Harm and Wrongdoing in Criminalisation Theory
- Andreas von Hirsch
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Contemporary theories of criminalisation address, with varying emphasis, themes concerning the harmfulness and the wrongfulness of the conduct. In his article for the present issue, Antony Duff relies chiefly on notions of wrongfulness as the basis for his proposed criminalisation doctrines; whereas in their 2011 volume on criminalisation, Andrew Simester and Andreas von Hirsch invoke both wrongfulness and harmfulness as prerequisites for prohibiting conduct. The present article assesses the comparative merits of these approaches, and argues in favour of the latter, two-element perspective. In this article, the author puts forward a number of reasons suggesting why the two-element approach (of wrongfulness and harm) is preferable. These reasons include, firstly, an inductive argument—that the kinds of wrongful conduct for which criminalisation seems a plausible response are those that include an element of harm or risk of harm. Secondly, a defining role for the state is one of resource-protection: of safeguarding the means and resources through which citizens can live good lives. Thus the concept of citizens’ living resources—and the related conception of harm—should be made a constitutive and explicit element of criminalisation theory, rather than subsuming resource-protection under a general rubric of wrongfulness. Thirdly, a two-element approach provides reciprocal limiting principles concerning the scope of criminalisation. One can, for example, employ wrongfulness requirements to limit the criminalisation of conduct that has remote harmful consequences; and, conversely, use a harmfulness requirement as means for restricting the criminalisation of wrongful acts.
- Duff, R. A. (1990). Intention, agency, and criminal liability: Philosophy of action and the criminal law. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- Duff, R. A. (1996). Criminal attempts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Duff, R. A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Duff, R. A. (2007). Answering for crime. Oxford: Hart.
- Duff, R. A. (2012). Towards a modest legal moralism. Criminal Law and Philosophy. doi: 10.1007/s11572-012-9191-8.
- Duff, R. A., & Marshall, S. (2006). How offensive can you get? In A. von Hirsch & A. P. Simester (Eds.), Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour. Oxford: Hart.
- Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Feinberg, J. (1985). Offence to others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Feinberg, J. (1988). Harmless wrongdoing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Harcourt, B. (1999). The collapse of the harm principle. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90.
- Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Husak, D. (2008). Overcriminalisation. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Moore, M. (1997). Placing blame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Rosebury, B. (2011). Moore’s moral facts and the gap in the retributive theory. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5(3), 263–285. CrossRef
- Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.
- Simester, A., & von Hirsch, A. (2009). Remote harms and non-constitutive crimes. Criminal Justice Ethics, 28(1), 356–365. CrossRef
- Simester, A., & von Hirsch, A. (2011). Crimes, harms, and wrongs: On the principles of criminalisation. Oxford: Hart.
- von Hirsch, A., & Ashworth, A. (2005). Proportionate sentencing: Exploring the principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Waldron, J. (2011). The harm in hate speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Harm and Wrongdoing in Criminalisation Theory
Criminal Law and Philosophy
Volume 8, Issue 1 , pp 245-256
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Harm principle
- Legal moralism
- Offensive behaviour
- Remote harms
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Law Faculty, Goethe-University, Frankfurt, Germany