Beyond Fair Labelling: Offence Differentiation in Criminal Law.

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ojls/gqac007
Andrew Cornford
{"title":"Beyond Fair Labelling: Offence Differentiation in Criminal Law.","authors":"Andrew Cornford","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqac007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How should criminal conduct be divided among different offences? To date, this question has received only one serious answer: the fair labelling principle, which states that distinctions among offences should reflect distinctions in the nature and seriousness of the wrongdoing that they criminalise. This article argues that the fair labelling principle should not be the sole or main principle governing offence differentiation decisions. Its argument consists in three main claims. First, the only plausible foundation for the principle is a duty to ensure that the blame expressed through criminal conviction is allocated justly. Second, this duty cannot be absolute: if it were, the result would be an absurdly highly differentiated criminal law. Third, several other factors are relevant to how we should differentiate offences, and these will often count against the demands of just blaming. A complete normative account of offence differentiation must thus extend beyond fair labelling-or indeed, any single principle.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9732221/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqac007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

How should criminal conduct be divided among different offences? To date, this question has received only one serious answer: the fair labelling principle, which states that distinctions among offences should reflect distinctions in the nature and seriousness of the wrongdoing that they criminalise. This article argues that the fair labelling principle should not be the sole or main principle governing offence differentiation decisions. Its argument consists in three main claims. First, the only plausible foundation for the principle is a duty to ensure that the blame expressed through criminal conviction is allocated justly. Second, this duty cannot be absolute: if it were, the result would be an absurdly highly differentiated criminal law. Third, several other factors are relevant to how we should differentiate offences, and these will often count against the demands of just blaming. A complete normative account of offence differentiation must thus extend beyond fair labelling-or indeed, any single principle.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超越公平标签:刑法中的犯罪区分。
犯罪行为应如何划分为不同的罪行?迄今为止,这个问题只得到了一个严肃的答案:公平标签原则,该原则指出,罪行之间的区别应该反映出它们所认定的不法行为的性质和严重程度的区别。本文认为,公平标记原则不应成为区分犯罪的唯一或主要原则。它的论点包括三个主要主张。首先,这一原则唯一合理的基础是有义务确保通过刑事定罪表达的责任得到公正分配。其次,这种义务不能是绝对的:如果是绝对的,结果将是一个荒谬的高度分化的刑法。第三,其他几个因素与我们如何区分犯罪有关,而这些因素往往不利于仅仅指责的要求。因此,对罪行区分的完整规范解释必须超越公平标签——或者实际上,超越任何单一原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is published on behalf of the Faculty of Law in the University of Oxford. It is designed to encourage interest in all matters relating to law, with an emphasis on matters of theory and on broad issues arising from the relationship of law to other disciplines. No topic of legal interest is excluded from consideration. In addition to traditional questions of legal interest, the following are all within the purview of the journal: comparative and international law, the law of the European Community, legal history and philosophy, and interdisciplinary material in areas of relevance.
期刊最新文献
The Impoverished Publicness of Algorithmic Decision Making Ships of State and Empty Vessels: Critical Reflections on ‘Territorial Status in International Law’ Forum Marketing in International Commercial Courts? Corporate Purpose Swings as a Social, Atheoretical Process: Will the Pendulum Break? Applying Laws Across Time: Disentangling the ‘Always Speaking’ Principles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1