not have informed on his comrades in 1839 – did not really affect the general course of history, at least not as informers. Though Malinovsky as a psychological phenomenon cries out for a latter-day Dostoevsky, his amazing career did not in any way deflect the Bolsheviks from their goal. Delahodde's more businesslike relations with the Orleanist police sapped an underground republican movement which was already impotent and discredited before he joined it. In Blanqui's case, the question of guilt or innocence is almost irrelevant, though the accusation of treason which the journalist Taschereau levelled in March 1848 did foil Blanqui's efforts to lead the left-wing opposition to the Provisional Government.

In re Camporini.

Extradition — Political Offences — Offences of a Predominantly Political Character — Homicide in the Course of Political Elections — Question of Guilt — No Enquiry into the Impartiality of the Courts of the Requesting State.

The Legal Setting of Plato's Apology

The appearance in 1893 of an edition of the Apology of Plato with an elaborate introduction by Schanz aroused new interest in the various questions connected with the trial of Socrates. But apart from the problems involved in the indictment and the alternative penalty proposed by the defendant, the strictly legal side of the Apology has nowhere received adequate treatment.' The purpose of this paper is to develop the legal setting of the defense and compare it from this standpoint with contemporary forensic speeches. It is immaterial whether the Apology is purely fictitious or is in part based on truth-stilizirte Wahrheit, as Gomperz2 neatly expresses it. In the Apology attributed to Xenophon we have, I believe, the nearest approach to an exact report of the real speech.3 The Platonic defense of Socrates consists of three distinct speeches. The first is his answer to the speeches of the prosecutors and deals with the question of guilt or innocence. The second, delivered after the verdict guilty had been rendered, is devoted to the presentation of the alternative penalty proposed by Socrates in accordance with Athenian practice. This is of special interest as being the only speech of this kind extant. The third is an informal address to the jurors after the conclusion of the trial. Socrates had been left in the courtroom for a brief period (Apol. 39e) while the officials were making preparations to convey him to prison, and he employed the interval by addressing first those who had voted for conviction and then those who had voted for acquittal. Official permission was probably not neces-

A Note on the Sources of the Old Saxon "Genesis"

Previous article FreeA Note on the Sources of the Old Saxon "Genesis"F. N. RobinsonF. N. Robinson Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Modern Philology Volume 4, Number 2Oct., 1906 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/386712 Views: 51 Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Susan Burchmore Traditional Exegesis and the Question of Guilt in the Old English ‘ Genesis B ’, Traditio 41 (Jul 2016): 117–144.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0362152900006875

SOME MEDICO-LEGAL FEATURES OF THE SCHNEIDER CASE.

With the softening influence of time, which modifies all things, our minds are prone to assume the blank state so necessary for calmness of thought and dispassionate consideration that should always be brought to bear on all questions of forensic medicine. It is in this frame of mind, I trust, that we now approach the consideration of a case that was attended by much public excitement. On Jan. 28, 1893, I visited the district jail, in company with Dr. Godding, of Washington, to examine into the mental condition of a young man under sentence of death for the murder of his wife. Certain features of this celebrated case, but more especially the lunacy inquiry, came within the unfortunate category of those prejudged by public sentiment, regardless of calm consideration of the attendant facts. But the question of guilt or innocence being no concern of mine, judgment may be suspended on