Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 21–51 | Cite as

Defending the Criminal Law: Reflections on the Changing Character of Crime, Procedure, and Sanctions

Original Paper


Recent years have seen mounting challenge to the model of the criminal trial on the grounds it is not cost-effective, not preventive, not necessary, not appropriate, or not effective. These challenges have led to changes in the scope of the criminal law, in criminal procedure, and in the nature and use of criminal trials. These changes include greater use of diversion, of fixed penalties, of summary trials, of hybrid civil–criminal processes, of strict liability, of incentives to plead guilty, and of preventive orders. The paper will assess the implications of these changes for the function of the criminal law, assessing the reasons behind them, and examining whether or not they are to be welcomed. Identifying the larger import of these changes draws attention to the changing relationship between state and citizen as well as changes in the nature of the state itself. These can in turn be attributed to a jostling among the different manifestations of the authoritarian state, the preventive state, and the regulatory state. These changes have profound normative implications for a liberal theory of the criminal law that require its re-articulation and its defence. A modest start may be to insist that where the conduct is criminal and the consequences are punitive the protections of criminal procedure and trial must be upheld.


Criminal law Criminal procedure Criminal trial Prevention 


  1. Ashworth, A., & Blake, M. (1996). The presumption of innocence in English Criminal Law. Criminal Law Review 306.Google Scholar
  2. Ashworth, A., et al. (1998). Neigbouring on the oppressive: The government’s ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Order’ proposals. Criminal Justice, 16, 7–14.Google Scholar
  3. Ashworth, A., & von Hirsch, A. (Eds.) (1998). Principled sentencing: Readings on theory and policy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Ashworth, A. (2004a). Criminal justice reform: principles, human rights and public protection. Criminal Law Review 516–532.Google Scholar
  5. Ashworth, A. (2004). Social control and anti-social behaviour order: The subversion of human rights? Law Quarterly Review, 120, 263–291.Google Scholar
  6. Ashworth, A. (2005). Sentencing and criminal justice (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2005). The criminal process (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ashworth, A. (2006). Four threats to the presumption of innocence. Evidence and Proof, 10, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of criminal law (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Baldwin, J. (1993). The role of legal representatives at the police station. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  11. Braithwaite, J. (2000). The new regulatory state and the transformation of criminology. In D. Garland, & R. Sparks (Eds.), Criminology and social theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, M. (2005). Liberal exclusions and the new punitiveness. In J. Pratt, et al. (Eds.), The new punitiveness: Trends, theories, perspectives. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Burney, E. (2005). Making people behave: Anti-social behaviour, politics and policy. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Crawford, A., (2003). ‘Contractual governance’ of deviant behaviour. Journal of Law and Society, 30, 479–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cross, R. (1981). The English sentencing system (3rd ed.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  17. Dubber, M. D. (2005). The police power: Patriarchy and the foundations of american government. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Duff, A., et al. (2004). Introduction: Towards a normative theory of the criminal trial. In A. Duff, et al. (Eds.), The trial on trial, volume one. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Emmerson, B., et al. (2007). Human rights and criminal justice (2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  20. Feeley, M. (2004). Actuarial justice and the modern state. In G. Bruinsma, et al. (Eds.), Punishment, places, and perpetrators: Developments in criminology and criminal justice research. Devon, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Felson, M. (2002). Crime and everyday life (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Fionda, J. (1995). Public prosecutors and discretion: A comparative study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fionda, J. (2005). Devils and angels: Youth policy and crime. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Peregrine.Google Scholar
  25. Garland, D. (1996). The limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 445–471.Google Scholar
  26. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Günther, K. (2005). World citizens between freedom and security. Constellations, 12, 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hawkins, K. (2002). Law as last resort: Prosecution decision-making in a regulatory agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hillyard, P. (1994). The normalization of special powers from Northern Ireland to Britain. In N. Lacey (Ed.), A reader on criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Home Office (2002). Justice for all. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  31. Home Office (2006). Rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of the law-abiding majority: Cutting crime, reducing reoffending and protecting the public. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  32. Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hood, R., et al. (2002). Sex offenders emerging from long-term imprisonment: A study of their long-term reconviction rates and of parole board members' judgements of their risk. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoyle, C., & Zedner, L. (2007). Victims, victimization and criminal justice. In M. Maguire, et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Husak, D. (2004). The criminal law as last resort. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Janus, E. (2000). Civil commitment as social control. In M. Brown, & J. Pratt (Eds.), Dangerous offenders: Punishment and social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Janus, E. (2004). The preventive state, terrorists and sexual predators: Countering the threat of a new outsider jurisprudence. Criminal Law Bulletin, 40, 576.Google Scholar
