If the main effects of criminalizing drug use are felt in communities the affluent shun, it is not hard to see how law-makers could be blind to the amount of damage criminalization does. If so, we must ask what shape that theory ought to take, and how lofty should be the ambitions of those who construct it.
At the present time, the main justifications for punishment can be divided into five theories which is retributive, deterrence, preventive, reformative and expiatory theory.
It is synonymous with moral fault or moral blameworthiness. The following two paragraphs expand on both these claims. Of course, things are not so straightforward. To see the second point, consider the possession of guns. But this is not true of other excusatory pleas.
It might look as though punishing wrongdoers for these protective reasons amounts to treating them as mere means. This is where the discussion of autonomy and the Harm Principle would come in.
The most familiar account of the distinction has it that while justified actors deny wrongdoing, excused actors deny either responsibility or culpability Austin ; Fletcher ; Greenawalt ; Baron This view can be developed in a number of ways.
Be that as it may, whether we take into account other harms remains important: There are two reasons to answer the first question in the affirmative. But this theory does face its own problems.
Whatever view of harm we take, we must also decide whether all harms count for the purposes of a given harm principle. True, those who plead insanity deny that they were capable of responding to reasons when they acted.
These remarks suggest an alternative to the communitarian view. Therefore, it can be say that the criminal law provides justice and act as a warning to those who attempt to exercise their autonomy that would harm others. The best explanation of these rules, so the argument goes, is that offending acts generate a duty to answer that is otherwise absent.
Academic debate about causation and omissions largely takes our paradigm for granted. Nor in the least do I suggest that ethical wrong, that sadism is praiseworthy, or that new opinions on sexual morality are necessarily superior to the old, or anything else of the same kind.
Imagine Alisha stole from Bintu because she was under duress. If impersonal values justify having criminal law, we have reason to opt for whichever set of legal rules will realise those values most efficiently.
According to one argument for this conclusion, the stable existence of almost any valuable social institution—be it financial, educational, familial, military, or political—depends on widespread compliance with its rules.
If so, different how.
Therefore, it Justifies why only when the activity causes a significant amount of harms to others or society only the law would step in and prohibiting it Theoretical principle of criminal law happening.
Though our new-fangled machine might justify doing away with trials—once we factor in how expensive they can be—we would lose something of value in doing away with them.
The right of autonomy and the right of freedom to live as one likes is a fundamental issue to many commentators. In this case, during a raid, police found a tape depicting the various activities of a group of homosexual sadomasochists. What justifies criminalizing wrongs, and bringing criminal proceedings against wrongdoers, is that this contributes to some larger social good—to the framework of legal rules we need for independence, or to the community remaining true to itself.
It is all too easy for the pursuit of justice to become the pursuit of revenge, and for the perceived urgency of the pursuit to generate false accusations.
If MR is sound, there should be no criminal liability that is formally strict in the strong sense. The ratio deciding forms the legal principle which is a binding precedent, meaning it must be followed in future cases containing the same material facts. What we should do to conform to this moral norm is not always obvious.
Where criminalization does have these effects, the harm it does is out of all proportion to any harm prevented. It can ensure that those in positions of power cannot wrong others with impunity, and reduce the likelihood that vindictiveness begets retaliation, which begets violent conflict from which all lose out Wellman8— Theories of Punishment, http: Conduct that falls outside the line may not be criminalized come what may.
Theoretical Principle of Criminal Law Essay Sample. Before going deeper into the theories governing criminal liability and punishments, it is essential for us to know what criminal law is or in particular what exactly is a crime.
Principles of Criminal Law, now in its seventh edition, takes a distinctly different approach to the study of criminal law, whilst still covering all of the vital topics found on criminal law courses. Uniquely theoretical, it seeks to elucidate the underlying principles and theoretical foundations of the criminal law, and aims to critically engage readers by 5/5(2).
In the United Kingdom today, how criminal liabilities and punishments are set is based on two primary sources of law which consist of parliament enacted statute laws and also Judicial Theoretical Principle of Criminal Law By Trackless UK constitution.
Any theory of criminal law must explain why criminal law is distinctive—why it is a body of law worthy of separate attention. This entry begins by identifying features of criminal law that make this so (§1). the criminal law, which combine to provide a theoretical framework explaining we considered the legality principle and punishment, which Professor Hall includes as the front and back “bookends” that encompass the general principles of the criminal law.
Our focus in this chapter is on the general principles of the criminal law, the. The principle of autonomy is that autonomy allows consenting homosexual to be in a relationship. Criminal law is used to avoid somebody’s practice of autonomy from interfering with another person’s autonomy.
Another component of the principle of autonomy is that autonomy allows consenting homosexual to be in a relationship.Theoretical principle of criminal law