Why Criminal Law: A Question of Content? [Book Review]

Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (2):99-122 (2008)

Douglas Husak
Rutgers University - New Brunswick
I take it as obvious that attempts to justify the criminal law must be sensitive to matters of criminalization—to what conduct is proscribed or permitted. I discuss three additional matters that should be addressed in order to justify the criminal law. First, we must have a rough idea of what degree of deviation is tolerable between the set of criminal laws we ought to have and the set we really have. Second, we need information about how the criminal law at any given time and place is administered, since the law in action is bound to differ radically from the law on the books. Finally, we must have some basis for speculating what life would be like in the absence of a system of criminal justice—if the state ceased to impose punishments
Keywords Criminalization  Punishment  Rights  Legality  Discretion  Abolition
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11572-008-9048-3
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 41,608
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Two Concepts of Rules.John Rawls - 1955 - Philosophical Review 64 (1):3-32.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Punishment: Consequentialism.David Wood - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):455-469.
Coming Clean About the Criminal Law.James Edwards - 2011 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (3):315-332.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
47 ( #169,116 of 2,249,308 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #605,367 of 2,249,308 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature