Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Criminal Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Williams, G. (1955). The definition of a crime. Current Legal Problems, 107–130.

  2. Duff, A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S., & Tadros, V. (2004). Introduction: Towards a normative theory of the criminal trial. In Duff, Farmer, Marshall, & Tadros (Eds.), The trial on trial (Vol. 1). Oxford: Hart Publishing, at 11 and 17.

  3. For discussion of the fundamental role of the concept of dignity, see Roberts, P. (2006). Theorising procedural tradition: Subjects, objects and values in criminal adjudication. In Duff, Farmer, Marshall, & Tadros (Eds.), The trial on trial (Vol. 2) Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  4. Between 1997 and 2006, some 3,000 new offences were created, 1,169 in primary legislation and 1,854 in subordinate legislation: Daily Mail, ‘3,000 new criminal offences created since Tony Blair came to power’, 16 August 2006. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400939&in_page_id=1770

  5. For exploration of the purposes of the criminal trial, see the two volumes by Duff, Farmer, Marshall and Tadros cited in notes 2 and 3 above. A third volume is yet to come.

  6. Criminal Statistics 2003, Table 1.1.

  7. See further Fionda, J. (2005 ). Devils and angels: Youth policy and crime. Oxford: Hart Publishing, chap. 5.

  8. See further Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2005). The criminal process (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–161.

  9. See Ashworth and Redmayne, ibid., chaps. 6 and 7, and Fionda, J. (1995). Public prosecutors and discretion: A comparative study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  10. Council of Europe, The Simplification of Criminal Justice, R (87) 18 (1988).

  11. See Ashworth and Redmayne (above, n. 3), 249–260. Though it is arguable that diversion deprives its subjects of both these in order to minimize delay for others.

  12. Ashworth and Redmayne (above, n.3), ch. 7.

  13. Hoyle, C., &  Zedner, L. (2007). Victims, victimization and criminal justice. In Maguire, Morgan, & Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 484–486). Oxford: Oxford University Press .

  14. Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  15. For an accessible discussion, see Fionda (above, n. 2), 245–252.

  16. Crawford, A. (2003). Contractual governance’ of deviant behaviour. Journal of Law and Society, 30, 479–505.

  17. Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Schedule 3.

  18. Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 ss.1–11.

  19. Sentencing Advisory Panel Consultation Paper on Theft from a Shop (2006) p. 5 http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/cons-annex-theft-0806.pdf

  20. The PND is recorded against the offender’s name on the Police National Computer, so that if the offender is involved in further similar behaviour the fact of the previous PND should be revealed.

  21. See von Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A. E., Burney, E., & Wikstrom, P.-O. (1999). Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: An analysis of recent research. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  22. Home Office RDS Findings No.257 (London: Home Office 2004) 1.

  23. Home Office RDS Findings No.257 (London: Home Office 2004) 1.

  24. For discussion of these developments, see Ashworth and Redmayne (above, n. 3), 297–314.

  25. Ibid, at 299–300.

  26. See the comparative discussion by Weigend, T. (2006). Why have a trial when you can have a bargain. In Duff, Farmer, Marshall, & Tadros (Eds.), The trial on trial (Vol. 2). Oxford: Hart Publishing, at 210.

  27. Ashworth, A. (2004b). Social control and anti-social behaviour order: The subversion of human rights? Law Quarterly Review, 120, 263–291.

  28. Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, s.1: for proposed sentencing guidelines, see Sentencing Guidelines Council, Breach of a Protective Order (Consultation Guideline) (London: Sentencing Guidelines Council, 2006). Further examples are discussed in part 7 below, in the context of preventive orders.

  29. Simester, A. P., & Von Hirsch, A. (2006). Regulating offensive conduct through two-step prohibitions. In Von Hirsch & Simester (Eds.), Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  30. See now the guideline decision in Boness and Bebington [2006] Crim.L.R. 160, which leaves open the possibility of a sentence more severe than the maximum for the offence; cf. H., Stevens and Lovegrove [2006] Crim.L.R. 569.

