Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-784d4fb959-g549k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-17T07:18:24.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Principles of Criminalisation

from Part I - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2025

By
Antony Duff  and
Tatjana Hörnle
Edited by
Kai Ambos ,
Antony Duff ,
Alexander Heinze ,
Julian Roberts  and
Thomas Weigend
Kai Ambos
Affiliation:
Georg August Universität Göttingen
Antony Duff
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze
Affiliation:
University of Bremen
Julian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend
Affiliation:
University of Köln
Get access

Summary

What kinds of consideration should guide decisions about the scope of the criminal law? This chapter compares the ways in which German and Anglo-American theorists have tackled this question. After some comments on what it is to criminalise conduct, and on the kinds of reason that an inquiry into principles of criminalisation should aim to identify, it offers some historical background to the contemporary debates. It then turns to a critical comparative discussion of two popular principles of criminalisation, the Rechtsgutslehre and the Harm Principle, in the course of which it also attends to Legal Moralism, and to the role of the Proportionality Principle – a principle explicitly central in German theorising, and at least implicitly essential to Anglo-American theories. Finally, it considers some alternative principles of criminalisation, and asks whether we should look not for a systematic account of ‘the principles of criminalisation’, but for a messier, more pluralist account of the range of considerations (principles, reasons) that should bear on criminalisation decisions.

Keywords

criminalisationRechtsgutharm principleslegal moralismproportionality

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Volume III
 , pp. 13 - 54
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘The Overall Function of International Criminal Law: Striking the Right Balance between the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles’, Criminal Law & Philosophy, 9 (2015), 301–29.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., National Socialist Criminal Law: Continuity and Radicalization, Nomos (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries, revised edn, American Law Institute (1985).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. J. and Horder, J., Principles of Criminal Law, 7th edn, Oxford University Press (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binding, K., Die Normen und ihre Übertretung. Eine Untersuchung über die rechtmäßigen Handlungen und die Arten des Deliktes, Vol. 1: Normen und Strafgesetze, 3rd edn, Meiner (1916).Google Scholar
Birnbaum, J., ‘Ueber das Erforderniß einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Begriff der Ehrenkränkung’, Archiv des Criminalrechts, Neue Folge (1834), 149–94.Google Scholar
Boyne, S., ‘German Prosecutors and the Rechtsstaat’, in Langer, M. and Sklansky, D. (eds.), Prosecutors and Democracy, Cambridge University Press (2017), 138–74.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, J. and Pettit, P., Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (1990).Google Scholar
Brodowski, D., ‘Quasi-Criminal Enforcement Mechanism in Germany: Past and Present’, in Franssen, V. and Harding, C. (eds.), Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Enforcement Mechanism in Europe, Hart (2022), 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brudner, A., Punishment and Freedom: A Liberal Theory of Penal Justice, Oxford University Press (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiao, V., Criminal Law in the Age of the Administrative State, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar
Cornford, A., ‘Rethinking the Wrongness Constraint’, Law & Philosophy, 36 (2017), 615–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crown Prosecution Service, Code for Crown Prosecutors, available at www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors.Google Scholar
Damaška, M., ‘The Reality of Prosecutorial Discretion: Comments on a German Monograph’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 29 (1981), 119–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dan-Cohen, M., ‘Defending Dignity’, in Dan-Cohen, M., Harmful Thoughts: Essays on Law, Self and Morality, Princeton University Press (2002), 150–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGirolami, M. O., ‘James Fitzjames Stephen: The Punishment Jurist’, in Dubber, M. D. (ed.), Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 183–98.Google Scholar
Devlin, P., The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford University Press (1965).Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D., Victims in the War on Crime: The Use and Abuse of Victims’ Rights, New York University Press (2002).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Hart (2007).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., The Realm of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R. A. and Marshall, S. E., ‘“Abstract Endangerment”, Two Harm Principles, and Two Routes to Criminalisation’, Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 3 (2015), 131–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J., ‘Harm Principles’, Legal Theory, 20 (2014), 253–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J., ‘Criminalization without Punishment’, Legal Theory, 23 (2017), 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engländer, A., ‘Revitalisierung der materiellen Rechtsgutslehre durch das Verfassungsrecht?’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 127 (2015), 616–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb), available at https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.Google Scholar
Farmer, L., Making the Modern Criminal Law: Criminalization and Civil Order, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J., ‘The Expressive Function of Punishment’, in Feinberg, J., Doing and Deserving, Princeton University Press (1970), 95–118.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., Harm to Others, Oxford University Press (1984).Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., Offense to Others, Oxford University Press (1985).Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., Harm to Self, Oxford University Press (1986).Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford University Press (1988).Google Scholar
Feuerbach, P. J. A., Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 1st edn, Giessen, Heyer (1801), available at www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10394279?page=1.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. and Shute, S., ‘The Wrongness of Rape’, in Horder, J. (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, 4th Series, Oxford University Press (2000), 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, L., Lebendiges und Totes in Feuerbachs Straftheorie: Ein Beitrag zur gegenwärtigen strafrechtlichen Grundlagendiskussion, Duncker & Humblot (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, L., ‘Verfassungskonformes oder legitimes Strafrecht? Zu den Grenzen einer verfassungsrechtlichen Orientierung der Strafrechtswissenschaft’, in Brunhöber, B., Höffler, K., Kaspar, J. et al. (eds.), Strafrecht und Verfassung, Nomos (2013), 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, H., A Theory of Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (1979).Google Scholar
Harcourt, B., ‘The Collapse of the Harm Principle’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 90 (1999), 109–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, B., ‘Mill’s On Liberty and the Modern “Harm to Others” Principle’, in Dubber, M. D. (ed.), Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 163–81.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., Law, Liberty, and Morality, Stanford University Press (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (1994).Google Scholar
Hassemer, W., ‘The Harm Principle and the Protection of “Legal Goods” (Rechtsgüterschutz)’, in Simester, A. P., Neumann, U. and Du Bois-Pedain, A. L. (eds.), Liberal Criminal Theory: Essays for Andreas von Hirsch, Hart (2014), 187–204.Google Scholar
Hirsch, P.-A., Das Verbrechen als Rechtsverletzung: Subjektive Rechte im Strafrecht, Duncker & Humblot (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horder, J., Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, 10th edn, Oxford University Press (2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hörnle, T., Grob anstößiges Verhalten: Strafrechtlicher Schutz von Moral, Gefühlen und Tabus, Vittorio Klostermann (2005).Google Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘P J A von Feuerbach and His Textbook of the Common Penal Law’, in Dubber, M. D. (ed.), Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 119–40.Google Scholar
Husak, D. N., ‘Applying Ultima Ratio’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2 (2005), 535–45.Google Scholar
Husak, D. N., Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husak, D. N., ‘Polygamy: A Novel Test for a Theory of Criminalization’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E. et al. (eds.), Criminalization: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 213–31.Google Scholar
Jareborg, N., ‘Criminalization as Last Resort (Ultima Ratio)’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2 (2005), 521–34.Google Scholar
Jehle, J., Strafrechtspflege in Deutschland, 7th edn, Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz (2019).Google Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Kaspar, J., Verhältnismäßigkeit und Grundrechtsschutz im Präventionsstrafrecht, Nomos (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C., ‘Declaring Crimes’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37 (2017), 741–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremnitzer, M., Steiner, T. and Lang, A. (eds.), Proportionality in Action, Cambridge University Press (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, M. and Walen, A., ‘Human Dignity and Proportionality: Deontic Pluralism in Balancing’, in Huscroft, G., Miller, B. W. and Webber, G. (eds.), Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, Cambridge University Press (2014), 67–89.Google Scholar
Lacey, N., ‘Historicising Criminalisation: Conceptual and Empirical Issues’, Modern Law Review, 72 (2009), 936–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, A. F. and Wieder, A. (eds.), Handbook on Global Constitutionalism, Edward Elgar (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (Law Com. No. 304, 2006).Google Scholar
Law Commission,Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts (CP 195, 2010).Google Scholar
Marx, M., Zur Definition des Begriffs ‘Rechtsgut’. Prolegomena einer materialen Verbrechenslehre, Heymanns (1972).Google Scholar
Mill, J. S., On Liberty, Parker (1859).Google Scholar
Mir, Puig, S., ‘Der Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz als Verfassungsgrundlage der materiellen Grenzen des Strafrechts’, in Herzog, F. and Neumann, U. (eds.), Festschrift für Winfried Hassemer zum 70. Geburtstag, C. F. Müller (2010), 521–34.Google Scholar
Moore, M. S., Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and Its Implications for the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1993).Google Scholar
Moore, M. S., Placing Blame: A Theory of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar
Moore, M. S., ‘A Tale of Two Theories’, Criminal Justice Ethics, 28 (2009), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. S. ‘Liberty’s Constraints on What Should Be Made Criminal’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E. et al. (eds.), Criminalization: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 182–212.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. G., Punishment and the Moral Emotions: Essays in Law, Morality, and Religion, Oxford University Press (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J. G. and Hampton, J., Forgiveness and Mercy, Cambridge University Press (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persak, N., Criminalising Harmful Conduct, Springer (2007).Google Scholar
Pettit, P., On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy, Cambridge University Press (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, A., ‘Beyond the Harm Principle’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 34 (2006), 215–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, A., Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy, Harvard University Press (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 2nd edn, C. H. Beck (1994), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. and Greco, L., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, C. H. Beck (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Sanders, A. and Young, R., ‘The Rule of Law, Due Process and Pre-Trial Criminal Justice’, Current Legal Problems, 47 (1994), 125–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scoccia, D., ‘In Defense of “Pure” Legal Moralism’, Criminal Law & Philosophy, 7 (2013), 513–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Is Strict Liability Always Wrong?’, in Simester, A. P. (ed.), Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press (2005), 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simester, A. P. and von Hirsch, A., Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalization, Hart (2011).Google Scholar
Stephen, J. F., Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 2nd edn, Elder and Co. (1874), available at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/stephen-liberty-equality-fraternity-1874-ed.Google Scholar
Stephen, J. F., History of the Criminal Law of England, Macmillan (1883).Google Scholar
Stewart, H., ‘The Limits of the Harm Principle’, Criminal Law & Philosophy, 4 (2010), 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘The Constitutional Deficiencies of the German Rechtsgutslehre’, Oñati Socio-legal Series [online], 3 (2013), 31–41.Google Scholar
Tadros, V., Wrongs and Crimes, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorburn, M., ‘Criminal Law as Public Law’, in Duff, R. A. and Green, S. P. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2010), 21–43.Google Scholar
Thorburn, M., ‘Constitutionalism and the Limits of the Criminal Law’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E. et al. (eds.), The Structures of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2011), 85–105.Google Scholar
Tomlin, P., ‘Retributivists! The Harm Principle Is Not for You!’, Ethics, 124 (2014), 272–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Humboldt, W., Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen, Reclam Verlag (2010; 1st edn of the unpublished manuscript from 1792 Breslau 1851).Google Scholar
Walen, A., ‘Criminal Law and Penal Law: The Wrongness Constraint and a Complementary Forfeiture Model’, Criminal Law & Philosophy, 14 (2020), 431–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welzel, H., Das Deutsche Strafrecht, 11th edn, de Gruyer (1969).Google Scholar
Wolfenden, J., Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution, Cmnd 247, HMSO (1957).Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this book complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×