History's Challenge to Criminal Law Theory
Criminal Law and Philosophy 3 (3):271-287 (2009)
| Abstract | After briefly sketching an historical account of criminal law that emphasizes its longstanding reach into social, commercial and personal life outside the core areas of criminal offenses, this paper explores why criminal law theory has never succeeded in limiting the content of criminal codes to offenses that fit the criteria of dominant theories, particularly versions of the harm principle. Early American writers on criminal law endorsed no such limiting principles to criminal law, and early American criminal law consequently was substantively broad. But even with the rise of theories in the mid-nineteenth century that sought to limit criminal lawâs reach, codified offenses continued to widely and deeply regulate social life and exceed the limits of those normative arguments. This essay suggests that this practical failure of criminal law theory occurred because it was never adopted by an institutional actor that could limit offense definitions in accord with normative commitments. Legislatures are institutionally unsuited to having their policy actions limited by principled arguments, and courts passed on the opportunity to incorporate a limiting principle for criminal law once they began, in the Lochner era, actively regulating legislative decisions through Constitutional law. The one avenue through which criminal law theory has had some success in affecting criminal codes is through the influence of specialized bodies that influence legislation, especially the American Law Institute advocacy of the Model Penal Code. But the institutional structure of American criminal law policymaking permits an unusually small role for such specialized bodies, and without such an institutional mechanism, criminal law theory is likely to continue to have little effect on actual criminal codes. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesR. A. Duff (2010). Towards a Theory of Criminal Law? Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 84 (1):1-28.
Douglas Husak (2008). Why Criminal Law: A Question of Content? Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (2):99-122.
Michael S. Moore (1993). Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and its Implications for Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Larry Alexander (2009). Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press.
Larry May & Zachary Hoskins (eds.) (2010). International Criminal Law and Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Antony Duff & Stuart P. Green (eds.) (2011). Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Malcolm Thorburn (2012). Two Conceptions of Equality Before the (Criminal) Law. In François Tanguay-Renaud & James Stribopoulos (eds.), Rethinking Criminal Law Theory: New Canadian Perspectives in the Philosophy of Domestic, Transnational, and International Criminal Law. Hart Publishing.
François Tanguay-Renaud (2012). Individual Emergencies and the Rule of Criminal Law. In François Tanguay-Renaud & James Stribopoulos (eds.), Rethinking Criminal Law Theory: New Canadian Perspectives in the Philosophy of Domestic, Transnational, and International Criminal Law. Hart Publishing.
Benjamin L. Berger (2012). Mental Disorder and the Instability of Blame in Criminal Law. In François Tanguay-Renaud & James Stribopoulos (eds.), Rethinking Criminal Law Theory: New Canadian Perspectives in the Philosophy of Domestic, Transnational, and International Criminal Law. Hart Publishing.
Kimberley Brownlee (2013). Digging Up, Dismantling, and Redesigning the Criminal Law. Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (1):169-178.
George P. Fletcher (2007). The Grammar of Criminal Law: American, Comparative, and International. Oxford University Press.
Antony Duff (ed.) (1998). Philosophy and the Criminal Law: Principle and Critique. Cambridge University Press.
Matthew Lister (2010). Review of May & Hoskins, International Criminal Law and Philosophy. [REVIEW] Concurring Opinions Blog.
David Dolinko (2012). Review of “Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law”. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (1):93-102.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-09-13Total downloads17 ( #72,089 of 556,908 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,908 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
