Introduction

It tends to be assumed that the substance of the criminal law is something that is relatively stable. There is said to be a basic ‘core’ of crimes, comprising homicide, rape, theft and so on, that remains unchanged, protecting certain fundamental social values such as human life and property. Equally, it is assumed that the law has always recognised that the question of guilt or moral blameworthiness was bound to the intention of the accused person. Even if this were so, and it is an overly simple account of the law, it tells us very little indeed about criminal jurisdiction at a particular place or time. We do not know, for example, what actions were included within these broad categories or how liability was attributed for these actions. Such issues can only be determined by examining the theoretical and practical limits governing the application of the rules. Different patterns emerge in the attribution of criminal liability, and the overall significance of certain crimes within the criminal justice system changes over time.

The issue that this raises, then, is not so much the question of the values that the law seeks to protect, but one of how crime is perceived and prosecuted.