Judging Evil: Rethinking the Law of Murder and Manslaughter

Why do killers deserve punishment, and how should the law determine the answer? These deceptively straightforward questions sit at the heart of Samuel H. Pillsbury's searching examination of criminal responsibility in homicide cases. Pillsbury pushes back against the modern trend in criminal law toward subjective psychological analysis, arguing instead for a morally grounded framework. His central claim is clear and deliberately provocative: people deserve punishment proportional to the evil they choose to do, regardless of their psychological makeup or capacity. This is not a call to abandon nuance, but a reasoned case for a more morally coherent legal standard, one that holds wrongdoers accountable for their choices rather than their mental profiles. Drawing on real criminal cases throughout, Pillsbury moves fluidly between legal analysis and ethical philosophy, exposing where current doctrine falls short and offering concrete proposals for reform. His target is the growing tendency to let subjective considerations water down culpability, and his remedy is a renewed focus on the moral character of the act itself. Accessible but unsparing in its intellectual demands, Judging Evil is a compelling rethinking of what homicide law is actually for and what genuine justice in these cases requires.