Google Books shows just one other use of μing by the same author. Wikipedia evinces no use of μ in law or philosophy. But I read on Phi - Wikipedia that

In philosophy, φ is often used as shorthand for a generic act. (Also in uppercase.).

Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (8 edn, 2018). p. 217

A. Simester, ‘Is Strict Liability Always Wrong?’ in A. Simester (ed.) Appraising Strict Liability (Oxford: OUP, 2005), 33– 7


Objections Specific to Paradigm (Stigmatic) Crimes

Suppose that the state were to create a crime of ‘homicide’, defined as a strict liability offence of causing death. Objections to crimes of this type depend, in turn, on the nature of the criminal law. Without dwelling on the familiar analysis, there seem to me to be certain paradigm features associated with the criminalization of μing. Ex ante, μing is prohibited and declared to be wrong: citizens are not merely requested but instructed not to. Ex post, where D is found to have transgressed, he is convicted of μing and liable to punishment which may be substantial, perhaps including imprisonment. The conviction and the punishment also express censure, to D, Y, and the public at large. As well as suffering hard treatment, D is labelled as a particular sort of criminal (a ‘μer’), a labelling that conveys a public implication of culpable wrongdoing.
      These paradigm features of the criminal law imply certain objections to making μing a strict liability crime, at least where strict liability leads to conviction of blameless defendants . . .

  • 3
    Appears to just be a variable that Simester frequently uses in his writing. μ was used there because φ was already used for something else previously. This is further evident by his repeated use of letters for people in the extract, as well as other texts he has written. – animuson Aug 17 '19 at 18:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.