This book provides an accessible and systematic restatement of the desert model for criminal sentencing by one of its leading academic exponents. The desert model emphasises the degree of seriousness of the offender's crime in deciding the severity of his punishment, and has become increasingly influential in recent penal practice and scholarly debate. It explains why sentences should be based principally on crime-seriousness, and addresses, among other topics, how a desert-based penalty scheme can be constructed; how to gauge punishments' seriousness and penalties' severity; what weight should be given to an offender's previous convictions; how non-custodial sentences should be scaled; and what leeway there might be for taking other factors into account, such as an offender's need for treatment. The volume will be of interest to all those working in penal theory and practice, criminal sentencing and the criminal law more generally.

This book provides an accessible and systematic restatement of the desert model for criminal sentencing by one of its leading academic exponents. The desert model emphasises the degree of seriousness of the offender''s crime in deciding the severity of his punishment, and has become increasingly influential in recent penal practice and scholarly debate. It explains why sentences should be based principally on crime-seriousness, and addresses, among other topics, how a desert-based penalty scheme can be constructed; how to gauge punishments'' seriousness and penalties'' severity; what weight should be given to an offender''s previous convictions; how non-custodial sentences should be scaled; and what leeway there might be for taking other factors into account, such as an offender''s need for treatment. The volume will be of interest to all those working in penal theory and practice, criminal sentencing and the criminal law more generally.

This book provides an accessible and systematic restatement of the desert model for criminal sentencing by one of its leading academic exponents. The desert model emphasises the degree of seriousness of the offender''s crime in deciding the severity of his punishment, and has become increasingly influential in recent penal practice and scholarly debate. It explains why sentences should be based principally on crime-seriousness, and addresses, among other topics, how a desert-based penalty scheme can be constructed; how to gauge punishments'' seriousness and penalties'' severity; what weight should be given to an offender''s previous convictions; how non-custodial sentences should be scaled; and what leeway there might be for taking other factors into account, such as an offender''s need for treatment. The volume will be of interest to all those working in penal theory and practice, criminal sentencing and the criminal law more generally.

This book provides an accessible and systematic restatement of the desert model for criminal sentencing by one of its leading academic exponents. The desert model emphasises the degree of seriousness of the offender's crime in deciding the severity of his punishment, and has become increasingly influential in recent penal practice and scholarly debate. It explains why sentences should be based principally on crime-seriousness, and addresses, among other topics, how a desert-based penalty scheme can be constructed; how to gauge punishments' seriousness and penalties' severity; what weight should be given to an offender's previous convictions; how non-custodial sentences should be scaled; and what leeway there might be for taking other factors into account, such as an offender's need for treatment. The volume will be of interest to all those working in penal theory and practice, criminal sentencing and the criminal law more generally.

This latest volume in the Penal Theory and Penal Ethics series addresses one of the oldestquestions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender''s previous convictions affect the sentence? Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists.

The Insitute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge recently undertook,at the behest of the Home Office, a comprehensive study of the literature on criminal deterrence, concentrating on recent research. The result, published in this book, examines the popular claim that 'deterrence works'. That it works in general terms is beyond dispute, but the claim most favoured by law-makers is narrower: that tougher sentences have a direct impact on criminal behaviour, limiting the number and severity of offences committed. This study seeks to discover the truth of that claim. Deterrence as a penal aim, is a broad subject, hence the authors of this work decided to look at two elements of recent research. First they looked at studies which examine the marginal deterrent effects of changing the certainty of punishment, that is, of altering the likelihood of an offender's being apprehended and convicted for a crime. Secondly they looked at studies of the marginal deterrent effects of altering the severity of punishment through changes in sentencing policy.It is their evaluation and analysis of the latter which is the principal focus of the work, and which will make the book essential reading for all those interested in sentencing and penal policy.

Restorative Justice has emerged around the world as a potent challenge to traditional models of criminal justice,and restorative programmes, policies and legislative reforms are being implemented in many western nations. However, the underlying aims, values and limits of this new paradigm remain somewhat uncertain and those advocating Restorative Justice have rarely engaged in systematic debate with those defending more traditional conceptions of criminal justice. This volume, containing contributions from scholars of international renown, provides an analytic exploration of Restorative Justice and its potential advantages and disadvantages. Chapters of the book examine the aims and limiting principles that should govern Restorative Justice, its appropriate scope of application, its social and legal contexts, its practice and impact in a number of jurisdictions and its relation to more traditional criminal-justice conceptions. These questions are addressed by twenty distinguished criminologists and legal scholars in papers which make up this volume.These contributions will help clarify the aims that Restorative Justice might reasonably hope to achieve, the limits that should apply in pursuing these aims, and how restorative strategies might comport with, or replace, other penal strategies. Contributors: Andrew Ashworth, Anthony E Bottoms, John Braithwaite, Kathleen Daly, James Dignan, R A Duff, Carolyn Hoyle, Barbara Hudson, Leena Kurki, Allison Morris, Kent Roach, Julian V Roberts, Paul Roberts, Mara Schiff, Joanna Shapland, Clifford Shearing, Daniel van Ness, Andrew von Hirsch, Lode Walgrave, Richard Young.

Prohibitions against offensive conduct have existed for many years, but their extent and use was on the decline. Recently, however, several jurisdictions, including England and Wales, have moved to broaden the reach and severity of measures against incivilities. New measures include expanded targeting of unpopular forms of public conduct, such as begging, and legislation authorising magistrates to issue prohibitory orders against anti-social behaviour. Because these quality-of-life prohibitions can be so restrictive of personal liberties, it is essential to develop adequate guiding and limiting principles concerning State intervention in this area. This book addresses the legal regulation of offensive behaviour. Topics include: the nature of offensiveness; the grounds and permissible scope of criminal prohibitions against offensive behaviour; the legitimacy of civil orders against incivilities; and identifying the social trends that have generated current political interest in preventing incivilities through intervention of law. These questions are addressed by eleven distinguished philosophers, criminal law theorists, criminologists, and sociologists.In an area that has attracted much public comment but little theoretical analysis to date, these essays develop a fuller conceptual framework for debating questions about the legal regulation of offensive behaviour.

Restorative Justice has emerged around the world as a potent challenge to traditional models of criminal justice, and restorative programmes, policies and legislative reforms are being implemented in many western nations. However, the underlying aims, values and limits of this new paradigm remain somewhat uncertain and those advocating Restorative Justice have rarely engaged in systematic debate with those defending more traditional conceptions of criminal justice. This volume, containing contributions from scholars of international renown, provides an analytic exploration of Restorative Justice and its potential advantages and disadvantages. Chapters of the book examine the aims and limiting principles that should govern Restorative Justice, its appropriate scope of application, its social and legal contexts, its practice and impact in a number of jurisdictions and its relation to more traditional criminal-justice conceptions. These questions are addressed by twenty distinguished criminologists and legal scholars in papers which make up this volume.These contributions will help clarify the aims that Restorative Justice might reasonably hope to achieve, the limits that should apply in pursuing these aims, and how restorative strategies might comport with, or replace, other penal strategies. Contributors: Andrew Ashworth, Anthony E Bottoms, John Braithwaite, Kathleen Daly, James Dignan, R A Duff, Carolyn Hoyle, Barbara Hudson, Leena Kurki, Allison Morris, Kent Roach, Julian V Roberts, Paul Roberts, Mara Schiff, Joanna Shapland, Clifford Shearing, Daniel van Ness, Andrew von Hirsch, Lode Walgrave, Richard Young. 'Discussions of restorative justice as a complement to or alternate to criminal or retributive justice remain in their infancy, yet this collection assures that this critically important discussion moves forward. These thought-provoking essays on a timely topic need to be read by people in the punishment business. Summing up: Highly recommended.' MA Foley, Marywood University, December 2003. 'This book is essential reading for anybody interested in the development of restorative justice and the future of criminal justice. Each contribution is significant and well written.'Gerry Johnstone, in the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, February 2004 'One of the strengths of this collection is the way it places restorative justice developments in context. In this publication, and the earlier 'Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles', Hart Publishing establishes a reputation for publishing some of the best, and most thoughtful, material on restorative justice.' Declan Roche, in the British Journal of Sociology, January 2004

Situational crime prevention has drawn increasing interest in recent years,yet the debate has looked mainly at whether it 'works' to prevent crime. This volume addresses the ethics of situational crime prevention and also examines the place of situational crime prevention within criminology. The contributors are twelve distinguished criminologists who together advance our understanding of the ethical and societal questions underlying crime prevention. Contributors: Ron Clarke, Adam Crawford, Antony Duff, David Garland, Tim Hope, Richard Jones, John Kleinig, Clifford Shearing, David J. Smith, Richard Sparks, Andrew von Hirsch and Alison Wakefield. "..presents several unique questions regarding the use of crime prevention strategies." Robert Hanser writing in The Literature of Criminal Justice January 2001

This new, third edition of Principled Sentencing offers students of law, legal philosophy, criminology and criminal justice a wide-ranging selection of the leading scholarship on contemporary sentencing. The volume offers readers critical readings relating to the key moral, philosophical and policy issues in sentencing today. It contains many new readings on subjects that have recently emerged and which have consequences for sentencing in many jurisdictions. The contents of each chapter consists of a selection of readings, some very recent, some more timeless - but each in its own way important to the field. As before, each chapter begins with an introduction by one of the editors accompanied by a selection of further readings. All the chapters have been substantially revised, as have the editorial introductions.

