Crime and Morality - Criminal Justice

Crime and morality intersect at the contested boundary where legal prohibition meets moral judgment about the wrongfulness of human conduct. Whether criminal law should enforce moral standards, and if so which ones, has been debated since antiquity and remains one of the most consequential questions in legal philosophy, political theory, and criminological thought. The relationship between crime and morality shapes the scope and content of criminal law: it determines whether the state may punish conduct solely because it offends community moral sensibilities, whether harm to others is a necessary condition for legitimate criminalization, and whether individuals retain a sphere of private moral autonomy that criminal law may not invade. This article examines the major philosophical frameworks that have been brought to bear on the crime-morality relationship — natural law, legal moralism, the harm principle, and paternalism — the foundational Hart-Devlin debate that crystallized these positions, the empirical dimensions of moral judgment in criminal law, and the policy implications that flow from different answers to the question of how crime and morality should relate within Crime in Criminology.

Introduction

Criminal law rests on moral foundations that are simultaneously indispensable and contested. The prohibition of murder, robbery, sexual assault, and child abuse reflects moral judgments about the wrongfulness of these acts that command near-universal agreement; few would argue that criminal law should remain morally neutral in the face of such conduct. Yet the moral foundations of criminal law become far more controversial when applied to conduct whose wrongfulness is deeply disputed — drug use, gambling, prostitution, pornography, assisted dying, and consensual sexual practices that some communities condemn and others tolerate. In these contested domains, the question is not whether criminal law has moral dimensions but whose morality it should reflect and by what criteria the state may legitimately invoke its most coercive instrument to enforce particular moral standards (Hart, 1963; Devlin, 1965).

The philosophical debate about crime and morality has been shaped by two competing traditions that offer fundamentally different answers to these questions. The natural law and legal moralism traditions hold that criminal law may and sometimes must enforce community moral standards, either because those standards reflect objective moral truth (natural law) or because their enforcement is necessary to prevent social disintegration (legal moralism). The liberal tradition, most influentially articulated through Mill’s harm principle and refined by Feinberg, holds that criminal law may prohibit only conduct that causes harm to others, with self-regarding conduct falling outside the domain of legitimate criminalization regardless of the community’s moral judgment about it. These traditions are not merely academic constructs — they have shaped legislation, judicial reasoning, and policy debates across every contested area of criminal law in American history (Feinberg, 1984; Packer, 1968).

This article examines these traditions in depth, tracing the evolution of the crime-morality relationship through the Hart-Devlin debate that brought these positions into direct confrontation, the role of moral judgment in contemporary criminal law, and the practical consequences of different approaches to the crime-morality boundary for criminal justice policy. Throughout, the analysis engages with the broader inquiry of Criminology by treating the crime-morality relationship not as an abstract philosophical puzzle but as a practical question whose answer shapes the scope, content, and legitimacy of the criminal justice system.

The Morality of Criminalization: Philosophical Frameworks

Natural Law and the Moral Foundations of Criminal Prohibition

The natural law tradition holds that human law derives its legitimacy from its conformity to a higher moral order — an order that exists independently of human legislation and that can be apprehended through reason, revelation, or both. On this account, certain acts are morally wrong regardless of what any particular legal system provides: murder, theft, assault, and fraud violate natural justice in ways that transcend cultural variation and historical contingency. Criminal law, insofar as it prohibits these acts, expresses and reinforces moral truths that are binding on all human communities. The natural law tradition thus provides the strongest possible foundation for the claim that criminal law should reflect morality: it holds that the core of criminal law does reflect morality — not as a matter of legislative choice but as a matter of moral necessity (Aquinas, 1947/1274; Fuller, 1964).

Natural law reasoning has had enduring influence on American criminal law, particularly in the areas of homicide, sexual offenses, and the jurisprudence of fundamental rights. Courts have invoked natural law principles to justify constitutional protections that transcend positive law — the right to life, the right to bodily integrity, the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment — grounding these protections in moral claims that are held to be prior to and independent of legislative enactment. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, for example, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as reflecting evolving standards of decency that derive their authority from moral consensus rather than from the original understanding of the drafters, a methodology that implicitly invokes natural law reasoning by treating moral judgment as a source of constitutional meaning independent of textual command (Fuller, 1964; Duff, 2001).