  31. Clingham v. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; R (McCann) v. Manchester Crown Court [2003] 1 AC 787.

  32. See Ramsay, P. (2004). What is anti-social behaviour? Criminal Law Review, 908–925.

  33. 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.

  34. Von Hirsch, A., & Simester, A. P. (Eds.) (2006). Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour. Oxford: Hart Publishing, especially chaps. 2 and 6.

  35. E.g., Braxton [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 167; cf. the guidance on sentencing for breach of an ASBO laid down in Boness and Bebington and Morrison (above, n. 21).

  36. Cf. the extensive powers in sections 240–241 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for the making of ‘recovery orders’ against persons who have not been convicted in respect of whom the civil court is satisfied that they possess property obtained through unlawful conduct.

  37. Authority for this ‘constitutional principle’ may be found in B v. D.P.P. [2000] 2 AC 428 and in K. [2002] 1 Cr App R 121; cf. A. Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (5th ed 2006), 164–174, for discussion of judicial reasons for not applying the principle.

  38. See footnote 4.

  39. ‘Criminalization: what do 2005’s new crimes tell us about the law?’, unpublished ms., A. Ashworth.

  40. Rook, P., & Ward, R. (2004). Sexual offences: Law and practice; G. [2006] EWCA Crim 821, [2006] Crim.L.R. 930.

  41. The maximum for these offences is 5 years where the offender is under 18 (Sexual Offences Act 2003, s. 13), but strict liability as to age applies nonetheless.

  42. For a survey showing that over 20% of Crown Court cases have a strict liability element, and that a further 20% impose strict liability together with a due diligence defence (to be established by the defendant), see Ashworth, A., & Blake, M. (1996). The presumption of innocence in english criminal law. Criminal Law Review, 306.

  43. The degree of fault is relevant for sentencing purposes, and the court may have to hold a form of pre-sentence hearing if the defence disputes the prosecution’s case on this issue: cf. Lester (1975) 63 Cr App R 144 with G. [2006] Crim.L.R. 930.

  44. Ashworth, A. (2004a). Criminal justice reform: Principles, human rights and public protection. Criminal Law Review, 516–532.

  45. G. [2006] Crim.L.R. 930.

  46. See the essays in Simester, A. P. (Ed.) (2005). Appraising strict liability. Oxford: Oxford University Press. esp. chap. 2 (by Simester) and chap. 3 (by Gardner).

  47. Cf. the essays in Simester (ibid) with Hawkins, K. (2002). Law as last resort: Prosecution decision-making in a regulatory agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  48. Macrory, R. B. (2006). Regulatory justice: Making sanctions effective (November ), esp. chap. 3.

  49. McConville,  M., & Mirsky, C. (2005). Jury trials and plea-bargaining: A true history.

  50. Cf Thomas, D. (1979). Principles of sentencing. London: Heinemann,  pp. 50–52; Cross, R. (1981). The english sentencing system (3rd ed.). London: Butterworths, pp. 115–119.

  51. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s. 48, subsequently amended and now re-enacted at s. 144 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

  52. Sentencing Guidelines Council, Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea (London: Sentencing Guidelines Council, 2004).

  53. Goodyear [2005] 3 All ER 117.

  54. For discussion of recent measures in France, Italy and elsewhere, see Weigend (above, n. 15).

  55. Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1996, Table 7E, and Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2002, Table 4D.

  56. On this and other aspects of the guilty plea discount, see Ashworth, A. (2005). Sentencing and criminal justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,  pp. 163–173.

  57. Above n. 25, para. 2.1. Although victims may be deprived their day in court and angered by the lower penalty awarded.

  58. Home Office, Justice for All (London: HMSO, 2002) paras. 4.41–4.44.

  59. Baldwin, J. (1993). The role of legal representatives at the police station. London: HMSO; McConville, M., & Hodgson, J. (1993). Custodial legal advice and the right to silence. London: HMSO.

  60. See further Ashworth (above, n. 56), 210–218, and the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Lang [2006] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 13; for the statistics, see Rose, D. ‘Locked up to make us feel better’ (2007) New Statesman, 19 March.

  61. For fuller details of the range and scope of these preventive orders see Ashworth (above, n. 56) 335–340.

  62. Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, s.28.

  63. Field and Young [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 175, criticised by Ashworth, A. (2004b). Social control and anti-social behaviour order: The subversion of human rights? Law Quarterly Review, 120, 263–291.

  64. Compare Welch v. United Kingdom (1995) 20 E.H.R.R. 247 (confiscation order is a penalty, because it may deprive a person of substantial amounts of property) with Ibbotson v. United Kingdom (1999) 27 E.H.R.R. CD332 (registration as a sex offender is not a penalty, because obligations are not onerous).

  65. For discussion, see Ashworth (above, n. 28), 335–340.

  66. For the last two, see Sexual Offences Act 2003, sections 104 and 123, discussed by 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.

  67. Von Hirsch, A., & Wasik, M. (1997). Civil disqualifications attending conviction: A suggested conceptual framework. Cambridge Law Journal, 56, 559.

  68. It is notable that in America sex offender registers are freely accessible on the web allowing members of the public to check on their neighbours. See for example the information posted by the Washington State Sex Offender Information Center at http://www.ml.waspc.org/

  69. Though this presumes that it is possible accurately to calculate a future risk in such a way as to weigh the proportionality of the present burden.

  70. Some scholars have argued for the development of a procedural ‘middle ground’ apposite to the particular demands thrown up by preventive and hybrid orders. See discussion in Steiker, C. (2002). Civil and criminal divide. In Dressler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of crime and justice (p. 163). New York: Macmillan.

  71. Hood, R., Shute, S., Feilzer, M., & Wilcox, A. (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.

  72. Steiker, C. (2002). Civil and criminal divide. In Dressler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of crime and justice. New York: Macmillan.

  73. Garland, D. (1996). The limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 445–471; Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Shearing, C. (2001). Punishment and the changing face of governance. Punishment and Society, 3, 203–220; Loader, I., & Walker, N. (2004). State of denial? Rethinking the governance of security. Punishment and Society, 6, 221–228.

  74. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin.

  75. Moran, M. (2003). The British Regulatory State—High Modernism and Hyper-Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  76. Levi-Faur, D. (2005). The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 12–32: Preface p. 6.

  77. Felson, M. (2002). Crime and everyday life. London: Sage.

  78. Braithwaite, J. (2000). The new regulatory state and the transformation of criminology. In Garland & Sparks (Eds.), Criminology and Social Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  79. Eide, E. (2000). Economics of criminal behaviour. In De Geest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of law and economics. Ghent: Edward Elgar, p. 345.

  80. Zedner, L. (2006). Opportunity makes the Thief-Taker: The influence of economic analysis on crime control. In Newburn & Rock (Eds.), The Politics of Crime Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  81. Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  82. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  83. Above, n. 26.

  84. Steiker, C. (1998). The limits of the preventive state. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 771–808; Janus, E. (2004). The preventive state, terrorists and sexual predators: Countering the threat of a new outsider jurisprudence. Criminal Law Bulletin, 40, 576.

  85. This is consistent with Feeley’s observation of a larger ‘trend throughout the twentieth century that moved law further along a continuum, away from a concern with morality and towards policy.’ Feeley, M. (2004). Actuarial justice and the modern state. In Bruinsma, Elffers, & de Keijser (Eds.), Punishment, places, and perpetrators: Developments in criminology and criminal justice research (p. 64). Devon, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

  86. 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; Morse, S.  J. (1998). Fear of danger, flight from culpability. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4, 250–267.

  87. New, C. (1992). Time and punishment. Analysis, 52, 35–40; Statman, D. (1997). The time to punish and the problem of moral luck. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 14, 129–135.

  88. Zedner, L. (2007a). Seeking security by eroding rights: The side-stepping of due process. In Goold & Lazarus (Eds.), Security and human rights (pp. 257–275). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  89. Monahan, J. (2006). A jurisprudence of risk assessment: Forecasting harm among prisoners, predators, and patients. Virginia Law Review, 92, 391–435. Feeley, M. (2004). Actuarial justice and the modern state. In Bruinsma, Elffers & de Keijser (Eds.), Punishment, places, and perpetrators: Developments in criminology and criminal justice research (p. 64). Devon, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

  90. Ashworth, A. (2005). Sentencing and Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–340.

  91. Günther, K. (2005). World citizens between freedom and security. Constellations, 12, 379–391 at 380.

  92. Stuntz, W. (2002). Local policing after the terror. Yale Law Journal, 111, 2137–2194; Hillyard, P. (1994). The normalization of special powers from Northern Ireland to Britain. In Lacey (Ed.), A reader on criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  93. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, at 124–127.

  94. Crawford, A. (2003). Contractual governance of deviant behaviour . Journal of Law and Society, 30, 479–505.

  95. Crawford, A. (2003). Contractual governance of deviant behaviour. Journal of Law and Society, 30, 479–505,  pp. 489–491.

  96. See Zedner, L. (2007b). Preventive justice or pre-punishment? The case of control orders . Current Legal Problems, 59.

  97. Ashworth, A., & von Hirsch, A. (Eds.) (1998). Principled sentencing: Readings on theory and policy. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 417–420.

  98. Pratt, J., Brown, D., Brown, M., Hallsworth, S., & Morrison, W. (Eds.) (2005). The new punitiveness: Trends, theories, perspectives. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.

  99. Ashworth, A. (2004a). Criminal justice reform: Principles, human rights and public protection . Criminal Law Review, 516–532.

  100. For discussion of the implications of this see, Ashworth, ibid., 529. See also Home Office, Rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of the law-abiding majority: Cutting crime, reducing reoffending and protecting the public (London: HMSO, 2006).

  101. For example, in a letter to John Reid on his taking office as Home Secretary Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested amending the Human Rights Act so as to require a ‘balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community to basic security.’ ‘Revealed: Blair attack on human rights law’ The Observer (Sunday May 14, 2006).

  102. Kansas v Hendricks 521 U.S. 346 (1997).

  103. Janus, E. (2000). Civil commitment as social control. In Brown & Pratt (Eds.), Dangerous offenders: Punishment and social order. London: Routledge.

  104. A relationship more transparent in the French droit penal or the German Strafrecht, than the English criminal law.

  105. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Peregrine, p. 11.

  106. MacCormick, N., & Garland, D. (1998). Sovereign states and vengeful victims: The problem of the right to punish. In Ashworth & Wasik (Eds.), The Fundamentals of Sentencing Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Moran, M. (2003). The British Regulatory State—High Modernism and Hyper-Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Simon, J. (2001). ‘"Entitlement to Cruelty": The End of Welfare and the Punitive Mentality in the United States.’ In Stenson & Sullivan (Eds.), Crime, risk, and  justice. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.

  107. Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the restraint of crime. New York: Oxford University Press.

  108. Brown, M. (2005). Liberal exclusions and the new punitiveness. In Pratt, Brown, Brown, Hallsworth, & Morrison (Eds.), The New Punitiveness: Trends, theories, perspectives. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing, p. 284.

  109. Burney, E. (2005). Making people behave: Anti-social behaviour, politics and policy. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing, p. 164.

  110. Dubber, M. D. (2005). The police power: Patriarchy and the foundations of American Government. New York: Columbia University Press, chap. 8.

