Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 131–135

Why Criminal Law? The Role of Utilitarianism: A Response to Husak

Original Paper

References

  1. Amirthalingam, K. (2006). Culture, crime and culpability in perspectives on the defence of provocation. In A. Renteln & M. Foblets (Eds.), Multicultural jurisprudence: Comparative perspectives on the cultural defence. Hart Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of criminal law (5th ed., pp. 30–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. London: T. Payne and Son.Google Scholar
  4. Finnis, J. (1971). The restoration of retribution. Analysis, 32, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Prolegomenon to the principles of punishment. In Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Husak, D. (2004). The criminal law as last resort. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 207, 223.Google Scholar
  7. Minkkinen, P. (2006). ‘If Taken in Earnest’: Criminal law doctrine and the last resort. Howard Journal, 45, 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Morgan, R., & Clarkson, C. (1995). The politics of sentencing reform: introduction. In C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform. Oxford: Clarendon University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Tonry, M. (1987). Sentencing guidelines and sentencing commissions—The second generation. In K. Pease & M. Wasik (Eds.), Sentencing reform: Guidance or guidelines. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of LeicesterLeciesterUK

Personalised recommendations