principle that assists the role of the law in protecting society from harm is
the principle of welfare. From a possible victim’s point of view, the principle
of welfare is in accordance with the principle of autonomy mentioned previously:
for someone to exercise their right of autonomy, he should be protected from
others that would unfairly hinder his ability to do so, physically or otherwise.
Nonetheless, the protection of an individual’s right to autonomy entails the
limitation of another individuals right to autonomy. Therefore, the principle
of welfare delivers a counterbalance to that if autonomy, and one could validate
an extremely limiting criminal law.
Autonomy is also the primary approach for the advancement of
‘choice’ as a critical component of both legal and moral blame. As a result, conducts that the defendant
cannot evade must not be criminalised. The most fundamental implications of
this would rule out the legislation of, for example, sleeping and respiration,
where we carry out these actions without choice. Accordingly, the fairness or
criminalising unrealistic choices is debateable. In other words, where the
defendant commits an offence to avoid threatened sever violence, the defence or
duress is applied. Notwithstanding, duress is not in any way permitted as a
defence to murder, irrespective if it is highlighted that a reasonable person
would have responded within same manner, and therefore the defendant’s response
was in a way an inevitable response.
The principle of individual autonomy is one of the crucial
concepts in the justification of criminal laws. An individual’s right of living
his or her life as he or she please (The right or autonomy). This principle is
used in criminal law to forestall somebody’s exercise of autonomy from obstructing
another individual’s autonomy. The criminalisation of certain conducts,
restricts our option by construction of the legal code. In relation of
criminalising failures to act, the law is hindering the individuals’ decisions
and demanding an explicit course of conduct. Henceforth, if we perceive
autonomy as something that should be perpetuated and increased, criminal
offenses, especially those regarding omissions liability, that restrain our
autonomy ought to be kept to a minimum.
The principle of harm presents a concept of crime where a conduct
must only be banned if it results in harming another person. This principle puts
a standard in place for what types of conducts a liberal should be able to rightly
forbid. The harm principle does not say that conducts that are harmful, should
be prohibited; rather, it says that harmful conducts alone should be able to be
This essay is going to explain and judge the rules and standards
of criminal law in the light of certain guiding principles of restraint in the
construction and use of the criminal law.
principles of the English criminal law. Discuss all the relevant issues posed
by this topic.