Book Reviews : ALAN NORRIE, Crime, Reason and History: A Critical Introduction to Criminal Law. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1993, xx + 279 pp
| Author | Gerry Johnstone |
| Published date | 01 June 1995 |
| Date | 01 June 1995 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/096466399500400216 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
293
accumulation,
and
the
muted
nature
of
the
response
is
to
be
explained
by
the
continuing
popular
belief,
even
in
the
face
of
experience,
of
the
benefit
of
the
Western
political
and
economic
way.
Why
should
this
not
be
the
case
in
a
country
with
a
state
and
class
structure
whose
existence
from
day
one
is
premised,
politically,
ideologically
and
economically,
on
such
a
belief,
and
when
no
substantial
political
voice
is
heard
to
say
otherwise?
I
ask
these
questions
because
Kelsey’s
book
raises
issues
that
are
of
concern
far
beyond
the
confines
of
her
native
New
Zealand.
Rolling
Back
the
State
is
a
substantial
achievement,
chronicling
and
analysing
a
decade
in
which
the
world
must
have
appeared
to
turn
upside
down
for
many
New
Zealanders.
We
can
all
benefit
from
reading
it.
ALAN
NORRIE
Department
of
Law,
Queen
Mary
and
Westfield
College,
London,
UK
ALAN
NORRIE,
Crime,
Reason
and
History:
A
Critical
Introduction
to
Criminal
Law.
London:
Weidenfeld
and
Nicolson,
1993,
xx
+
279 pp.
To
identify
what
is
distinctive
and
valuable
about
Alan
Norrie’s
study
of
the
general
principles
of
criminal
law,
it is
necessary
to
first
indicate
some
of
the
main
limitations
of
the
orthodox
criminal
law
texts.
Writers
of
such
texts
tend
to
concentrate
on
the
task
of
clearly
identifying
the
principles
and
rules
governing
criminal
liability,
analysing
how
they
apply
to
particular
factual
situations.
Alongside
this,
many
orthodox
writers
attempt
some
evaluation
of
the
law and
explanation
of
how
it
developed
as
it
did.
However,
the
organization
of
the
orthodox
texts
makes
it
clear
that
evaluation
and
explanation
are
regarded
as
separate
from
and
secondary
to
the
central
tasks
of
description
and
legal
analysis.
One
of
the
consequences
of
this
attitude
is
that -
compared
with
the
methodical
way
in
which
orthodox
writers
carry
out
the
tasks
of
description
and
analysis -
their
attempts
at
evaluation
and
explanation
seem
slipshod
and
amateurish.
To
evaluate
the
criminal
law,
we
need
a
clear
idea
about
what
its
proper
purposes
are
and
what
means
of
achieving
these
purposes
are
legitimate
and
effective.
In
short,
we
need
to
construct
guidelines
for
an
acceptable
system
of
criminal
law.
Unless
we
construct
at
least
a
provisional
idea
of
what
is
acceptable
and
desirable,
evaluation
of
existing
practice
has
little
meaning.
However,
orthodox
text
writers
tend
to
avoid
rigorous
debate
about
the
purpose
of
criminal
justice.
At
best,
they
provide
the
reader
with
short
and
highly
simplified
summaries
of
the
major
justifications
of
state
punishment,
such
as
prevention
of
harmful
behaviour
or
maintenance
of
fundamental
moral
values.
Moreover,
orthodox
writers
tend
to
avoid
altogether
questions
about
the
effectiveness
of
state
punishment
as
a
means
of
achieving
these
objectives.
The
fact
that
orthodox
text
writers
criticize
aspects
of
criminal
law
means
that
they
do
have
ideas -
which
are
seldom
explicitly
stated -
about
what
is
acceptable
and
desirable.
A
brief
survey
of
orthodox
texts
would
find
the
following
types
of
criticism
of
particular
decisions
or
developments:
’it
results
in
the
conviction
of
individuals
who
are
not
blameworthy’;
’it
side-steps
existing
precedents’;
and
’it
cannot
be
justified
in
terms
of
control
of
harmful
behaviour’.
From
these
criticisms,
we
can
infer
that
orthodox
text
writers
possess
a
vision
of
what
criminal
law
ought
to
be:
it
ought
to
punish only
on
the
basis
of
individual
culpability;
judges
ought
to
be
rule-bound
even
if
this
leads
to
results
with
which
they
are
unhappy;
and
the
criminalization
of
conduct
is
justified
only
if
it
has
a
utilitarian
purpose.
The
problem
is
that
this
vision
is
not
made
explicit.
Two
consequences
flow
from
this.
First,
the
criteria
by
which
orthodox
text
writers
judge
criminal
law
are
seldom
argued
for
or
defended.
Rather,
they
tend
to
be
assumed
as
timeless
and
universal
common
sense.
Second,
orthodox
writers
fail
to
address
the
problem
of
the
tensions
To continue reading
Request your trial