The natural law tradition has been challenged on multiple grounds. Legal positivists argue that the existence of a moral order independent of human social practices cannot be established with the confidence that law requires, and that the diversity of moral opinion across cultures and historical periods undermines any claim to universal moral knowledge. The history of criminal law itself provides powerful evidence for this critique: conduct that was once justified on natural law grounds as inherently criminal — homosexuality, blasphemy, interracial marriage — has been decriminalized as moral consensus has shifted, suggesting that what passes for natural law often reflects the contingent moral preferences of dominant groups rather than timeless moral truth. The natural law tradition remains influential as a source of moral aspiration for criminal law — the idea that law should strive to track moral truth — but its capacity to determine the specific content of criminal prohibitions has been significantly weakened by the positivist critique and by the empirical evidence of moral variation (Hart, 1963).

Legal Moralism: Society’s Right to Enforce Moral Standards

Legal moralism — the position that society has the right to use criminal law to enforce its shared moral standards even where no harm to others can be demonstrated — represents a distinct theoretical tradition that overlaps with but is not identical to natural law. Where natural law claims that certain moral truths are objectively binding, legal moralism claims that the moral standards of a particular community provide a legitimate basis for criminalization regardless of whether those standards can be philosophically grounded in objective truth. The legal moralist argument is pragmatic rather than metaphysical: it holds that the enforcement of shared morality is necessary to maintain social cohesion, that the loosening of moral bonds threatens social disintegration, and that the criminal law serves an expressive function — communicating and reinforcing community values — that is as important as its deterrent or incapacitative functions (Devlin, 1965).

Lord Devlin’s 1959 Maccabaean Lecture, subsequently published as The Enforcement of Morals (1965), provided the most influential modern statement of the legal moralist position. Devlin argued that society is held together by shared moral beliefs, that the weakening of those beliefs threatens social dissolution, and that society therefore has the same right to protect its moral code through criminal law that it has to protect its political institutions through treason law. On Devlin’s account, the distinction between public and private morality is untenable — all morality is public because the moral fabric of society is a public good whose maintenance requires collective enforcement. Devlin did not argue that every moral failing should be criminalized, but he insisted that there is no principled limit on the state’s authority to criminalize conduct that the community considers seriously immoral, even where the conduct takes place in private between consenting adults.

Devlin’s position attracted immediate and sustained criticism, most powerfully from Hart (1963), who argued that Devlin’s analogy between moral dissent and treason was fundamentally flawed. Treason threatens the physical security of the state; private moral nonconformity, even if widespread, does not threaten social dissolution unless one accepts the empirically unsupported premise that any deviation from shared morality weakens the social fabric. Hart distinguished between positive morality — the morality actually accepted by a community at a given time — and critical morality — the standards by which positive morality itself can be evaluated and found wanting. The enforcement of positive morality, Hart argued, elevates the prejudices and contingent preferences of the majority to the status of binding law, without the principled basis that critical moral evaluation could provide. This critique placed the burden of justification on those who would use criminal law to enforce morality: they must show not merely that the community disapproves of the conduct but that the disapproval is warranted by standards that survive critical examination.

The Harm Principle and Its Refinements

Mill, Packer, and the Liberal Limits on Criminalization

John Stuart Mill’s (1859) On Liberty provided the foundational statement of the liberal position on the crime-morality relationship: the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Mill’s harm principle drew a sharp boundary between conduct that affects others — which the state may legitimately regulate and prohibit — and self-regarding conduct — which falls within the individual’s sphere of moral autonomy and cannot be invaded by criminal law regardless of the community’s moral judgment about it. The harm principle does not deny that self-regarding conduct may be morally wrong; it holds that the wrongfulness of such conduct does not justify criminal prohibition because the coercive apparatus of the state should not be deployed against individuals who have caused no harm to others (Mill, 1859). Stephen (1874) offered an early and influential critique of Mill, arguing that the harm principle was too restrictive and that society’s right to enforce moral standards extended beyond the prevention of harm — a position that anticipated Devlin’s arguments a century later.

