Taming the Unruly Criminal Law: Where do yo Draw the Boundaries of Criminal Conduct?
Burton, Kelley J. (2008) Taming the Unruly Criminal Law: Where do yo Draw the Boundaries of Criminal Conduct? In 62nd Australasian Law Teachers Association Conference, 23rd- 26th September 2007, Perth.
Criminal law is extending its boundaries to capture conduct that was previously described as civil or regulatory in nature. For example, in some jurisdictions public nuisance, trespass, throwing things at a sporting match, photographing people in private places without their consent and BASE jumping from a building, are criminalised. The unruly nature of criminal law is a serious problem for law makers who need to know what conduct should be criminalised and what conduct should not be criminalised to inform the scope of future criminal laws. It is also a serious problem for members of the community who need to know the minimum standards of behaviour.
The unruly nature of criminal law has occurred because several principles underpin the decision to criminalise conduct. The unruly nature of criminal law has not occurred because the decision has been based on the toss of a coin. Rather than recommending the shrinking of the criminal law to tame it, this paper explores the principles underpinning the decision to criminalise conduct. Such principles include harm, immorality, community welfare, individual autonomy and the politics of lawmaking. Analysing these principles will result in a greater understanding of the decision to criminalise conduct.
To further understand the unruly nature of criminal law, this paper will contrast criminal wrongdoing from civil wrongdoing from the perspective of the wrongdoing and compensation distinction, public and private distinction, and the essentialist distinction. Making these contrasts will help determine where to draw the boundaries of criminal conduct.
Citation countsare sourced monthly fromand citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloadsdisplays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
|Item Type:||Conference Paper|
|Additional Information:||The contents of this conference can be freely accessed online via the conference's web page (see hypertext link).|
|Keywords:||Criminalisation, harm, immorality|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (180000) > LAW (180100) > Criminal Law and Procedure (180110)|
|Divisions:||Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Law|
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 2008 (please consult author)|
|Deposited On:||10 Apr 2008|
|Last Modified:||29 Feb 2012 23:39|
Repository Staff Only: item control page