The due to several logical reasons. Firstly, there

The principle of minimum criminalisation proposes that
criminal law ought to prohibit a certain conduct only if it is compulsory. This
is due to several logical reasons. Firstly, there is a limitation on the quantity
of individuals that can be incarcerated due to lack of space and facilities in
prisons. Creating more offenses regularly would cause courts and prisons to
become overcrowded. More so, criminalising more serious conduct carries the
message that there are certain conducts that aren’t simply just immoral, but immoral
enough to result in criminal proceedings. Criminalising conducts that aren’t as
serious will remove the importance of this message and will not be as effective
in reducing unpleasant social behaviours. Civil proceedings and gratifying good
behaviours are other ways in with the law deals with immoral behaviour. Therefore,
having such many statutes that create criminal offences is questionable.

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.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

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.


I'm Barry!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out