Dennis J. Baker

In this paper, I consider Ripstein and Dan-Cohen's critiques of the 'harm principle'. Ripstein and Dan-Cohen have asserted that the harm principle should be jettisoned, because it allegedly fails to provide a rationale for criminalising certain harmless wrongs that ought to be criminalised. They argue that Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative and his concept of 'external freedom' are better equipped for ensuring that criminalisation decisions meet the requirements of fairness. Per contra, I assert that Kant's deontological theory is about identifying morally wrongful and rightful conduct: it does not tell the legislature which of those wrongs justify a criminal law response in accordance with the requirements of fairness and justice. Some wrongdoers deserve censure and the stigma that results from criminalisation, but others do not. Kant's deontological theory does not limit the scope of the criminal law merely to those wrongs that deserve a criminal law response. Fair and principled criminalisation requires more than mere wrongdoing. I assert that it is only fair to criminalise wrongs when further normative reasons can be invoked to justify the use of the criminal law as a means for deterring the unwanted conduct. While 'harm to others' is not the only normative reason that can be used to demonstrate that it is fair to criminalise a given act, it is the justification that has the greatest reach. It would not be fair to criminalise mere wrongdoing (that is, every violation of freedom: trespass to goods etc. or every violation of the categorical imperative: every false promise etc.). Nor is it possible to distinguish one violation of freedom from the next, as freedom is not measurable. Thus, murder and trespass to goods would be equally wrong and equally criminalisable in Kant's scheme. A further problem with Dan-Cohen's use of the second formulation of Kant's categorical imperative is that it aims to be an inclusive criterion for identifying conduct that is prima facie criminalisable, but this inclusive approach does not explain the wrongfulness (or in Dan-Cohen's use of the categorical imperative the criminalisableness) of harming animals. In this paper, I demonstrate that the harm principle is able to meet the challenges raised by Ripstein and Dan-Cohen. I also demonstrate that it offers superior criteria for ensuring that criminalisation decisions are fair, just and principled than is offered by Kant's deontological theory.

The recent distribution of nude photos of a number of high profile Hong Kong celebrities has provoked intense discussion about the state of Hong Kong's obscenity and indecency laws. In this paper, I argue that Hong Kong's laws prohibiting the transfer of obscene and indecent information and images between consenting adults are both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance is under-inclusive in that it does not adequately criminalise grave violations of privacy. It is also over-inclusive because it is a blanket prohibition against the transfer by all parties (including consenting adults) of all forms of obscene and indecent materials. The laws unnecessarily violate the free expression rights of both the producer and consenting viewer of the offensive materials. The producer/publisher of such materials does not harm his or her audience as they willingly view such materials. The justification for maintaining a blanket prohibition against all transfers of such materials is invalid and utterly and totally out of touch with modern life in Hong Kong. The proponents of such laws have used Victorian positive morality considerations to justify continued criminalisation. These laws should be abrogated and replaced with a new piece of legislation that is narrowly tailored to deal with those types of offensive displays that are wrongful in a critical rather than a mere positive morality sense. Criminalisation should be limited to those offences that target children or use children in the production process, violate the rights of non-consenting adult audiences not to receive certain intimate information in certain public contexts, and violate privacy rights by publishing a person's private and intimate information without consent. If x obtains y's profoundly private information and publishes it without y's consent, then x violates y's privacy rights in a grave way. The violation in the right circumstances will justify a criminal law response rather than a mere civil law response. Similarly, if x and y copulate on a public bus they subject the captive audience to an offensive display which violates the non-consenting audience's right not to receive certain intimate information. I argue below that these types of privacy violations give the lawmaker a legitimate justification for invoking the criminal law.

In this paper, I argue that a constitutionalized Harm Principle could ensure that people are not jailed unless they deserve it. I do not aim to outline every possible type of bad consequence beyond harm that might be sufficiently serious to justify criminalization. Instead, I focus on criminalization that is backed up with jail terms and I argue that wrongful harm to others provides the only moral and constitutional justification for sending people to jail. Imprisonment harms the prisoner, so she should not be imprisoned unless she has caused proportionate harm to others. I argue that the sufficient conditions for sending an offender to jail are: (1) that the offender's actions have (or risk) bad consequences that are sufficiently harmful to make her commensurately deserving of penal detention; and (2) that the offender culpably (that is, with a state of mind somewhere along the intentional/reckless/gross negligence continuum) chose (aimed or attempted) to bring about those bad consequences or did so with reckless indifference. The lawmaker would need to demonstrate from the ex ante perspective that proposed offenses carrying jail sentences are a proportionate and fair way of dealing with the wrongs involved. Because jail (including short sentences of a few days) involves hard treatment (seriously harmful consequences for the prisoner) harm to others would be the only bad consequence of sufficient weight to justify a jail sentence. Jailing people for wrongful behavior that has harmless consequences would be an unjust and disproportionate response. In terms of understanding imprisonment (a physical deprivation of liberty) in the United States, it is better to refer to the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution than to the Due Process Clause. The Eighth Amendment, if read morally, could be invoked to strike down laws that carry prison sentences for wrongs that do not result in harm to others. This is because harming a person by subjecting her to the hard treatment that is involved in serving a jail term would be a disproportionate response unless the wrongdoer inflicted equivalent harm on others. I argue, that the Eighth Amendment should be interpreted in a way that accords with its overall moral aim or purpose. The Amendment's overall moral aim is to ensure that the state does not inflict unjust, oppressive, or disproportional punishments on its citizens.

I draw on accessorial liability jurisprudence in an attempt to outline the moral limits of criminalizing people for merely influencing the criminal choices of others. A person's conduct is a remote harm when it is harmless but for the fact that it encourages another independent party to commit a harmful criminal act (a primary harm). For example, the broken windows thesis holds that minor incivilities (such as passive begging) are a precursor to more serious crime. Passive begging allegedly sends a signal to criminals that the broken windows area is unpoliced and is an easy target for crime. The beggars are criminalized to deter independent parties from committing crimes in the broken windows area. In this paper, I object to this kind of criminalization because it contravenes the requirements of fairness and individual responsibility,because it aims to punish people for the inadvertent consequences of their actions. I argue that a person should only be held responsible for another's criminal harm when she is normatively involved in it. What is needed are normative reasons for stating from an ex ante perspective that it will be fair to hold X morally responsible for S when it causes Y to do harm N. If this requirement is satisfied then there will be a prima facie case for criminalization. I argue that a person is normatively involved in another's crime when she knowingly assists or intentionally encourages that crime. In addition, a person can become normatively involved in another's criminal harm by underwriting it. I also assert that the fairness constraint should only be overridden as a matter of necessity to prevent harm of an extraordinarily grave kind and that the broken windows harm does not satisfy this requirement.

Recently, William Stuntz, a Harvard law professor, proposed a number of provocative and controversial measures for achieving equality in American criminal justice. In this paper, I argue that Stuntz's radical proposals are not likely to provide a solution to the inequality problem, which as Stuntz acknowledges is predominantly related to the criminalization of drugs. I argue that the imbalance between African American and Anglo-American criminalization would be equalized substantially if drug taking and dealing were decriminalized. Why criminalize these victimless activities if the consequence is merely to over-burden a criminal justice system that is already exceptionally costly to maintain? Professor Stuntz does not evaluate the justice of enforcing drug offenses, nor does he distinguish these victimless crimes from serious criminality such as rape, robbery murder and so on. Instead, he seems to suggest that less African Americans should be criminalized regardless of the type of criminality involved. Stuntz's blanket solution for ensuring that white and black Americans are criminalized in equal numbers is to localize criminal justice and remove many of the cardinal procedural protections that evolved from the Warren era jurisprudence. I question the justice of introducing a discretionary localized criminal justice system with the aim of allowing some of those who are deserving of punishment to evade conviction and arrest for engaging in criminal conduct. If murder, rape and robbery are genuine crimes (in that they involve victims (others) who are genuinely harmed), then the justice issue is simply that we need to make sure that whites are targeted proportionately when they engage in such activities, not that African Americans are targeted less. This certainly would be the case for genuine objective wrongs that involve victims such as murder, rape, robbery and theft. If these types of wrongful harms were not enforced consistently, it would be the victims who would be the bearers of injustice. Allowing guilty people to evade criminal justice purely because of their race without considering the type of crime and wrongdoing involved is untenable. If x has raped, then he should go to jail regardless of his race and irrespective of whether other whites are evading conviction because of biases in enforcement practices, etc. The only justice issue here is to ensure the white rapist is caught as well. Per contra, if x is jailed for using drugs, then the question is what has he done wrong? Why should he go to jail for this type of victimless crime? Race is not an issue but for the fact that we know that many African Americans are over-represented in jails because they are more likely than whites to be prosecuted for drug offenses, even though drug use rates are similar for both races. In my response to Professor Stuntz, I argue that the real issue of justice is simply that drug offenses do not involve direct harm to others, and that the solution is to decriminalize drugs.