Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Human Dignity of “Offenders”: A Limitation on Substantive Criminal Law

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Criminal Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper argues for attaching a significant role to the dignity of offenders as a limitation on the scope of substantive criminal law. Three different aspects of human dignity are discussed. Human dignity is closely connected with the principle of culpability. Respecting the dignity of offenders requires that we assign criminal liability according to the actual attitudes of the offenders towards the interests protected by the offence. The doctrine of natural and probable consequence of complicity, which allows us to assign liability for mens rea offenses to a negligent offender, violates the dignity of the offender; it treats the incautious offender as if she had willfully expressed disrespect towards the protected interest. The human dignity core of privacy is invaded by criminalizing the private possession of child pornography. By extending the prohibition of the creation, sale and distribution of child pornography to the private possession of pornography, the State attempts to control the way the individual expresses an essential part of the self—his sexual fantasies—within himself. Dignity demands that our actions convey an attitude of respect towards human beings. The expressive meaning of disrespect is culture-dependent. The historical association with totalitarian regimes explains our reluctance to impose a legal duty to report past crime: the individual who is legally required to turn a suspect into the police is viewed as an “informant.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Only in the constitution of two states, Montana and Puerto Rico, does this term appear explicitly (Mont. Const., Art. II §4; L.P.R.A Const. Art. II, § 1).

  2. In Germany, the Basic Law of 1949 does not explicitly guarantee the right to a fair trial, but this right has been read into the “State based on the rule of law” clause of the Basic Law, § 20(3) (“The legislature is bound by the constitutional order, the executive power and the courts are bound by statutes and law”).

  3. For a critical assessment of the doctrine of vagueness see Lockwood (2010).

  4. The United States Supreme Court subjected criminal statutes to review under “substantive” due process aspects.

  5. But see Goodman (2006, pp. 744–752) according to whom human dignity is in fact the underlying rationale for many U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

  6. For the discussion of human dignity in Germany see 44(1) ISR. L. REV. (2011), Benda (2000), Englard (2000), McAllister (2003). For the discussion of human dignity within Anglo-American jurisdictions, see Meyer and Parent (1992), Fletcher (1984), Schachter (1983), Dubber (2004, pp. 515–16, 533–35), Goodman (2006, pp. 744–752).

  7. In Canada, the constitutional challenge related to the felony murder rule, which is based on similar grounds. See R v. Vaillancourt (1987), R. v. Martineau (1990). These cases will be discussed infra.

  8. For an elaborate discussion of this case see Gur-Arye and Weigend (2011, pp. 75–81, 86–88).

  9. Proportionality tests are required under the limitation clause—Article 8 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992), according to which a statute interfering with basic rights will pass constitutional muster only if it has a legitimate purpose, limits the restriction of the right as little as possible and does not disproportionately restrict the basic right in question.

  10. For the expressive meaning of mens rea see Sendor (1985).

  11. Under Israeli law the punishment cannot exceed 3 years imprisonment (Israeli Penal Law 1977, §21).

  12. The criminalization of the possession of child pornography was similarly approved by the constitutional court of South-Africa (De Reuck v. Director of Public Prosecutions 2004).

  13. White J., relied in this context on New-York v. Ferber (1982, p. 762).

  14. The exceptions are: “(1) written materials or visual representations created and held by the accused alone, exclusively for personal use; and (2) visual recordings created by or depicting the accused that do not depict unlawful sexual activity.”

  15. A further harm identified by the minority is discussed infra.

  16. Cited at Part II of Justice Brennan decision.

  17. For the discussion generated by the rulings in the cases of both Osborne and Sharpe see: for Osborne: Smith (1991, p. 1011), Johnson (1994), Burke (1997); for Sharpe: Grover (2003), Benedet (2002), Gotell (2001).

  18. See also Article 2(1) of the German Basic Law (1949), which affords everyone the right to develop his or her personality as long as one does not interfere with the rights of others, the constitutional order, or the moral law.

  19. See Whitman (2004, pp. 1153–64, 1211–19) who argues that the importance of private sphere expresses the US culture of privacy, as opposed to the European culture emphasizing the right to control one's public image.

  20. See Margalit 1996 (p. 204), defining privacy as “the minimal sphere for individuals’ control over their interests.”

  21. For whether the interest of drying up the market by itself could justify criminalization in other instances that do not involve infringement of the offender's dignity, see Green (2011).

  22. In the same spirit see the South African Constitutional Court’s ruling in the case of De Reuck (2004, p. 36), according to which “there is also harm to the dignity and perception of all children when a society allows sexualised images of children to be available”.

  23. A comprehensive survey is provided by the House of Lords' decision in Sykes v. D.P.P. (1961). Doubts as to the accuracy of the survey can be found in Glazebrook (1964, pp. 189–208, 283–302).

  24. The leading case is US v. Farrar (1930). For a survey of the federal cases see Mullis (1974, pp. 1101–06); Wenik (1985, pp. 1792–93).

  25. An exception is the duty to report child and elderly adult abuse, See, e.g. 16 Del. C. § 903 (LexisNexis 2010), Fla. Stat. § 39.201 (LexisNexis 2010), KRS § 620.030 (LexisNexis 2010), N.J. Stat. § 9:6-8.10 (LexisNexis 2010).

  26. See, e.g. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 794.027 (LexisNexis 2010), R.I. Gen. Laws 11-37-3.1 (duty to report immediately to the police the commission of sexual battery against another person); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. c. 268 § 40, Rev. Code Wash. § 9.69.100 (LexisNexis 2011) (duty to report to the police "as soon as reasonably practical" the commission of certain crimes); ORC Ann. § 2921.22 (LexisNexis 2011) (duty to report the commission of certain felonies to the law enforcement authorities).

  27. In Canada, several provinces have passed similar laws, e.g. Ontario (Good Samaritan act 2001) and Alberta (Emergency Medical Aid act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-7).

  28. Note that the perception of the police and the way it performs its duties, may further affect the willingness to report crimes, especially in certain sectors of the population (McTaggart 2001, pp. 1234–35; Minton et al. 1998, pp. 23–26; Harris1994, p. 681). But see Skogan (1984, p. 124), arguing that the decision whether to report is based principally on the severity of the crime, and other factors have little or no effect.

  29. The privilege against self-incrimination is found in the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and allows witnesses to refuse to answer incriminating questions (they cannot refuse to appear in court altogether) (Peikin et al. 2008, pp. 617–18). This right usually overrides the defendant's right to confrontation (id., p. 621).

  30. These consist mostly of spousal testimonial privileges (e.g. Code of Ala. § 12-21-227 (LexisNexis 2011); C.R.S § 13-90-107 (LexisNexis 2010); Md. Courts And Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 9-105 (LexisNexis 2011)) and privileges of certain professions, such as medical personnel, clergy, therapists, lawyers and journalists (e.g. Code of Ala. § 12-21-142, § 12-21-166 (LexisNexis 2011); A.C.A. § 17-97-105; C.R.S. § 13-90-119).

References

  • Arendt, H. (1951, 12th printing 1968). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace & World.

  • Ashworth, A. (1991). Principles of criminal law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedau, H. A. (1992). The Eighth Amendment, Human dignity and the Death Penalty. In M. J. Meyer & W. A. Parent (Eds.), The constitution of rights: Human dignity and American values (p. 145). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • Benda, E. (2000). The Protection of Human Dignity (Article 1 of the Basic Law). S.M.U. Law Review, 53, 443–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendor, A., & Sachs, M. (2011). The constitutional status of human dignity in Germany and Israel. Israel Law Review, 44, 25–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedet, J. (2002). Children in pornography after sharpe. Les Cahiers de droit, 43, 327–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, C. (1983). The exclusionary rule in Germany. Harvard Law Review, 96, 1032–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, D. D. (1997). The criminalization of virtual child pornography: A constitutional question. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 34, 439–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • BVerfGE 1973 34.

  • BVerfGE 1989 80, 367.

  • Canadian Criminal Code (1985).

  • Charter of the United Nations (1945).

  • Ciociola, G. M. D. (2003). Misprision of felony and its progeny. Brandeis Law Journal, 41, 697–768.

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Chicago, Petitioner v. Jesus Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999).

  • CrimA 4424/98 Silgado v. The State of Israel [2002] IsrSC 56(5) 529.

  • Criminal Justice Act 1988 (England).

  • Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (England).

  • Criminal Law Act 1967 (England).

  • Dan-Cohen, M. (2002). Harmful thoughts: Essays on law, self, and morality. Princeton: Princeton University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dan-Cohen, M. (2010). Sanctioning corporations. Journal of Law & Policy, 19, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dan-Cohen, M. (2011). A concept of dignity. Israel Law Review, 44, 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Reuck v. Director of Public Prosecutions 2004 (1) SA 406 (CC).

  • Dubber, M. (2004). Toward a constitutional law of crime and punishment. Hastings Law Journal, 55, 509–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberle, E. J. (2002). Dignity and liberty: Constitutional visions in Germany and the United States. London: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emergency Medical Aid act, R.S.A. 2000.

  • Englard, I. (2000). Human dignity: From antiquity to modern Israel’s constitution framework. Cardozo Law Review, 21, 1903–1928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkansas Code Annoteated.

  • Code of Alaska.

  • Colorado Revised Statutes.

  • Delaware Code.

  • Enmund v. Florida 458 U. S. 782. (1982).

  • European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950).

  • Feinberg, J. (1987). Harm to others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. P. (1984). Human dignity as a constitutional value. University of Western Ontario Law Review, 22, 171–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. P. (1998). Basic concepts of criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida Statutes.

  • Fuller, E. (2010, November 17). Are TSA pat-downs and full-body scans unconstitutional? The Christian Science Monitor.

  • Gardner, J. (1994). Rationality and the rule of law in offences against the person. Cambridge Law Journal, 53, 502–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavison, R. (1979). Privacy and the limits of law. Yale Law Journal, 89, 421–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazebrook, P. R. (1964). Misprision of felony—shadow or Phantom? The American Journal of Legal History, 8(3), 189–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good Samaritan act, 2001.

  • Goodman, M. D. (2006). Human dignity in supreme court constitutional jurisprudence. Nebraska Law Review, 84, 740–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotell, L. (2001). Inverting image and reality: R. v. Sharpe and the Moral Panic around Child Pornography. Constitutional Forum, 12, 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. (2011). Thieving and receiving: overcriminalizing the possession of stolen goods. New Criminal Law Review, 14(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S. (2003). Oppression of children intellectualized as free expression under the Canadian Charter: A reanalysis of the Sharpe possession of child pornography case. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 11, 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gur-Arye, M. (2001). A failure to prevent crime—should it be criminal? Criminal Justice Ethics, 20(2), 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gur-Arye, M., & Weigend, T. (2011). Constitutional review of criminal prohibitions affecting human dignity and liberty: German and Israeli perspectives. Israel Law Review, 44, 63–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt, B. (1990). The collapse of the harm principle. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 90, 109–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. A. (1994). Factors for reasonable suspicion: When black and poor means stopped and frisked. Indiana Law Journal, 69, 659–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, S. J. (1994). Foundation of the duty to rescue. Vanderbilt Law Review, 47, 673–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoernle, T., & Kremnitzer, M. (2011a). Human dignity and the principle of culpability. Israel Law Review, 44, 115–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoernle, T., & Kremnitzer, M. (2011b). Human dignity as a protected interest in the criminal law. Israel Law Review, 44, 143–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, S. J. (1983). Statutes establishing a duty to report crimes or render assistance to strangers: Making apathy criminal. Kentucky Law Journal, 72, 827–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).

