Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-nr592 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-06T07:59:22.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criminalization, decriminalization and republican theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2025

John Braithwaite  and
Philip Pettit
Philip Pettit
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Resume

L'une des questions centrales qu'une théorie républicaine de la justice pénale peut aider à affronter est le choix des conduites qu'il convient de criminaliser ou de décriminaliser. Une conduite ne devrait être criminalisée que si, ce faisant, le dominion, une conception républicaine de la liberté, est accru. Un tel raisonnement inspire au républicain une décriminalisation substantielle dans les sociétés occidentales. Prenant bien le crime au sérieux, les républicains estiment que pas mal de conduites que nous traitons comme des crimes recevraient une meilleure réponse s'ils étaient, dans la voie tracée par les abolitionnistes, envisagés comme des troubles, des problèmes existentiels, des conflits appelant un dialogue. Il n'y a pas de contradiction à participer à des combats progressistes visant à clarifier la protection juridique de la femme contre le viol et celle de l'environnement contre sa spoliation, tout en déclinant la compétence du pénal à régir certaines catégories de conduites.

Summary

SUMMARY

Among the central questions that a republican theory of criminal justice shows how to answer is what conduct should be criminalized and decriminalized. Conduct should only be criminalized if criminalization increases dominion—a republican conception of liberty. This motivates the republican to support substantial decriminalization in Western societies. While republicans take crime seriously, they agree that a great deal of the conduct we respond to as crime would be better responded to in the ways advocated by abolitionists—as troubles, problems of living, conflicts, matters for dialogue. There is no conflict between participating in progressive struggles to inject clarity into laws that protect women from rape or the environment from despoilation while declining to treat as crime particular instances of conduct that might fit the definition.

Resumen

RESUMEN

Una de las cuestiones centrales que pueden ser enfrentadas gracias a una teoría republicana de la justicia penal, es la de la elección de las conductas que conviene criminalizar. Una conducta debería ser criminalizada sólo si, al hacerlo, el dominion, una concepción republicana de la libertad, es acentuado. Un razonamiento de esa naturaleza inspira, en los republicanos, una discriminalización substancial en las sociedades occidentales. Considerando el crimen seriamente, los republicanos estiman que muchas conductas que son tratadas como crímenes recibirían una mejor respuesta si, siguiendo la via trazada por los abolicionistas, éstas fueran consideradas como transtornos, problemas existenciales, conflictos que llaman al diálogo.

Participar en combates progresistas que persiguen la protección jurídica de la mujer contra las violaciones y del medio ambiente contra su expoliación no es contradictorio con la competencia de la justicia penal para regir ciertas categorías de conductas.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
International Annals of Criminology , Volume 50 , Issue 1-2 , 2012 , pp. 133 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 International Society for Criminology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

(1)

This paper was presented at the 11th International Congress on Criminology, Budapest, 1993.

References

REFERENCES

Ayres, Ian and Braithwaite, John 1992a. Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, Ian and Braithwaite, John 1992b. Designing Responsive Regulatory Institutions. The Responsive Community 2: 41–47.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, John 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, John 1992. “Corporate Crime and Republican Criminological Praxis”, Paper to Queens University Conference on “Corporate Crime: Ethics, Law and the State”.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, John 1993. “Inequality and Republican Criminology”, in Hagan, J. and Peterson, R. (eds.), Crime and Inequality, Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, John and Pettit, Philip 1990. Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey and Buchanan, James M. 1985. The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Joel 1986. Harm to Others, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fisse, Brent and Braithwaite, John 1994. Crime, Accountability and Corporations. Sydney: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 1980. “Making Incentives Pay” Policy Sciences 12: 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Hyman 1979. A Theory of Criminal Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. 1949. De Cive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Hume, David 1963. “Of the Independency of Parliament.” Essays, Moral, Political and Literary, Vol. 1. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair 1984. “Does Applied Ethics Rest on a Mistake?” The Monist 67: 498–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair 1988 Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Makkai, Toni and Braithwaite, John 1992. “The Dialectics of Corporate Deterrence.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart 1910 edn. On Liberty, London: Dent.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip 1993a. “Negative Liberty, Liberal and Republican”, European Journal of Philosophy 1: 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip 1993b. “Liberalism and Republicanism”, Australian Journal of Political Science, Special Issue, 28: 162–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip with Braithwaite, John 1993. “Not Just Deserts, Even in Sentencing.” Current Issues in Criminal Justice 4: 225–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John 1993. Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sadurski, Wojciech 1985. Giving Desert its Due. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass 1988. “Beyond the Republican Revival”, Yale Law Journal 97: 1539–1590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Paul R. 1978. “What Is Deviant Language?” in Wilson, P.R. and Braithwaite, J. (eds.), Two Faces of Deviance: Crimes of the Powerful and Powerless. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar