Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Bentham on Presumed Offences


In the Principles of the Penal Code, Jeremy Bentham described offences that he labelled presumed or evidentiary. The conduct penalized under such offences is punished not because it is intrinsically wrong, but because it probabilistically indicates the presence of an intrinsic wrong. Bentham was sceptical of the need to create offences, but grudgingly accepted their value in light of deficiencies in procedure and the judiciary. These days the scepticism is even greater, with courts and commentators in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and elsewhere believing that such ‘proxy’ offences deny a defendant the right to establish that he did not engage in the conduct that the presumed offence probabilistically but not necessarily indicates. On closer analysis, however, such scepticism appears unjustified. Almost all offences, and indeed almost all legal rules, are premised on a probabilistic relationship between the behaviour the rule encompasses and the behaviour that is the rule-maker's real concern. Presumed offences may make this relationship especially obvious, but it is a relationship that exists whenever the law operates by the use of rules.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Larry Alexander , ‘Inculpatory and Exculpatory Mistakes and the Fact/Law Distinction: An Essay in Memory of Myke Bayles’, Law and Philosophy 12 (1993), pp. 3367

Larry Alexander and Kimberly D. Kessler , ‘Mens Rea and Inchoate Crimes’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 87 (1997), pp. 1138–72

Edna Ullman-Margalit , ‘On Presumption’, Journal of Philosophy 80 (1983), pp. 143–63

Edna Ullman-Margalit and Avishai Margalit , ‘Analyticity by Way of Presumption’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 12 (1982), pp. 435–52

John Calvin Jeffries Jr., and Paul B. Stephan III, ‘Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law’, Yale Law Journal 88 (1979), pp. 13251404

Charles Nesson , ‘The Evidence or the Event? On Judicial Proof and the Acceptability of Verdicts’, Harvard Law Review 98 (1985), pp. 1357–92, at 1378–85

James Edwards , ‘Justice Denied: The Criminal Law and the Ouster of the Courts’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (2010), pp. 725–48

Victor Tadros , ‘Crimes and Security’, Modern Law Review 71 (2008), pp. 940–70

Meir Dan-Cohen , ‘Decision Rules and Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation in the Criminal Law’, Harvard Law Review 97 (1984), pp. 625–77

J. O. Urmson , ‘The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J.S. Mill’, Philosophical Quarterly 3 (1953), pp. 33–9

Jonathan Dancy , Ethics without Principles (Oxford, 2004)

Donald H. Regan , Utilitarianism and Co-operation (Oxford, 1980)

J. J. C. Smart , ‘Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism’, Philosophical Quarterly 6 (1956), pp. 344–54

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 0953-8208
  • EISSN: 1741-6183
  • URL: /core/journals/utilitas
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 20 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 217 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd August 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.