  • Israel Law Review. (2011). 44(1) (entire issue).

  • Johnson, D. B. (1994). Why the possession of computer-generated child pornography can be constitutionally prohibited. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 4, 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadish, S. H. (1997). Reckless complicity. Journal Criminal Law & Criminology, 87, 369–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadish, S. (1999). Fifty years of criminal law: An opinionated review. California Law Review, 87, 943–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1996). Metaphysics of morals (M. J. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kappeler, S. (1986). The pornography of representation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M. (1975). Misprision of felony not a crime in Florida. University of Miami Law Review, 30, 222–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kentucky Revised Statutes.

  • Klitou, D. (2008). Backscatter body scanners—a strip search by other means. Computer Law & Security Report, 24(4), 316–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblatt, S. (2007). Are emerging technologies in airport passenger screening reasonable under the fourth amendment. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 41, 385–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreit, A. (2008). Vicarious criminal liability and the constitutional dimensions of Pinkerton. American University Law Review, 57, 585–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFave, W., & Scott., A. W. Jr. (1986). Criminal law, 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Group.

  • Lagodny, O. (1999). Human dignity and its impact on German substantive criminal law and criminal procedure. Israel Law Review, 33, 575–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

  • Lipkin, R. J. (1983). Beyond Good Samaritan and moral monster: An individualistic justification for the duty to rescue. UCLA Law Review, 31, 252–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, C. D. (2010). Defining indefiniteness: Suggested revisions to the void for vagueness doctrine. Cardozo Public Law Policy & Ethics Journal, 8, 255–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubonja, F. (2001). Privacy in a totalitarian regime. Social Research, 68, 237.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, C. A. (1985). Pornography, civil rights and speech. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 20, 1–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margalit, A. (1996). The Decent Society.

  • R. v. Martineau [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633.

  • Massachusetts General Laws Annotated.

  • McAllister, M. C. (2003). Human dignity and individual liberty in Germany and the United States as examined through each country’s leading abortion cases. Tulsa Journal of Comparative & International Law, 11, 491–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden, C. (2008). Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. European Journal of International Law, 19, 655–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McTaggart, D. T. (2001). Reciprocity on the Streets: Reflections on the fourth amendment and the duty to cooperate with the police. New York University Law Review, 76, 1233–1258.

    Google Scholar 

  • McTague, T. (2010, March 4). No Naked Body Scan… No Flight; Two Women Are First to Be Banned. The Mirror.

  • Meale, R. E. (1975). Misprision of felony: A crime whose time has come again. University of Florida Law Review, 28, 199–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. J., & Parent, W. A. (Eds.). (1992). The constitution of rights: Human dignity and American values. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • Mill, J. S. (1989). On liberty. In Stefan. Collini (Ed.), Mill, on liberty and other writings (p. 13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Statutes.

  • Minton, T. D., Smith, S. K., Steadman, G. W., & Townsend, M., U.S. Dep’t of Justice. (1998). Criminal victimization and perceptions of community safety in 12 cities. A joint project by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvpcs98.pdf. Accessed 27 February 2012.

  • Moore, M. (1990). Choice, character and excuse. Social Philosophy and Policy, 7, 29–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, E. L. (1953). Misprision of felony. South Carolina Law Quarterly, 6, 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, C. W. (1974). Misprision of felony: a reappraisal. Emory Law Journal, 23, 1095–1118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M. C., & Wilds, M. R. (2001). X-rated X-ray invades privacy rights. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12(4), 333–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • New-York v. Ferber, 458 US 747 (1982).

  • New Jersey Statutes.

  • Ohio Revised Code.

  • Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990).

  • Ost, S. (2002). Children at risk: Legal and societal perceptions of the potential threat that the possession of child pornography poses to society. Journal of Law & Society, 29(3), 436–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972).