The harm principle’s application to criminal law was elaborated by Packer (1968), who argued that a rational criminal code must satisfy two conditions: the conduct prohibited must cause or threaten actual harm, and the deployment of criminal sanctions must be likely to reduce that harm more effectively than alternative mechanisms of social control. Packer’s analysis introduced a pragmatic dimension to the harm principle: even where harm to others can be demonstrated, criminalization is justified only if the criminal law can effectively address the harm without generating costs — enforcement expenses, liberty restrictions, criminogenic effects — that exceed the benefits of prohibition. Hart (1958) similarly argued that the aims of the criminal law must be understood in relation to its costs, and that criminal prohibition is justified only when the social benefits of prohibition outweigh the social costs of enforcement, a calculation that morals legislation frequently fails. This cost-benefit analysis provided a framework for evaluating the criminal prohibition of drug use, prostitution, and gambling that went beyond the purely philosophical question of whether these activities cause harm to others and addressed the practical question of whether criminal prohibition is an effective response to whatever harm they cause.

Feinberg’s Framework and the Offense Principle

Feinberg (1984) refined the harm principle through his systematic analysis of the moral limits of the criminal law, distinguishing between harm to others, offense to others, harm to self, and harmless wrongdoing as potential justifications for criminalization. Only the harm principle, Feinberg argued, provides a fully adequate liberty-limiting principle — a principle that justifies state coercion against the individual’s will. The offense principle may justify limited criminal regulation in circumstances where seriously offensive conduct is imposed on others without their consent, but offense is a weaker ground for criminalization than harm and must be balanced against the liberty interest of the actor. Paternalism — the criminalization of conduct that harms only the actor — and legal moralism — the criminalization of conduct that violates community moral standards without harming anyone — fail as liberty-limiting principles because they do not respect the autonomy of individuals to make their own moral choices about self-regarding conduct (Feinberg, 1984; Simester & von Hirsch, 2011).

Feinberg’s four-volume analysis has had significant influence on subsequent criminalization theory. Simester and von Hirsch (2011) built on Feinberg’s framework to develop a theory of criminal wrongs that distinguishes between conduct wrongful in itself and conduct made wrongful by the existence of a legal prohibition — a distinction that connects Feinberg’s work to the mala in se and mala prohibita classification examined elsewhere in this section. Kadish (1967) argued that morals legislation — criminal prohibitions directed at conduct that is disapproved but causes no harm to nonconsenting parties — overloads the criminal justice system, undermines respect for law, and generates enforcement costs that fall disproportionately on minority communities. The cumulative weight of this scholarly tradition has produced a strong presumption against morality-based criminalization in contemporary criminal law theory, though the presumption has not fully displaced moralist arguments in legislative practice.

The Hart-Devlin Debate and Its Legacy

The Wolfenden Report and Its Catalytic Role

The Hart-Devlin debate was catalyzed by the 1957 Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution (the Wolfenden Report), which recommended the decriminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. The Committee’s reasoning closely tracked the harm principle: private consensual conduct that caused no demonstrable harm to nonconsenting parties fell outside the legitimate scope of criminal law, regardless of the community’s moral judgment about homosexuality. The Report distinguished between the function of criminal law — to preserve public order and decency, to protect individuals from harm, and to safeguard the vulnerable from exploitation — and the function of morality, which it held to be a matter for individual conscience rather than state enforcement. This distinction between law and private morality provided the intellectual framework for the subsequent philosophical debate and for the broader decriminalization movements that followed in the 1960s and beyond (Hart, 1963).

Devlin’s response rejected the Wolfenden Committee’s distinction between public and private morality as untenable and philosophically incoherent. On Devlin’s account, the morality that criminal law protects is not merely a set of personal preferences but the shared moral fabric that holds society together — a fabric that is threatened whenever any of its threads are loosened, regardless of whether the loosening occurs in public or in private. The intensity of public disgust at particular conduct — what Devlin called the “intolerance, indignation, and disgust” of the reasonable person — provides a legitimate measure of whether conduct is sufficiently immoral to warrant criminalization. This emotional test for the limits of criminal law attracted particular criticism from Hart, who argued that disgust is not a reliable guide to moral wrongfulness and that the history of criminal law is littered with prohibitions justified by disgust that were subsequently recognized as unjust exercises of majoritarian tyranny (Hart, 1963; Devlin, 1965).

Implications for Contemporary Criminal Law

The Hart-Devlin debate has shaped the legal landscape of every contested moral issue in American criminal law, from the decriminalization of homosexuality and the liberalization of obscenity law to the ongoing debates over drug policy, assisted dying, and sex work. The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), invalidating state sodomy statutes as violations of substantive due process, represented a decisive victory for the harm principle position: the Court held that the state’s moral disapproval of homosexual conduct did not provide a sufficient basis for criminal prohibition, at least where the conduct involved consenting adults acting in private. Lawrence did not establish the harm principle as constitutional doctrine in explicit terms, but its reasoning — that the liberty interest of individuals to make intimate choices without state interference outweighs the community’s interest in enforcing its moral standards — tracks the harm principle closely and has implications for other areas of morals legislation.

Drug policy represents the most actively contested contemporary arena for the crime-morality debate. Arguments for continued criminalization of drugs frequently invoke legal moralist premises — that drug use is morally degrading, that its toleration would weaken the moral fabric of communities, and that the criminal law has an expressive function in communicating condemnation of drug use regardless of its deterrent effectiveness. Arguments for decriminalization invoke the harm principle — that drug use in many forms is primarily self-regarding conduct whose criminalization causes more harm than the conduct itself, that enforcement falls disproportionately on minority communities, and that alternative regulatory mechanisms would more effectively address whatever harms drug use causes to nonconsenting parties. The political success of marijuana legalization in multiple states suggests a shift in American moral consensus that increasingly favors the harm principle position, though this shift is neither uniform nor complete (Husak, 2008; Packer, 1968).

Moral Judgment in Criminal Law Practice

The Role of Moral Intuition in Legislation and Sentencing

Criminal law embeds moral judgments at every level of its operation, from the legislative decision to criminalize particular conduct through the prosecutorial decision to charge and the judicial decision to sentence. These moral judgments are not always explicit or philosophically grounded — they frequently reflect intuitive moral responses that may be influenced by cultural assumptions, racial stereotypes, and class biases as much as by principled moral reasoning. The severity of criminal sentences, for example, has been shown to correlate with the perceived moral seriousness of the offense as judged by community surveys, but the perceived seriousness of offenses varies systematically by the race and class of the typical offender in ways that suggest the influence of stereotype rather than principled moral evaluation (Robinson & Darley, 2007).

Robinson and Darley (2007) conducted a series of empirical studies examining the correspondence between criminal law’s punishment decisions and community moral judgments, finding substantial agreement on the relative ranking of offense seriousness — murder is consistently judged more serious than theft, which is consistently judged more serious than minor regulatory violations — but significant disagreement on absolute severity and on the treatment of contested moral issues such as drug use, euthanasia, and sexual conduct between adolescents. These findings suggest that criminal law’s claim to reflect community morality is partially justified but inevitably imperfect: the law captures broad moral consensus on core offenses while imposing particular moral judgments on contested issues where community opinion is divided. The gap between moral consensus and moral division is precisely where the crime-morality debate becomes practically consequential.

Moral Pluralism and the Limits of Criminal Law

Modern democratic societies are characterized by moral pluralism — the coexistence of multiple, incompatible moral frameworks within the same political community. This pluralism creates a structural challenge for any criminal law that aspires to reflect community morality: whose morality should the law reflect when the community is morally divided? The harm principle offers one answer — that criminal law should restrict itself to conduct that causes harm to others, avoiding the imposition of contested moral standards on dissenters — but this answer is itself contested by those who argue that the harm principle reflects a particular liberal morality rather than a neutral standpoint from which moral disputes can be adjudicated (Duff, 2001; Feinberg, 1984).

Duff (2001) proposed a communicative theory of criminal law that sought to transcend the impasse between legal moralism and the harm principle. On Duff’s account, criminal law should prohibit conduct that constitutes a public wrong — a wrong that is the proper business of the political community as a whole rather than merely the concern of the individuals directly affected. Public wrongs include but are not limited to harms: they encompass conduct that violates the terms of civic association and that the community has standing to condemn regardless of whether identifiable individuals are harmed. This framework occupies a middle position between legal moralism (which would authorize the criminalization of any conduct the community considers immoral) and the harm principle (which would restrict criminalization to conduct causing harm to others), providing a principled basis for criminalizing some victimless conduct — public indecency, desecration of graves, cruelty to animals — while maintaining limits on the scope of morals legislation.

Philosophical Frameworks on Crime and Morality: Premises, Limits, and Policy Positions

Framework	Key Proponents	Core Premise	Justification for Criminalization	Limit on State Authority	Representative Policy Position
Natural Law	Aquinas; Fuller (1964)	Moral truths exist independently of human legislation; law must conform to natural justice	Criminal law expresses objective moral order; prohibitions of core offenses are morally necessary	Law that violates natural justice is unjust and may not bind conscience; unjust laws are not true laws	Criminal prohibition of murder, theft, fraud grounded in moral truth rather than convention
Legal Moralism	Devlin (1965)	Society has the right to enforce its shared moral standards through criminal law to preserve social cohesion	Conduct that the community considers seriously immoral may be criminalized regardless of harm to others	Prudential limits only — not every immoral act need be criminalized, but no principled barrier exists	Criminalization of drug use, prostitution, obscenity, and public indecency on community moral grounds
Harm Principle	Mill (1859); Feinberg (1984)	The only legitimate purpose of criminal law is the prevention of harm to others	Only conduct causing or threatening harm to nonconsenting others may be criminalized	Self-regarding conduct is immune from criminalization regardless of moral disapproval	Decriminalization of drug possession, gambling, consensual sex work, and private sexual conduct
Communicative Theory	Duff (2001)	Criminal law should prohibit public wrongs — wrongs that violate the terms of civic association	Conduct that wrongs the political community as a whole, not just individuals, may be criminalized	Must constitute a true public wrong, not merely private immorality or personal choice	Criminalization of animal cruelty and environmental destruction even without identifiable individual victims
Legal Paternalism	Feinberg (1984) (as critic)	The state may prohibit conduct that harms only the actor, to protect individuals from their own choices	Prevention of self-harm (seatbelt laws, drug prohibitions, mandatory helmet laws)	Only “hard” paternalism (overriding voluntary, informed choices) is clearly unjustified; “soft” paternalism may be acceptable	Mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws; prohibition of highly addictive substances

Crime, Morality, and Policy Implications

Morality-Based Criminalization and Its Critics

The practical consequences of morality-based criminalization are visible across American criminal justice. Drug prohibition, the criminalization of prostitution, the historical prohibition of homosexual conduct, and the regulation of obscenity and pornography all represent applications of criminal law to conduct whose wrongfulness is grounded — at least in part — in moral judgment rather than in demonstrable harm to nonconsenting parties. Critics of morality-based criminalization argue that these prohibitions generate enforcement costs that outweigh their benefits, fall disproportionately on marginalized communities, create black markets that produce violence and corruption, and invade individual autonomy in ways that are inconsistent with democratic principles of limited government. Husak (2008) argued that the proliferation of morality-based criminal prohibitions is a significant contributor to the overcriminalization of American law — a system in which too much conduct is treated as criminal and too many people bear the stigma and collateral consequences of criminal conviction for conduct that causes no demonstrable harm to others.

The enforcement disparities associated with morality-based criminalization are a particular concern for racial justice. Drug enforcement provides the most extensively documented example: despite roughly comparable rates of drug use across racial groups, Black Americans are arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated for drug offenses at dramatically higher rates than white Americans (Walker et al., 2018). This disparity reflects not differential drug use but differential enforcement — a pattern produced by policing strategies that concentrate enforcement resources in minority neighborhoods, by prosecutorial charging practices that impose more severe charges on minority defendants, and by sentencing structures that impose harsher penalties for drugs associated with minority use. Garland (2001) argued that the culture of crime control that emerged in late 20th-century America was systematically oriented toward the punitive management of lower-class and minority populations, with morality-based drug prohibitions serving as the primary vehicle for this expansion. Stuntz (2011) documented how the political economy of American criminal law generates overcriminalization in morality-sensitive domains, as legislators compete to signal moral seriousness through new offenses and enhanced penalties. The moral justification for drug prohibition is significantly undermined when the prohibition’s enforcement operates as a mechanism of racial stratification rather than as a neutral application of shared moral standards (Tonry, 2011; Alexander, 2010).

The Evolving Moral Consensus and Criminal Law Reform

Criminal law reform in the United States has increasingly tracked the harm principle’s logic, though the trajectory is neither uniform nor complete. The decriminalization of homosexual conduct, the liberalization of marijuana law, the expansion of assisted dying provisions, and the reform of sex work regulations in several jurisdictions all represent movements toward a criminal law that restricts its scope to conduct causing harm to others and withdraws from the enforcement of contested moral standards. These reforms reflect shifting moral consensus — changes in the community’s actual moral judgments about the conduct at issue — but they also reflect the influence of philosophical arguments about the proper limits of criminal law that have been advanced by scholars working in the harm principle tradition (Feinberg, 1984; Mill, 1859).

The reform trajectory is not linear, however. The expansion of criminal law in other domains — the criminalization of revenge pornography, human trafficking, animal cruelty, and certain forms of environmental destruction — represents a movement toward expanded morality-based criminalization that is justified not by the harm principle alone but by evolving conceptions of public wrongs that extend the boundaries of legitimate criminal prohibition. Duff’s (2001) communicative theory provides a framework for understanding these expansions: they represent the community’s recognition of conduct as a public wrong that violates the terms of civic association, even where the harm to identifiable individuals may be indirect or diffuse. The crime-morality relationship, then, is not a one-directional movement from moralism to liberalism but an ongoing negotiation in which the scope of criminal law is continuously adjusted in response to changing moral understandings, political pressures, and theoretical arguments about the legitimate purposes of state coercion.

Conclusion

The relationship between crime and morality is both foundational and contested. Criminal law necessarily embeds moral judgments — every decision to criminalize or not criminalize conduct is a moral choice about the proper scope of state authority and the boundaries of individual freedom. The philosophical traditions examined in this article offer competing frameworks for making these choices: natural law grounds criminal prohibition in objective moral truth, legal moralism grounds it in community moral consensus, the harm principle restricts it to the prevention of harm to others, and communicative theory grounds it in the concept of public wrongs. No single framework has achieved the dominance needed to settle the debate, and the practical history of criminal law reflects an ongoing negotiation among these positions.

The stakes of this negotiation are substantial. The overcriminalization of American law, the racial disparities in drug enforcement, the ongoing debates over sex work and assisted dying, and the expanding recognition of environmental and animal cruelty as criminal offenses all reflect different answers to the question of how crime and morality should relate. Understanding these answers — and the philosophical traditions from which they derive — is essential for evaluating the legitimacy of criminal law and for participating constructively in the political debates that determine its scope. The crime-morality relationship is not an abstract philosophical question; it is a practical question whose answer shapes the experience of millions of people within the criminal justice system and whose resolution requires the engagement of criminology, philosophy, and democratic politics.

References

Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New Press.
Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Benziger Bros. (Original work published 1274)
Devlin, P. (1965). The enforcement of morals. Oxford University Press.
Duff, R. A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford University Press.
Feinberg, J. (1984). The moral limits of the criminal law: Vol. 1. Harm to others. Oxford University Press.
Fuller, L. L. (1964). The morality of law. Yale University Press.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1963). Law, liberty, and morality. Stanford University Press.
Hart, H. M., Jr. (1958). The aims of the criminal law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 23(3), 401–441.
Husak, D. (2008). Overcriminalization: The limits of the criminal law. Oxford University Press.
Kadish, S. H. (1967). The crisis of overcriminalization. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 374(1), 157–170.
Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. John W. Parker and Son.
Moore, M. S. (1997). Placing blame: A general theory of the criminal law. Oxford University Press.
Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford University Press.
Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (2007). Intuitions of justice: Implications for criminal law and justice policy. Southern California Law Review, 81(1), 1–67.
Simester, A. P., & von Hirsch, A. (2011). Crimes, harms, and wrongs: On the principles of criminalisation. Hart Publishing.
Stephen, J. F. (1874). Liberty, equality, fraternity. Smith, Elder.
Stuntz, W. J. (2011). The collapse of American criminal justice. Harvard University Press.
Tonry, M. (2011). Punishing race: A continuing American dilemma. Oxford University Press.
Walker, S., Spohn, C., & DeLone, M. (2018). The color of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime in America (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Related Articles