  111. In Clingham v. Chelsea and Kensington LBC; R. (McCann) v. Crown Court at Manchester [2003] 1 AC 787 the House of Lords held that the hybrid procedure for anti-social behaviour orders does not amount to a ‘criminal charge’, but the matter has not been tested in Strasbourg.

  112. For discussion, see Ashworth, A. (2006). Four threats to the presumption of innocence. Evidence & Proof, 10, 241–279.

  113. See further Emmerson, B., Ashworth, A., & Macdonald, A. (2007). Human rights and criminal justice (2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, chap. 16.

  114. There are those who argue that strict liability contravenes the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2), but this is contestable, to say the least: compare Ashworth (above, n. 96), 252–257, with Tadros, V., & Tierney, S. (2004). The presumption of innocence and the human rights act. Modern Law Review, 67, 402–434 and the counterblast in Roberts, P. (2005). Strict liability and the presumption of innocence: An exposė of functionalist assumptions. In Simester (Ed.), Appraising strict liability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  115. On this point the European Convention and its case-law is already strongly in line. Wherever proceedings involve a ‘criminal charge’, the defendant must be accorded certain rights. Whether the proceedings do involve such a charge is always a question for the court, looking at the substance rather than the form, the leading decisions make it clear that the possibility of imprisonment is a fairly conclusive reason to find that the proceedings are in essence criminal: see Engel v. Netherlands (1979) 1 EHRR 647 and Garyfallou AEBE v. Greece (1999) 28 EHRR 344, discussed in Emmerson, B., Ashworth, A. & Macdonald, A. (2007). Human rights and criminal justice (2nd ed.) London: Sweet & Maxwell, chap. 4.

  116. For further argument, see Simester, A. P. (Ed.) (2005). Appraising strict liability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, chap. 2, and Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of criminal law (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 164–174.

  117. The European Convention does not recognise such a fundamental right, but the Canadian Charter of Rights does: References re section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (1986) 48 CR (3d) 289.

  118. See further Ashworth, A. (2004b). Social control and anti-social behaviour order: The subversion of human rights? Law Quarterly Review, 120, 263–291; Simester, A. P., & Von Hirsch, A. (2006). Regulating offensive conduct through two-step prohibitions. In Von Hirsch & Simester (Eds.), Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  119. Ashworth, A., Gardner, J., Morgan, R., Smith, A.T.H., von Hirsch, A., & Wasik, M. (1998). Neigbouring on the oppressive: The government’s ‘anti-social behaviour order’ proposals. Criminal Justice, 16, 7–14.

  120. See further Ashworth, A. (2007). Plea negotiation, pragmatism and rights. In H. Koriath, et al. (Ed.), Festschrift fűr Heike Jung. Baden Baden: Springer Verlag.

  121. See for example, Joint Committee on Human Rights—Twenty-Fourth Report Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Prosecution and Pre-Charge Detention, HL Paper 240, HC 1576, (1 August 2006). The report includes “consideration of possible adaptations of the criminal justice system which are capable of facilitating the effective criminal prosecution of terrorist suspects in ways compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations” at para 4.

  122. These are some of the safeguards listed in Article 6(2) of the Convention or implied into Article 6 by the Court.

  123. As an indication of the direction likely to be taken in his forthcoming book, see Husak, D. (2004). The criminal law as last resort. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 207–235.

  124. E.g., von Hirsch, A., & Ashworth, A. (2005). Proportionate sentencing: Exploring the principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

  • Ashworth, A., & Blake, M. (1996). The presumption of innocence in English Criminal Law. Criminal Law Review 306.

  • Ashworth, A., et al. (1998). Neigbouring on the oppressive: The government’s ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Order’ proposals. Criminal Justice, 16, 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A., & von Hirsch, A. (Eds.) (1998). Principled sentencing: Readings on theory and policy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2004a). Criminal justice reform: principles, human rights and public protection. Criminal Law Review 516–532.

