Reasons, Mistakes, and Excuses

Drawing on the theory of practical reasons, John Gardner has offered a seminal account of excuses in criminal law. His proposal is that an excuse asserts that the defendant acted for what she justifiably believed to be sufficient reason for her to perform the offending act although she had no such reason. Despite its theoretical insights, I argue that this account leads to untenable results in certain cases which gives us a strong reason to reject it; this is because it is built on the view that what we have reason to do is determined by all facts relevant to the choiceworthiness of our actions regardless of our epistemic perspective about these facts. Interestingly, Gardner had once anticipated this potential response to his proposal but had dismissed it as a ‘nuclear option’. This article triggers it.