NCJ Number
86043
Journal
University of Pittsburgh Law Review Volume: 42 Issue: 4 Dated: (1981) Pages: 737-758
Date Published
1981
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This article explores the propriety of using criminal sanctions as devices to achieve certain social ends, analyzing laws monitoring economic activity, family and intimate relationships, and the rehabilitative treatment of convicted offenders.
Abstract
Certain characteristics of criminal law help explain why questions arise whenever serious thought is directed to the legal regulation of human behavior. The criminal law is the heavy artillery of society which can be imposed disproportionately to the offense. Its easy accessibility also inhibits rational policy. Finally, criminal sanctions are means to accomplishing social goals, and their propriety must be evaluated in the context of means not ends. From this perspective, the paper moves to discuss concerns over the morality of means in three areas of penal interest, beginning with laws regulating economic activity. It focuses on problems surrounding the creation of strict criminal liability in economic cases, citing United States v. Park (1975) as an illustrative case. A survey of the rationales defending strict liability concludes that the argument of deterrence is most valid, but suggests testing other traditional bases of criminal liability. The failure of lawmakers to consider the consequences of proposed criminal justice interventions into peoples' lives is demonstrated by a brief discussion of the American experience with the victimless crimes of alcohol and drug use, gambling, and prostitution. Also examined are problems that could arise from imposing criminal sanctions on domestic matters, such as child support, forcible rape of a wife by her husband, and abortion. Finally, questions about the morality of means are applied to mandatory rehabilitative programs in correctional institutions. The paper contains 73 footnotes.