  • Ashworth, A. (2004). Social control and anti-social behaviour order: The subversion of human rights? Law Quarterly Review, 120, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2005). Sentencing and criminal justice (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2005). The criminal process (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2006). Four threats to the presumption of innocence. Evidence and Proof, 10, 241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of criminal law (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. (1993). The role of legal representatives at the police station. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Burney, E. (2005). Making people behave: Anti-social behaviour, politics and policy. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A., (2003). ‘Contractual governance’ of deviant behaviour. Journal of Law and Society, 30, 479–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R. (1981). The English sentencing system (3rd ed.). London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubber, M. D. (2005). The police power: Patriarchy and the foundations of american government. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Emmerson, B., et al. (2007). Human rights and criminal justice (2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Felson, M. (2002). Crime and everyday life (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fionda, J. (1995). Public prosecutors and discretion: A comparative study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fionda, J. (2005). Devils and angels: Youth policy and crime. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Peregrine.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Günther, K. (2005). World citizens between freedom and security. Constellations, 12, 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, K. (2002). Law as last resort: Prosecution decision-making in a regulatory agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Home Office (2002). Justice for all. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Husak, D. (2004). The criminal law as last resort. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 207–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janus, E. (2000). Civil commitment as social control. In M. Brown, & J. Pratt (Eds.), Dangerous offenders: Punishment and social order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Levi-Faur, D. (2005). The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 12–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loader, I., & Walker, N. (2004). State of denial? Rethinking the governance of security. Punishment and Society, 6, 221–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Macrory, R. B. (2006). Regulatory justice: Making sanctions effective. London: Duchy of Lancaster, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConville, M., & Hodgson, J. (1993). Custodial legal advice and the right to silence. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, M. (2003). The British regulatory state—High modernism and hyper-innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • New, C. (1992). Time and punishment. Analysis, 52, 35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J., et al. (Eds.) (2005). The new punitiveness: Trends, theories, perspectives. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.

  • Ramsay, P. (2004). What is anti-social behaviour? Criminal Law Review 908–925.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Sentencing Guidelines Council (2004). Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea. London: Sentencing Guidelines Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Guidelines Council (2006). Breach of a protective order (Consultation Guideline). London: Sentencing Guidelines Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shearing, C. (2001). Punishment and the changing face of governance. Punishment and Society, 3, 203–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Simester, A. P. (Ed.) (2005). Appraising strict liability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Statman, D. (1997). The time to punish and the problem of moral luck. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 14, 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiker, C. (1998). The limits of the preventive state. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 771–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiker, C. (2002). Civil and criminal divide. In J. Dressler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of crime and justice. New York: Macmillan Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuntz, W. (2002). Local policing after the terror. Yale Law Journal, 111, 2137–2194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadros, V., & Tierney, S. (2004). The presumption of innocence and the human rights act. Modern Law Review, 67, 402–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. (1979). Principles of sentencing. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., & Wasik, M. (1997). Civil disqualifications attending conviction: A suggested conceptual framework. Cambridge Law Journal, 56, 559.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hirsch, A., et al. (1999). Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: An analysis of recent research. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • von Hirsch, A., & Ashworth, A. (2005). Proportionate sentencing: Exploring the principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., & Simester, A. P. (Eds.) (2006). Incivilites: Regulating offensive behaviour. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Williams, G. (1955). The definition of a crime. Current Legal Problems, 107–130.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Zedner, L. (2007b). Preventive justice or pre-punishment? The case of control orders. Current Legal Problems, 59.

  • Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the restraint of crime. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Andrew von Hirsch, Victor Tadros and the participants at the British Academy Seminar ‘Why Criminal Law?’ (13 January 2007), in particular respondents Rowan Cruft and Stuart Green, for their comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Ashworth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ashworth, A., Zedner, L. Defending the Criminal Law: Reflections on the Changing Character of Crime, Procedure, and Sanctions. Criminal Law, Philosophy 2, 21–51 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-007-9033-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-007-9033-2

Keywords

Navigation