PUBLIC GOODS AND CRIMINALISATION

James Slater
{"title":"PUBLIC GOODS AND CRIMINALISATION","authors":"James Slater","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Theories of criminalisation seek to identify the criteria by which behaviour is legitimately criminalised. This article believes that their success in so doing is best assessed if they examine the question of criminalisation in light of four desirable features for any such theory. These desirable features, which this article will term desiderata for short, are as follows: Desideratum 1: a theory of criminalisation should offer an evaluative framework that justifies the form of legal regulation known as the criminal law. Desideratum 2: a theory of criminalisation’s evaluative framework under Desideratum 1 should allow for a coherent and defensible account of the criminal law as morally censorious, thereby articulating something distinctive about the criminal law as a form of legal regulation. Desideratum 3: a theory of criminalisation should display a coherent understanding of how its evaluative framework under Desideratum 1 integrates with a theoretical account of the purpose, and legitimacy, of the state. Desideratum 4: a theory of criminalisation’s evaluative framework under Desideratum 1 should distil criminal from non-criminal behaviour in principled and defensible way. Given that the defence of each desideratum would arguably generate an article apiece, the aims of this article are consequently more modest. It is aimed at those who already accept one or more of them. It will demonstrate the success, in satisfying the desiderata, of a theory of criminalisation embedded in the notion of public goods. It shall call this theory the public goods account (the ‘PGA’). The PGA is not an entirely new theory, as elements of it can be found in the writings of a number of theorists. However, by expanding on, exploring and assessing these elements in light of the desiderata, this article offers further support to a theory of criminal law embedded in the notion of public goods. In order to understand the PGA, it is necessary to begin this article with a section outlining the nature of public goods. Subsequent sections will then address how the PGA satisfies each desideratum, in the order they are set out above.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Denning Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Theories of criminalisation seek to identify the criteria by which behaviour is legitimately criminalised. This article believes that their success in so doing is best assessed if they examine the question of criminalisation in light of four desirable features for any such theory. These desirable features, which this article will term desiderata for short, are as follows: Desideratum 1: a theory of criminalisation should offer an evaluative framework that justifies the form of legal regulation known as the criminal law. Desideratum 2: a theory of criminalisation’s evaluative framework under Desideratum 1 should allow for a coherent and defensible account of the criminal law as morally censorious, thereby articulating something distinctive about the criminal law as a form of legal regulation. Desideratum 3: a theory of criminalisation should display a coherent understanding of how its evaluative framework under Desideratum 1 integrates with a theoretical account of the purpose, and legitimacy, of the state. Desideratum 4: a theory of criminalisation’s evaluative framework under Desideratum 1 should distil criminal from non-criminal behaviour in principled and defensible way. Given that the defence of each desideratum would arguably generate an article apiece, the aims of this article are consequently more modest. It is aimed at those who already accept one or more of them. It will demonstrate the success, in satisfying the desiderata, of a theory of criminalisation embedded in the notion of public goods. It shall call this theory the public goods account (the ‘PGA’). The PGA is not an entirely new theory, as elements of it can be found in the writings of a number of theorists. However, by expanding on, exploring and assessing these elements in light of the desiderata, this article offers further support to a theory of criminal law embedded in the notion of public goods. In order to understand the PGA, it is necessary to begin this article with a section outlining the nature of public goods. Subsequent sections will then address how the PGA satisfies each desideratum, in the order they are set out above.
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
公共产品和刑事定罪
定罪理论试图确定行为被合法定罪的标准。本文认为,如果他们根据任何此类理论的四个理想特征来审视定罪问题,就能最好地评估他们在这方面的成功。这些可取的特征,本文将简称为可取的特征,如下:可取的特征1:定罪理论应该提供一个评价框架,为被称为刑法的法律规定形式辩护。愿望2:愿望1下的刑事化评价框架理论应该允许对刑法作为道德审查的连贯和可辩护的解释,从而阐明刑法作为一种法律规定形式的独特之处。愿望3:一种定罪理论应该显示出一种连贯的理解,即愿望1下的评估框架如何与国家目的和合法性的理论解释相结合。愿望4:愿望1下的刑事化评价框架理论应以原则性和可辩护的方式从非犯罪行为中提炼出犯罪行为。鉴于对每一种愿望的辩护都可能分别产生一篇文章,因此本文的目的更为温和。它针对的是那些已经接受其中一个或多个的人。它将证明,在满足人们的期望方面,植根于公共产品概念的刑事定罪理论取得了成功。它将把这一理论称为公共物品账户(PGA)。PGA并不是一个全新的理论,因为它的一些元素可以在许多理论家的著作中找到。然而,通过对这些要素的扩展、探索和评估,本文为公共物品概念中的刑法理论提供了进一步的支持。为了理解PGA,有必要用概述公共产品性质的一节来开始本文。接下来的章节将按照上面列出的顺序,讨论PGA如何满足每个需求。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What Are the Legal Mechanisms for Seeking Solutions to Disparities in the Delivery of Care in the NHS and Where Does Liability Lie? Beneficial Ownership of the Family Home Apologies and the Legacy of an Unlawful Application of Terra Nullius in Terra Australis Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy: A Contemporary Asian Reading of a Seminal Text ‘Not My Employee, Not My Liability’
×
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