  • Parent, W. A. (1992). Constitutional values and human dignity. In M. J. Meyer & W. A. Parent (Eds.), The constitution of rights: Human dignity and American values (p. 47). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • Peikin, S. R., Seymour, K. P., & Caffarone, A. (2008). Prosecution of process crimes: Thoughts and trends. Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, 37, III.

  • Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).

  • Protection of Children Act 1978 (England).

  • Ratcliffe, J. M. (Ed.). (1966). The Good Samaritan and the law. New York: Garden City, Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiman, J. H. (1976). Privacy, intimacy, and personhood. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6, 26–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revised Code Washington.

  • Richards, D. A. J. (1979). Human rights and the moral foundations of the substantive criminal law. Georgia Law Review, 13, 1395–1446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhode Island General Laws.

  • Roach, K. (2010). The problematic revival of murder under section 229(c) of the criminal code. Alberta Law Review, 47, 675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, K. (2011). The primacy of liberty and proportionality, not human dignity, when subjecting criminal law to constitutional control. Israel Law Review, 44, 91–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

  • Rosenthal, A. M. (1964). Thirty eight witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saletan, W. (2007). Getting virtually naked. National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada).

  • Schachter, O. (1983). Human dignity as a normative concept. The American Journal of International Law, 77, 848–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, A. W., Jr. (1957). Constitutional limitations on substantive criminal law. Rocky Mountain Law Review, 29, 275–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sendor, B. (1985). Crime as communication: An interpretive theory of the insanity defense and the mental elements of crime. Georgia Law Journal, 74, 1371–1434.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Sharpe, 2001 S.C.R. 1, 45.

  • Skogan, W. G. (1984). Reporting crimes to the police. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 21(2), 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. S. (1991). Private possession of child pornography: Narrowing at-home privacy rights. Annual Survey of American Law, 1991, 1011–1046.

  • Smith, A. M., & Menlow, M. (Eds.). (1993). The duty to rescue: Jurisprudence of aid (Applied Legal Philosophy). London: Dartmouth Publishing Group.

  • Stanley v. Georgia 394 U.S. 557 (1969).

  • Sykes v. D.P.P. [1961] 3 ALL E.R. 33.

  • The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (1982).

  • R v. Vaillancourt [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636.

  • The Canberra Times. (2010). Full body scan or pat-down.

  • The Constitution of South Africa. (1996).

  • The German Basic Law. (1949).

  • The Israeli Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. (1992).

  • The German Penal Code.

  • The Israeli Penal Code. (1977).

  • Tison v. Arizona 481 U. S. 137 (1987).

  • The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. (2000). A/RES/54/263.

  • The Program of Action for the Prevention of the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. 55th Mtg., 1992/74.

  • UN Treaty Collection. http://treaties.un.org . Accessed 27 February 2011.

  • U.S. Constitution (1787).

  • United States Code.

  • U.S. v. Farrar, 38 F.2d 515 (1930).

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

  • van Dieen, J. (2002). The 20th anniversary of the charter: Development in criminal law under Section 7 of the charter. Windsor Y.B. Access Just, 21, 129–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermont Statutes Annotated.

  • Wenik, J. (1985). Forcing the bystander to get involved: A case for a statute requiring witnesses to report crime. Yale Law Journal, 94(7), 1787–1806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, J. Q. (2004). The two western cultures of privacy: Dignity versus liberty. Yale Law Journal, 113, 1151–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woozley, A. D. (1983). A duty to rescue: Some thoughts on criminal liability. Virginia Law Review, 69, 1273–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Neha Jain, the commentator on the paper for her superb comments. Special thanks are due to my research assistants, Gallia Daor and Shlomit Stein, for their devotion, help and many useful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Judge Basil Wunsh Professor of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Miriam Gur-Arye

Authors
  1. Miriam Gur-Arye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miriam Gur-Arye.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gur-Arye, M. Human Dignity of “Offenders”: A Limitation on Substantive Criminal Law. Criminal Law, Philosophy 6, 187–205 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-012-9151-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-012-9151-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation