Abstract
A standard view about criminal law distinguishes between two kinds of offenses, ‘‘mala in se’’ and ‘‘mala prohibita.’’ This view also corresponds to a distinction between two bases for criminalization: certain acts should be criminalized because they are moral wrongs; other acts may be criminalized for the sake of promoting overall welfare. This paper aims to show two things: first, that allowing for criminalization for the sake of promoting welfare renders the category of wrongfulness crimes largely redundant. Second, and more importantly, accepting welfare as a legitimate ground for criminalization implies a certain view about legitimate state action, which makes criminalization for wrongfulness more difficult to justify. If I am right, the view that keeps the two categories of criminalization as largely separate is untenable. I conclude with some remarks about the advantages of welfare (and not wrongfulness) as the basis for criminalization. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 657-676 |
| Journal | Criminal Law and Philosophy |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Dec 2018 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Publication details (e.g. title, author(s), publication statuses and dates) are captured on an “AS IS” and “AS AVAILABLE” basis at the time of record harvesting from the data source. Suggestions for further amendments or supplementary information can be sent to [email protected].Research Keywords
- Criminal law
- Criminalization
- Legtimacy
- Mala in se
- Regulatory offenses
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Criminalization, legitimacy, and welfare'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver