Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 315–332

Coming Clean About the Criminal Law

Original Paper


This paper addresses three doctrinal phenomena of which it finds evidence in English law: the quiet extension of the criminal law so as to criminalise that which is by no means an obvious offence; the creation of offences the goal of which is not to guide potential offenders away from crime; and the existence of offending behaviour which is not itself thought to justify arrest or prosecution. While such phenomena have already been criticised by other criminal law theorists, this paper offers a critique to which little attention has yet been paid. It argues that the existence of these phenomena has been concealed from public view: that the organs of state have encouraged the belief that they are no part of English law. The paper then argues that it is high time the state came clean. The state owes its people answers for the imposition of the criminal law: it must account for the creation and enforcement of any given criminal offence. When the state misleads its people about the criminal law’s scope, goals and enforcement, it refuses to provide those people with the answers they are owed.


Criminalisation Transparency Answerability Criminal process Antony Duff 


  1. Ashworth, A. (2008). Conceptions of overcriminalisation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5, 407–425.Google Scholar
  2. Bentham, J. (1823). Truth versus Ashhurst. London: T Moses.Google Scholar
  3. Bittner, E. (1967). The police on skid-row: A study of peace-keeping. American Sociological Review, 32, 699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair, T. (2003). Speech to the US Congress. Last accessed 4 May 2010.
  5. Crown Prosecution Service (2010). Legal guidance: Sexual offences Act 2003. Last accessed 10 May 2010.
  6. Duff, A. (2007). Answering for crime. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Duff, A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S., & Tadros, V. (2007). The trial on trial (Vol. 3). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, J. (2010). Justice denied: The criminal law and the ouster of the courts. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30, 725–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gardner, J. (2007a). Some types of law. In D. Edlin (Ed.), Common law theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, J. (2007b). Offences and defences. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardner, J. (2008). Introduction. In H. L. A. Hart (Ed.), Punishment and responsibility. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  12. Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  13. Hart, H. L. A. (2008). Punishment and responsibility (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Husak, D. (2008a). Overcriminalisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Husak, D. (2008b). Why criminal law: A question of content? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lacey, N. (2009). Historicising criminalisation. Modern Law Review, 72, 936–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  18. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002). Protecting the public: Strengthening protection against sex offenders and reforming the law on sexual offences. Cm 5668.Google Scholar
  19. Spencer, J. R. (2004). The sexual offences Act 2003: (2) child and family offences. Criminal Law Review, 50, 347.Google Scholar
  20. Spencer, J. R. (2008). The drafting of criminal legislation: Need it be so impenetrable? Cambridge Law Review, 67, 585–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tadros, V. (2008). Crimes and security. Modern Law Review, 71, 940–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tadros, V., & Tierney, S. (2004). The presumption of innocence and the human rights act. Modern Law Review, 67, 402–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations