Indirect Criminalisation

This book presents the first detailed study of 'indirect criminalisation' (the legal treatment of antisocial behaviour through civil preventative measures such as the ASBO) in England and Wales. Since the late 20th century many Western jurisdictions introduced a range of civil preventive measures in order to prevent and deal with various types of criminality. Although the stated objective of these interventions is the prevention of crime, their implementation can result in the imposition of restrictions akin to criminal punishment leading to the indirect criminalisation of certain kinds of behaviour. Through the adoption of an interdisciplinary approach which combines criminal law theory and empirical criminology, this book engages with the phenomenon of indirect criminalisation using the legal framework on anti-social behaviour in England and Wales as a case study. It engages with central questions within legal theory: - what are the normative challenges posed by indirect criminalisation and mechanisms for distinguishing criminal from non-criminal rules? - how can such questions be tested and applied empirically? - has the ASBO's successor been operating as de facto criminal measure?

The criminalisation of healthcare malpractice has become a highly topical and somewhat controversial question in recent years. Studies have demonstrated that in England and Wales, the trend towards holding healthcare professionals to account for malpractice is rapidly growing, abolishing the deference doctors enjoyed decades ago. The changing attitude of judges to claims for clinical negligence has been well documented. The role of the criminal process in England and Wales has been less fully analysed with the criminal law playing a very limited role until recently in the regulation of poor healthcare practice. In contrast, in France, the criminal process has for a long time been invoked more readily to respond to cases of healthcare malpractice, which involved even mere errors. This book compares English and French criminal law responses to healthcare malpractice and considers what lessons the French model can provide for potential reform in England and elsewhere. The book takes the HIV-contaminated blood episode as a primary example of the different approaches France and England have in dealing with healthcare malpractice. Kazarian emphasises the impact of rules of substantive criminal law and criminal procedure on the way in which healthcare malpractice is criminalised in a given country. This book explores the key lessons to be drawn on whether the criminal process is an appropriate means to respond to instances of healthcare malpractice. It proposes that features of French criminal law and criminal procedure might be useful to counteract healthcare malpractice.

This book provides a systematic and comprehensive overview of the increased role of criminal law in managing migration, from a European, domestic and comparative law perspective. The contributors critically engage with the current trends leading to the criminalisation of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and those who engage in 'humanitarian smuggling' and the national and common policies calling for a broader use of criminal law measures. The chapters explore the measures used to protect borders and their impact in terms of effectiveness and their ability to strike a fair balance between security and the protection of human rights. The contributors to the book cover a range of disciplines within law, human rights and criminology resulting in a broad understanding of the issues at play.

This book considers whether coercive control (particularly non-physical forms of family violence) should be prohibited by the criminal law. Based on the premise that traditional understandings of family violence are severely limited, it considers whether the core of family violence is power-based controlling or coercive behavior: attempts by men to psychologically dominate their partners. Such behavior can cause significant psychological, physical and economic harms to victims and is increasingly recognized as a form of human rights abuse. The book considers the new offences that have been introduced in England and Wales (controlling or coercive behavior), Ireland (controlling behavior) and Scotland (domestic abuse). It invites consideration of three key questions: Do conventional criminal laws adequately regulate non-physical abuse? Is the criminal law an appropriate mechanism for responding to the coercive control of family members? And if a new and distinctive offence is warranted, what is the optimal form of that offence? This ground-breaking work is essential reading for researchers and practitioners interested in coercive control and the proper role of the criminal law as a mechanism for regulating family violence.

This volume presents a leading contribution to the substantive arena relating to consent in the criminal law. In broad terms, the ambit of legally valid consent in extant law is contestable and opaque, and reveals significant problems in adoption of consistent approaches to doctrinal and theoretical underpinnings of consent. This book seeks to provide a logical template to focus the debate. The overall concept addresses three specific elements within this arena, embracing an overarching synergy between them. This edifice engages in an examination of UK provisions, with specialist contributions on Irish and Scottish law, and in contrasting these provisions against alternative domestic jurisdictions as well as comparative contributions addressing a particularised research grid for consent. The comparative chapters provide a wider background of how other legal systems' treat a variety of specialised issues relating to consent in the context of the criminal law. The debate in relation to consent principles continues for academics, practitioners and within the criminal justice system. Having expert descriptions of the wider issues surrounding the particular discussion and of other legal systems' approaches serves to stimulate and inform that debate. This collection will be a major source of reference for future discussion.

Available open access digitally under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. This book examines how governments misuse detention to abuse power, suppress dissent and maintain social hierarchies. Proposing solutions for future policy, this is a call for greater respect for the rule of law and human rights.

This book traces the history of the EU competence, EU policy discourse and EU legislation in the field of criminalisation from Maastricht until the present day. It asks 'Why EU Criminal Law?' looking at what rationales the Treaty, policy document and legislation put forth when deciding whether a certain behaviour should be a criminal offence. To interpret the EU approach to criminalisation, it relies on both modern and post-modern theoretical frameworks on the legitimacy of criminal law, read jointly with the theories on the functions of EU harmonisation of national law. The book demonstrates that while EU constitutional law leans towards an effectiveness-based, enforcement-driven, understanding of criminal law, the EU has in fact in more than one instance adopted symbolic EU criminal law, ie criminal law aimed at highlighting what values are important to the EU, but which is not fit to actually deter individuals from harming such values. The book then questions whether this approach is consistent or in contradiction with the values-based constitutional identity the EU has set for itself.

This book critically reflects on the relationship between ‘core crimes’ which make up the subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression) and transnational crimes. The contributions in the book address the features of several transnational crimes and generally acknowledge that the boundaries between core crimes and transnational crimes are blurring. One of the major questions is whether, in view of this gradual merger of the categories, the distinction in legal regime is still warranted. Should prosecution and trial of transnational crimes be transferred from national to international jurisdictions?