Punishment for mob-based harms: expressing and denouncing mob mentality

Sean Bowden, Sarah Sorial, Kylie Bourne

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Larry May's and Kenneth Shockley's discussions of punishment for mob‐based harms fall back on the idea of individual mens rea. They recognise that the mens rea element is complicated by the fact that an individual's intentional actions in the context of mob activity have a collective dimension to them, either because they are ‘group‐based’, or because they are enabled or constrained by the collective's ‘normative authority’. However, their accounts of punishment fail to adequately reflect this complication. We claim that this is because they primarily countenance ‘paradigmatic’ forms of punishment. Part 2 of the article argues that a non‐paradigmatic form of punishment – one that is ‘expressive’ insofar as it publicly communicates a denunciation – can better target the complex relations between the individual and collective dimensions of mob‐based harms. In order to better illuminate the target of such punishment, Part 1 of the article clarifies the relation between individual, shared and collective responsibility for mob‐based harms. Responding to several shortcomings in May's and Shockley's work, we examine the emergence of ‘mob mentality’ and argue that mob beliefs, intentions and norms are dynamically ‘expressed’ (i.e. publicly manifested, communicated and shaped) in and through the situated behaviour of individual mob members.
LanguageEnglish
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of applied philosophy
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 17 Jun 2019

Fingerprint

Punishment
Mentality
Harm
Mens Rea
Complications
Intentional Action
Authority
Expressive
Intentions
Denunciation
Collective Responsibility
Shared Responsibility
Paradigmatics

Cite this

@article{d6d438bbb99746b8b736b9500f67f670,
title = "Punishment for mob-based harms: expressing and denouncing mob mentality",
abstract = "Larry May's and Kenneth Shockley's discussions of punishment for mob‐based harms fall back on the idea of individual mens rea. They recognise that the mens rea element is complicated by the fact that an individual's intentional actions in the context of mob activity have a collective dimension to them, either because they are ‘group‐based’, or because they are enabled or constrained by the collective's ‘normative authority’. However, their accounts of punishment fail to adequately reflect this complication. We claim that this is because they primarily countenance ‘paradigmatic’ forms of punishment. Part 2 of the article argues that a non‐paradigmatic form of punishment – one that is ‘expressive’ insofar as it publicly communicates a denunciation – can better target the complex relations between the individual and collective dimensions of mob‐based harms. In order to better illuminate the target of such punishment, Part 1 of the article clarifies the relation between individual, shared and collective responsibility for mob‐based harms. Responding to several shortcomings in May's and Shockley's work, we examine the emergence of ‘mob mentality’ and argue that mob beliefs, intentions and norms are dynamically ‘expressed’ (i.e. publicly manifested, communicated and shaped) in and through the situated behaviour of individual mob members.",
author = "Sean Bowden and Sarah Sorial and Kylie Bourne",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1111/japp.12371",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of applied philosophy",
issn = "1468-5930",
publisher = "Blackwell Publishing",

}

Punishment for mob-based harms : expressing and denouncing mob mentality. / Bowden, Sean; Sorial, Sarah; Bourne, Kylie.

In: Journal of applied philosophy, 17.06.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Punishment for mob-based harms

T2 - Journal of applied philosophy

AU - Bowden, Sean

AU - Sorial, Sarah

AU - Bourne, Kylie

PY - 2019/6/17

Y1 - 2019/6/17

N2 - Larry May's and Kenneth Shockley's discussions of punishment for mob‐based harms fall back on the idea of individual mens rea. They recognise that the mens rea element is complicated by the fact that an individual's intentional actions in the context of mob activity have a collective dimension to them, either because they are ‘group‐based’, or because they are enabled or constrained by the collective's ‘normative authority’. However, their accounts of punishment fail to adequately reflect this complication. We claim that this is because they primarily countenance ‘paradigmatic’ forms of punishment. Part 2 of the article argues that a non‐paradigmatic form of punishment – one that is ‘expressive’ insofar as it publicly communicates a denunciation – can better target the complex relations between the individual and collective dimensions of mob‐based harms. In order to better illuminate the target of such punishment, Part 1 of the article clarifies the relation between individual, shared and collective responsibility for mob‐based harms. Responding to several shortcomings in May's and Shockley's work, we examine the emergence of ‘mob mentality’ and argue that mob beliefs, intentions and norms are dynamically ‘expressed’ (i.e. publicly manifested, communicated and shaped) in and through the situated behaviour of individual mob members.

AB - Larry May's and Kenneth Shockley's discussions of punishment for mob‐based harms fall back on the idea of individual mens rea. They recognise that the mens rea element is complicated by the fact that an individual's intentional actions in the context of mob activity have a collective dimension to them, either because they are ‘group‐based’, or because they are enabled or constrained by the collective's ‘normative authority’. However, their accounts of punishment fail to adequately reflect this complication. We claim that this is because they primarily countenance ‘paradigmatic’ forms of punishment. Part 2 of the article argues that a non‐paradigmatic form of punishment – one that is ‘expressive’ insofar as it publicly communicates a denunciation – can better target the complex relations between the individual and collective dimensions of mob‐based harms. In order to better illuminate the target of such punishment, Part 1 of the article clarifies the relation between individual, shared and collective responsibility for mob‐based harms. Responding to several shortcomings in May's and Shockley's work, we examine the emergence of ‘mob mentality’ and argue that mob beliefs, intentions and norms are dynamically ‘expressed’ (i.e. publicly manifested, communicated and shaped) in and through the situated behaviour of individual mob members.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067657210&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/japp.12371

DO - 10.1111/japp.12371

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of applied philosophy

JF - Journal of applied philosophy

SN - 1468-5930

ER -