Moral judgment

In Moral Judgment, Professor Wilson demonstrates how our judicial system has compromised its obligation to discriminate between right and wrong. He explains why lawyers and judges - by distinguishing between personal and judicial responsibility, by inviting the participation of "expert witnesses," and by allowing "mitigating circumstances" to play a major role in criminal testimony - have moved from judging behavior to explaining it. Citing the Menendez and Goetz. Verdicts, among others, Wilson makes an erudite case for re-examining the ethical drift of contemporary jurisprudence. He suggests that courts may encourage individuals to reject personal responsibility for their actions, instead blaming society for failing them. The crux of Wilson's position rests in his closely deliberated congruence of law and morality, a subject that has concerned legal scholars and philosophers for centuries. That the law should follow closely upon. What society deems morally correct, Wilson contends, is plain common sense. Today, though, what is legally excusable and what is morally acceptable have diverged to the point that criminals who should be given harsher sentences often get lighter penalties