  38. Levi-Faur, D. (2005). The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loader, I., & Walker, N. (2004). State of denial? Rethinking the governance of security. Punishment and Society, 6, 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacCormick, N., & Garland, D. (1998). Sovereign states and vengeful victims: The problem of the right to punish. In A. Ashworth, & M. Wasik (Eds.), The fundamentals of sentencing theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Macrory, R. B. (2006). Regulatory justice: Making sanctions effective. London: Duchy of Lancaster, November.Google Scholar
  42. McConville, M., & Hodgson, J. (1993). Custodial legal advice and the right to silence. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  43. Moran, M. (2003). The British regulatory state—High modernism and hyper-innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. New, C. (1992). Time and punishment. Analysis, 52, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  46. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pratt, J., et al. (Eds.) (2005). The new punitiveness: Trends, theories, perspectives. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Ramsay, P. (2004). What is anti-social behaviour? Criminal Law Review 908–925.Google Scholar
  49. Roberts, P. (2005). Strict liability and the presumption of innocence: An exposė of functionalist assumptions. In A. P. Simester (Ed.), Appraising strict liability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Roberts, P. (2006). Theorising procedural tradition: Subjects, objects and values in criminal adjudication. In A. Duff, et al. (Eds.), The trial on trial, volume two. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Sentencing Guidelines Council (2004). Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea. London: Sentencing Guidelines Council.Google Scholar
  52. Sentencing Guidelines Council (2006). Breach of a protective order (Consultation Guideline). London: Sentencing Guidelines Council.Google Scholar
  53. Shearing, C. (2001). Punishment and the changing face of governance. Punishment and Society, 3, 203–220.Google Scholar
  54. Shute, S. (2004). New civil preventative orders: Sexual offences prevention orders, foreign travel orders and risk of sexual harm orders. Criminal Law Review 417–440.Google Scholar
  55. Simester, A. P. (Ed.) (2005). Appraising strict liability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Simester, A. P., & Von Hirsch, A. (2006). Regulating offensive conduct through two-step prohibitions. In A. Von Hirsch, & A. P. Simester (Eds.), Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Simon, J. (2001). Entitlement to cruelty: The end of welfare and the punitive mentality in the United States. In K. Stenson, & R. R. Sullivan (Eds.), Crime, risk, and justice. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Statman, D. (1997). The time to punish and the problem of moral luck. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 14, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steiker, C. (1998). The limits of the preventive state. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 771–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steiker, C. (2002). Civil and criminal divide. In J. Dressler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of crime and justice. New York: Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
  61. Stuntz, W. (2002). Local policing after the terror. Yale Law Journal, 111, 2137–2194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tadros, V., & Tierney, S. (2004). The presumption of innocence and the human rights act. Modern Law Review, 67, 402–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thomas, D. (1979). Principles of sentencing. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  64. Von Hirsch, A., & Wasik, M. (1997). Civil disqualifications attending conviction: A suggested conceptual framework. Cambridge Law Journal, 56, 559.Google Scholar
  65. von Hirsch, A., et al. (1999). Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: An analysis of recent research. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. Von Hirsch, A., & Roberts, J. (2004). Legislating sentencing principles: the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relating to sentencing purposes and the role of previous convictions. Criminal Law Review 639–652.Google Scholar
  67. von Hirsch, A., & Ashworth, A. (2005). Proportionate sentencing: Exploring the principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Von Hirsch, A., & Simester, A. P. (Eds.) (2006). Incivilites: Regulating offensive behaviour. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  69. Weigend, T. (2006). Why have a trial when you can have a bargain? In A. Duff, et al. (Eds.), The trial on trial, volume two. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  70. Williams, G. (1955). The definition of a crime. Current Legal Problems, 107–130.Google Scholar
  71. Zedner, L. (2006). Opportunity makes the thief-taker: The influence of economic analysis on crime control. In T. Newburn, & P. Rock (Eds.), The politics of crime control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Zedner, L. (2007a). Seeking security by eroding rights: The side-stepping of due process. In B. Goold, & L. Lazarus (Eds.), Security and human rights (pp. 257–275). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  73. Zedner, L. (2007b). Preventive justice or pre-punishment? The case of control orders. Current Legal Problems, 59.Google Scholar
  74. Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the restraint of crime. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.All Souls CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordEngland
  2. 2.Corpus Christi CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordEngland

Personalised recommendations