Theories of Law and Criminal Justice

The best online criminal justice degree programs explore different perspectives and offer courses to help you achieve your respective career goals. These sub-areas include career-oriented studies in areas such as law enforcement, law enforcement, crime scene investigations, cyber security, and public safety management. This guide provides a general overview of employment opportunities, country-specific entry requirements for careers in criminal justice, and scholarship information for each state. After the second objection, criminal law justifies its role in stabilizing valuable institutions. Note, however, that if the violation of the rules of a valuable institution contributes to its destabilization, we often have a moral duty to respect the rules of the institution. By preventing this injustice and holding perpetrators accountable, we stabilize institutions. The contrast between a general justification that emphasizes moral misconduct and one that focuses on institutional stability thus turns out to be a false opposition (Tadros 2016, 135). These observations help to make a more general point. We can accept that criminal law is an instrument used to support financial, educational, family, military and political institutions.

We can also accept that this is not an old tool – that criminal law is “a great moral machine that imprints stigmata on its products and painfully `rubs` moral judgments about people who have invaded as `suspects` at one end and appeared as condemned prisoners at the other” (Feinberg 1987, 155). It is precisely because criminal law is a tool of this particular type – a “morally charged hammer” (Simester and von Hirsch 2011, 10) – its general justification is plausibly found in preventing and responding to moral injustice (cf. Tadros 2016, 68-70). While the distinction between public and private space is regulated in terms of main tasks, the response to public injustice cannot be distinguished from criminal law. Many injustices are both crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, both legal entities often respond to breaches of the same primary obligation. A more promising proposal concerns secondary bonds. Perhaps the special function of the criminal law is to respond to injustice on behalf of all of us – to fulfill secondary duties owed to the community as a whole (Duff 2011, 140). Perhaps the function of civil law is to respond to injustice on behalf of some of us – to perform secondary duties owed to certain people. This could explain why, unlike civil proceedings, criminal proceedings are controlled by state agents: why officials can initiate proceedings that reject individual victims and can drop proceedings that initiate victims. This revision avoids the unpleasant implications of (2(`)). But this also invalidates the argument of (1) to (3).

If (2(“)) indicates the correct representation of the control, we sometimes have control over the results. Imagine (D) holding a loaded weapon over (V`s) head and pulling the trigger. (D) has a reasonable, even extremely high, chance of killing (V). For this reason of control, (1) and (2) (3) do not support: they give us no reason to accept that we are never criminally responsible for the results (Moore 2009, 24-26). In addition to distinguishing between crimes and defenses, many authors distinguish between types of criminal defense. The most well-known distinction is between justifications and apologies. The best-known account of this distinction is that while justified actors deny wrongdoing, excused actors deny responsibility or guilt (Austin, 1956; Fletcher, 1978; Greenawalt, 1984; Baron, 2005). Two questions deserve to be asked here. Is it worth making the well-known distinction? If so, is the familiar representation of the distinction the right way to draw it? To see the difference this revision makes, imagine legislators criminalizing the possession of information that could be useful to terrorists. The intention to commit terrorist acts is not a constituent element in the sense prescribed by law. However, our legislators do not believe that anyone in possession of such information should be condemned and punished. That, they know, would be ridiculous.