Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Nature of Traditional Criminal Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legitimizing European Criminal Law

Part of the book series: Comparative, European and International Criminal Justice ((CEICJ,volume 2))

  • 413 Accesses

Abstract

Defining crime or criminal law is a difficult task. From a legalistic perspective, one could simply state that crime is conduct that is punishable by law. Building on such an approach, criminal law could be defined, in a circular manner, as ‘a branch of law which deals with those acts, attempts and omissions of which the state may take cognisance by prosecution in the criminal courts’. This kind of legalistic or positivistic definition does not say much about the nature of criminal law.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Farmer (1996), p. 58, citing Gordon’s (1978), p. 15.

  2. 2.

    Klip (2016), p. 40.

  3. 3.

    Robinson (1994), pp. 857–858.

  4. 4.

    Klip (2016), p. 43.

  5. 5.

    Husak (2002), pp. 13 and 14.

  6. 6.

    Robinson (1994), pp. 857–858.

  7. 7.

    Lisbon judgment: BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08 vom 30.6.2009, Absatz-Nr. (1–421), para 252. Available in English: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html, accessed 25 June 2018.

  8. 8.

    Lisbon judgment: BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08 vom 30.6.2009, Absatz-Nr. (1–421), para 253. Available in English: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html, accessed 25 June 2018.

  9. 9.

    Melander (2007).

  10. 10.

    Melander (2007), p. 119.

  11. 11.

    Nuotio (2007), p. 129.

  12. 12.

    On the difference of tripartite and bipartite analysis of structure of crime, see for example, Fletcher (2007), pp. 43–57; Fletcher (1998), pp. 74–92; Russell (2007), p. 2675.

  13. 13.

    Fletcher (2007), p. 73.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., p. 69.

  15. 15.

    Crime provisions consist of the name of the offense, the essential elements of the crime and the punishment threat. The term penal provision is wider and refers to different kinds of criminal law provisions, also to such as provisions concerning rules of sentencing etc.

  16. 16.

    See, for example, Whitman (2003–2004), p. 901.

  17. 17.

    Case C-440/05 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2007] ECR p. I-9097, Opinion of AG Mazák, para 72; Garland (1996), pp. 445 and 450–460; Ashworth and Zedner (2008), pp. 21 and 40; Nuotio (2014b).

  18. 18.

    Garland (1996), pp. 445 and 450–460.

  19. 19.

    Peters (2009), pp. 513 and 515–517; Oppenheim (1912), p. 167; Walker (2003), p. v.

  20. 20.

    Walker (1998), pp. 355 and 357; Walker (2002), pp. 317 and 345; Preuss (2010), p. 26.

  21. 21.

    Lisbon judgment: BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08 vom 30.6.2009, Absatz-Nr. (1–421), paras 355 and 358. Available in English http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html, accessed 25 June 2018.

  22. 22.

    On the interrelationship between criminal and constitutional law, see, for example, Fletcher (2007), pp. 97–106.

  23. 23.

    Feinberg (1970), p. 98. In Case C-240/90 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities [1992] ECR p. I-5383, Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 11, Advocate General found that penal sanction is about deterrence, stigma of social disapproval, and attribution of blame, the stigma being the distinguishing feature between penal and non-penal sanctions.

  24. 24.

    Whitman (2003–2004), pp. 901 and 903.

  25. 25.

    Weber (1978), p. 54.

  26. 26.

    Individuals can use violence legitimately in situations of self-defence, for example.

  27. 27.

    Whitman (2003–2004), pp. 901 and 902.

  28. 28.

    Wessels and Beulke (2012), pp. 1–2.

  29. 29.

    Whitman (2003–2004), p. 901.

  30. 30.

    Ashworth and Zedner (2014a), p. 7.

  31. 31.

    Council of Europe, Explanatory Report on the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes (ETS No. 116), para 9; Ashworth and Zedner (2014b), p. 14.

  32. 32.

    Dagger (2011), p. 50.

  33. 33.

    Thorburn (2011), p. 31.

  34. 34.

    Dagger (2011), p. 57.

  35. 35.

    Thorburn (2011), pp. 33–34.

  36. 36.

    Nuotio (2014a), pp. 67–71.

  37. 37.

    Lacey (2013), p. 14.

  38. 38.

    Farmer (1996), pp. 57 and 58.

  39. 39.

    Hassemer (1989), pp. 388 v 396.

  40. 40.

    Marshall and Duff (1998), pp. 7 and 18–21.

  41. 41.

    See, Hart (1992), pp. 8–12.

  42. 42.

    On criminalization theory, see, for example, Melander (2008), p. 7.

  43. 43.

    On the interrelationship between criminal law theory and constitutional law, see du Bois-Pedain (2014), pp. 307 and 324.

  44. 44.

    Rawls (1995), pp. 3 and 5.

  45. 45.

    Hart (1958), pp. 8–12.

  46. 46.

    Lappi-Seppälä (1994), pp. 20–21.

  47. 47.

    Fletcher (2000), pp. 687 and 697.

  48. 48.

    Hart (1992), pp. 1–3; Jareborg (2002), pp. 90–91.

  49. 49.

    Fletcher (2007), pp. 193–198.

  50. 50.

    Jeremy Bentham (2000) and Mill (1974, 1979).

  51. 51.

    Jeremy Bentham (2000), available in internet http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/bentham/morals.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018, Chapter XIII: Cases Unmeet for Punishment, § 1, para II.

  52. 52.

    Beccaria (1764), pp. 52, 60, and 115; Binder (2002), pp. 321 and 335.

  53. 53.

    Kaplow and Shavell (2003), p. 331.

  54. 54.

    Fletcher (2007), p. 198.

  55. 55.

    Binder (2002), pp. 321 and 334; Baron Claude Adrien Helvétius (1807), pp. 124–125.

  56. 56.

    Baron Claude Adrien Helvétius (1807), pp. 124–125.

  57. 57.

    Binder (2002), pp. 321, 338, and 342–349.

  58. 58.

    Fletcher (2007), pp. 198–201.

  59. 59.

    Some EU Member States have explicit references to human dignity in their constitutional documents. For example, constitutions of Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Finland. European Parliament, Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union Article 1 Human Dignity, 6. National Laws http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/libe/elsj/charter/art01/default_en.htm, accessed 25 June 2018.

  60. 60.

    Pretty v. The United Kingdom App no 2346/02 (ECtHR, 29 April 2002), para 65. See also Foster (2011), p. 97. See also European Committee of Social Rights Complaint No. 14/2003 by the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) v. France, para 31.

  61. 61.

    Hörnle and Kremnitzer (2011), pp. 143 and 148.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    Fletcher (2007), p. 205.

  64. 64.

    Murphy (1987), pp. 509 and 531.

  65. 65.

    Hill (1999), pp. 407 and 414.

  66. 66.

    Rawls (1995), pp. 3 and 5.

  67. 67.

    Hart (1992), pp. 8–10. See also, Lacey (1988), p. 47; Lessnoff (1971), pp. 141 and 143.

  68. 68.

    Andenaes (1974), pp. 7–8.

  69. 69.

    Hart (1992), pp. 8–10.

  70. 70.

    Jareborg (2002), pp. 90–91; Melander (2008), pp. 180–181.

  71. 71.

    Lappi-Seppälä (2000), pp. 50–52.

  72. 72.

    Andenaes (1974), pp. 14–15 and 19–21.

  73. 73.

    Tyler (1990), pp. 3–7 and 25–26; Lappi-Seppälä (2000), pp. 56–57.

  74. 74.

    Andenaes (1974), pp. 35–36.

  75. 75.

    Tom R Tyler (1990), pp. 3–7 and 25–26; Lappi-Seppälä (2000), pp. 56–57; Melander (2008), pp. 180–181.

  76. 76.

    Lappi-Seppälä (2000), p. 59.

  77. 77.

    von Hirsch (2003), pp. 9–11.

  78. 78.

    Andenaes (1974), pp. 41–46 and 53.

  79. 79.

    Duff (1986), pp. 235–236; Duff (2003), pp. 49–50.

  80. 80.

    Duff (1986), p. 263.

  81. 81.

    Duff (2003), pp. 80–81.

  82. 82.

    Husak (2002), p. 17.

  83. 83.

    Nuotio (2010), p. 254.

  84. 84.

    Lacey (1995), p. 25.

  85. 85.

    Husak (2002), p. 20; Lacey (1995), p. 2; Melander (2008), p. 1.

  86. 86.

    Ashworth (2003), pp. 24–25 and 55–57.

  87. 87.

    Husak (2002), p. 45.

  88. 88.

    Wessels and Beulke (2012), p. 2.

  89. 89.

    Markus Dirk Dubber (2005), pp. 1–11.

  90. 90.

    Jareborg (2002), pp. 94–95. See also, Asp et al. (2013).

  91. 91.

    Melander (2008).

  92. 92.

    On the Theories of criminalization in Europe, see Nuotio (2010).

  93. 93.

    Tuori (2013), p. 6; Melander (2013), p. 42.

  94. 94.

    Nuotio (2010), p. 254.

  95. 95.

    See, for example, Rawls (1995), pp. 3 and 5; Hart (1992), pp. 1–3 and 11–12; Lacey (1988); Jareborg (2002), pp. 90–91.

  96. 96.

    Lacey (1988), pp. 38–39.

  97. 97.

    Lacey (1988), pp. 39–42.

  98. 98.

    Dolinko (2014), p. 407; Hoffman and Graham (2009), pp. 149–151.

  99. 99.

    Hart (1992), pp. 11–12.

  100. 100.

    Neumann (2014), pp. 67–84 and 70; Dolinko (2014), p. 412.

  101. 101.

    Lacey (1988), pp. 16–27.

  102. 102.

    Hoffman and Graham (2009), pp. 147 and 149.

  103. 103.

    Andenaes (1974), p. 25.

  104. 104.

    On the inner dimention of the ultima ratio principle, see Melander (2008), p. 407.

  105. 105.

    Hoffman and Graham (2009), pp. 148–149.

  106. 106.

    Andenaes (1974), p. 39; Neumann (2014), pp. 67–84.

  107. 107.

    Rawls (1995), p. 3.

  108. 108.

    Lacey (1988), p. 46.

  109. 109.

    Rawls (1995), pp. 3 and 5.

  110. 110.

    Hart (1992), pp. 8–10. See also, Lacey (1988), p. 47. See also, Lessnoff (1971), pp. 141 and 143.

References

  • Andenaes J (1974) Punishment and deterrence. The University of Michigan Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth A (2003) Principles of criminal law, 4th edn. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth A, Zedner L (2008) Defending the criminal law: reflections on the changing character of crime, procedure, and sanctions. Crim Law Philos 2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth A, Zedner L (2014a) Preventive justice. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth A, Zedner L (2014b) The role of preventive state. In: Simester A, du Bois-Pedain A, Neumann U (eds) Liberal criminal theory. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Asp P, Magnus U, Nils J (2013) Kriminalrättens grunder. Iustus Förlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Beccaria C (1764) Rikoksesta ja rangaistuksesta, Kai Heikkilä tr, Edita 1998, the original ‘Dei delitti e delle pene’

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder G (2002) Punishment theory: moral or political? Buffalo Crim Law Rev 5(2)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagger R (2011) Republicanism and the foundations of criminal law. In: Duff RA, Green SP (eds) Philosophical foundations of criminal law. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolinko D (2014) Punishment. In: Deigh J, Dolinko D (eds) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of criminal law. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • du Bois-Pedain A (2014) Criminal law theory in the constitutional state. In: Simester A, du Bois-Pedain A, Neumann U (eds) Liberal criminal theory. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff A (1986) Trials and punishments. CUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff A (2003) Punishment, communication, and community. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer L (1996) The obsession with definition: the nature of crime and critical legal theory. Soc Leg Stud 5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg J (1970) The expressive function of punishment. In: Feinberg J (ed) Doing & deserving: essays in the theory of responsibility. Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP (1998) Basic concepts of criminal law. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP (2000) The nature and function of criminal theory. Calif Law Rev 88(3)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP (2007) The grammar of criminal law: American, comparative and international, volume one: foundations. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster C (2011) Human dignity in bioethics and law. Hart publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland D (1996) The limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime control in contemporary society. Br J Criminol 36(4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon GH (1978) The criminal law of Scotland, 2nd edn. W.Green & Son Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1958) Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harv Law Rev 71(4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1992) Punishment and responsibility: essays in the philosophy of law. Clarendon Press, first published in 1968

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassemer W (1989) Symbolinen rikosoikeus ja oikeushyvien suojelu. Oikeus 18(5)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill T (1999) Kant on wrongdoing, desert, and punishment. Law Philos 18

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman J, Graham P (2009) Introduction to political theory, 2nd edn. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörnle T, Kremnitzer M (2011) Human dignity as a protected interest in criminal law. Isr Law Rev 44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husak DN (2002) Limitations on criminalization and the general part of criminal law. In: Shute S, Simester AP (eds) Criminal law theory: doctrines of the general part. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Jareborg N (2002) Scraps of penal theory. Iustus Förlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplow L, Shavell S (2003) Fairness versus welfare: notes on the pareto principle, preferences, and distributive justice. J Leg Stud 32(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Klip A (2016) European criminal law: an integrative approach, 3rd edn. Intersentia

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey N (1988) State punishment. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey N (1995) Contingency and criminalisation. In: Loveland I (ed) Frontiers of criminality. Sweet & Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey N (2013) What constitutes criminal law? In: Duff RA, Farmer L, Marshall SE, Renzo M, Tardos V (eds) The constitution of the criminal law. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappi-Seppälä T (1994) Miksi rikosoikeus? In: Hirvonen A (ed) Kohti 2000-luvun rikosoikeutta. Helsingin yliopiston rikos- ja prosessioikeuden laitoksen julkaisuja A:8

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappi-Seppälä T (2000) Rikosten seuraamukset (WSLT 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessnoff M (1971) Two justifications of punishment. Philos Q 21(83)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall SE, Duff RA (1998) Criminalization and sharing values. Can J Law Jurisprud XI(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Melander S (2007) Nordic criminal justice policy – single path or separate ways? In: Husa J, Nuotio K, Pihlajamäki H (eds) Nordic law – between tradition and dynamism. Intersentia

    Google Scholar 

  • Melander S (2008) Kriminalisointiteoria – rangaistavaksi säätämisen oikeudelliset rajoitukset. Suomalaisen lakimiesyhdistyksen julkaisuja

    Google Scholar 

  • Melander S (2013) Ultima ratio in European criminal law. Oñati Socio-Leg Ser 3(1)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS (1974) In: Himmelfarb G (ed) On liberty. Penguin Books, first published 1859

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS (1979) Utilitarianism. Hackett Publishing Company, first published 1863

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy JG (1987) Does Kant have a theory of punishment? Columbia Law Rev 87(3)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann U (2014) The ‘deserved’ punishment. In: Simester A, Du Bois-Pedain A, Neumann U (eds) Liberal criminal theory: essays for Andreas von Hirsch. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuotio K (2007) Participation in crime in Nordic criminal laws: variations on a theme. In: Husa J, Nuotio K, Pihlajamäki H (eds) Nordic law – between tradition and dynamism. Intersentia

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuotio K (2010) Theories of criminalization & the limits of criminal law. In: Duff RA, Farmer L, Marshall SE, Renzo M, Tadros V (eds) The boundaries of the criminal law. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuotio K (2014a) Between denial and recognition: criminal law and cultural diversity. In: Kymlicka W, Lernestedt C, Matravers M (eds) Criminal law and cultural diversity. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuotio K (2014b) European criminal law. In: Dubber MD, Hörnle T (eds) The Oxford handbook of criminal law. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim L (1912) International law, a treatis, vol 1, 2nd edn. Longmans, Green, and Co

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2009) Humanity as the A and the Ω of sovereignty. Eur J Int Law 20(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Preuss UK (2010) Disconnecting constitutions from statehood – is global constitutionalism a viable concept. In: Dobner P, Loughlin M (eds) The twilight of constitutionalism? OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1995) Two concepts of rules. Philos Rev 64(1)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson PH (1994) A functional analysis of criminal law. Northwest Univ Law Rev 88

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell CL (2007) Tripartite structures of criminal law in Germany and other civil law jurisdictions. Cardozo Law Rev 28(6)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorburn M (2011) Criminal law as public law. In: Duff RA, Green SP (eds) Philosophical foundations of criminal law. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuori K (2013) Ultima ratio as a constitutional principle. Oñati Socio-Leg Ser 3(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hirsch A (2003) Censure and sanctions. Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker N (1998) Sovereignty and differentiated integration in the European Union. Eur Law J 4(4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker N (2002) The idea of constitutional pluralism. Mod Law Rev 65(3)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker N (2003) Preface. In: Walker N (ed) Sovereignty in transition. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1978) Economy and society: an outline of interpretative sociology. University of California Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels J, Beulke W (2012) Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil: Die Straftat und ihr Aufbau. C.F. Müller

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman JQ (2003–2004) Between self-defense and vengeance/between social contract and monopoly of violence. Tulsa Law Rev 39

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helsinki, Finland

    Merita Kettunen

Authors
  1. Merita Kettunen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer International Publishing Switzerland and G. Giappichelli Editore

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kettunen, M. (2020). The Nature of Traditional Criminal Law. In: Legitimizing European Criminal Law. Comparative, European and International Criminal Justice, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16174-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16174-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16173-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16174-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation