Abstract
In this article, I comment on Simester and von Hirsch’s theory of criminalization and discuss general principles of criminalization. After some brief comments on punishment theories and the role of moral wrongdoing, I examine main lines of contemporary criminalization theories which tend to focus on the issues of harm, offense, paternalism and side-constraints. One of the points of disagreement with Simester and von Hirsch concerns the role of the harm principle. I rely on a straightforward normative concept of “rights of others,” not in the sense of rights granted in positive law but in the sense of rights which are to be justified in political philosophy. With a rights-centered rather than a harm-centered approach, a prima facie reason for criminalization is the violation of others’ rights. It is unnecessary to develop a separate category of “offense to others,” and paternalistic interventions can be criticized straightforwardly because rights can be waived.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Kant (1797, 1974: 337).
See Peršak (2007: 95–125).
Harcourt (1999).
See Gardner and Shute (2000).
See for instance Zieschang (1998).
See Roxin (2006: § 11).
This is not an empirical claim; just suppose there was clear evidence.
Nagel (1986).
Hörnle (2006: 133–148).
See Goffmann (1961).
See Hörnle (2012).
Only to forego punishment, not to allow it, see Simester and von Hirsch (2011: 181); the politically cautious proposal did not dare to do away with “wrongful”.
Bundesratsdrucksache 515/12.
Only prohibited if it reaches the threshold of severe methods of coercion such as violence, see § 177 German Penal Code.
Neither a criminal offence in England nor in Germany.
The exemption for marital rape was abolished in 1997, 33. Strafrechtsaenderungsgesetz from July 1, 1997.
Referencess
Gardner, J. and Shute, S. (2000). The Wrongness of Rape. In: J. Horder (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 193–217.
Goffmann, E. (1961). Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City, N.Y.: Random House.
Harcourt, B. (1999). The Collapse of the Harm Principle, J. Crim. L. & Criminology 90, 109–194.
Hörnle, T. (2005) Grob anstössiges Verhalten. Strafrechtlicher Schutz von Moral, Gefühlen und Tabus. Frankfurt/M.: Klostermann.
Hörnle, T. (2006). Legal Regulation of Offence, in: Incivilities: Regulating Offensive Behavior (von Hirsch and Simester, ed.), Oxford: Hart.
Hörnle, T. (2012). Criminalizing Behavior to Protect Human Dignity, Criminal Law and Philosophy 6, 307–325.
Kant, I. (1974, originally published in 1797). Metaphysik der Sitten (Metaphysics of Morals) in: Werkausgabe (W. Vossenkuhl, ed.), Vol. VII. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Nagel, T. (1986). The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peršak, N. (2007). Criminalising Harmful Conduct. New York: Springer.
Roxin, C. (2006). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 4th ed., Muenchen: C.H. Beck Verlag.
Simester, A.P. and von Hirsch, A. (2011). Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs. Oxford: Hart.
Wohlers, W. (2000). Deliktstypen des Präventionsstrafrechts—zur Dogmatik „moderner“Gefährdungsdelikte. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Zieschang, F. (1998). Die Gefährdungsdelikte. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hörnle, T. Theories of Criminalization. Criminal Law, Philosophy 10, 301–314 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9307-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9307-4