When should we make use of the criminal law? Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs offers a philosophical analysis of the nature and ethical limits of criminalisation. The authors explore the scope of harm-based prohibitions, proscriptions of offensive behaviour, and ‘paternalistic’ prohibitions aimed at preventing self-harm, developing guiding principles for these various grounds of state prohibition. Both authors have written extensively in the field. They have produced an integrated, accessible, philosophically-sophisticated account that will be of great interest to legal academics, philosophers, and advanced students alike.‘this elegant, closely argued and convincing book is of great value and can be expected to be of lasting influence.’ James Chalmers‘Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs . . . is a welcome addition to this field, and should clarify the reader’s thinking on a breathtakingly broad range of issues. . . . This is an important book, and [its] consideration of not only Anglo-American theory and law, but also German legal doctrines and writings on criminalisation, should ensure that this debate reaches new heights in the future.’ Findlay Stark‘the result of [the authors’] many decades of thought and writing on this fundamental subject is an integrated, accessible, philosophically sophisticated discussion of this subject.’ Justice Gilles Renaud‘A.P. Simester and Andreas von Hirsch present an informed and systematic account of the principles that, in their view, should structure decisions about what to criminalize, and when.’ Vincent Chiao‘an outstanding work, original in many respects and meticulous in its arguments. It represents the greatest advance on this subject since Feinberg’s four volumes . . . an outstanding contribution to the re-invigorated criminalization debate.’ Andrew Ashworth‘important, original, interesting, and often ingenious. Unlike some recent competitive books it has the virtue of making sound arguments. And like everything else the authors have written, it is a joy to read …This is an absolutely wonderful book.’ Douglas Husak

Restorative Justice has emerged around the world as a potent challenge to traditional models of criminal justice,and restorative programmes, policies and legislative reforms are being implemented in many western nations. However, the underlying aims, values and limits of this new paradigm remain somewhat uncertain and those advocating Restorative Justice have rarely engaged in systematic debate with those defending more traditional conceptions of criminal justice. This volume, containing contributions from scholars of international renown, provides an analytic exploration of Restorative Justice and its potential advantages and disadvantages. Chapters of the book examine the aims and limiting principles that should govern Restorative Justice, its appropriate scope of application, its social and legal contexts, its practice and impact in a number of jurisdictions and its relation to more traditional criminal-justice conceptions.These questions are addressed by twenty distinguished criminologists and legal scholars in papers which make up this volume. These contributions will help clarify the aims that Restorative Justice might reasonably hope to achieve, the limits that should apply in pursuing these aims, and how restorative strategies might comport with, or replace, other penal strategies. Contributors: Andrew Ashworth, Anthony E Bottoms, John Braithwaite, Kathleen Daly, James Dignan, R A Duff, Carolyn Hoyle, Barbara Hudson, Leena Kurki, Allison Morris, Kent Roach, Julian V Roberts, Paul Roberts, Mara Schiff, Joanna Shapland, Clifford Shearing, Daniel van Ness, Andrew von Hirsch, Lode Walgrave, Richard Young.

Prohibitions against offensive conduct have existed for many years, but their extent and use was on the decline. Recently, however, several jurisdictions, including England and Wales, have moved to broaden the reach and severity of measures against incivilities. New measures include expanded targeting of unpopular forms of public conduct, such as begging, and legislation authorising magistrates to issue prohibitory orders against anti-social behaviour. Because these quality-of-life prohibitions can be so restrictive of personal liberties, it is essential to develop adequate guiding and limiting principles concerning State intervention in this area.This book addresses the legal regulation of offensive behaviour. Topics include: the nature of offensiveness; the grounds and permissible scope of criminal prohibitions against offensive behaviour; the legitimacy of civil orders against incivilities; and identifying the social trends that have generated current political interest in preventing incivilities through intervention of law.These questions are addressed by eleven distinguished philosophers, criminal law theorists, criminologists, and sociologists. In an area that has attracted much public comment but little theoretical analysis to date, these essays develop a fuller conceptual framework for debating questions about the legal regulation of offensive behaviour.

Situational crime prevention has drawn increasing interest in recent years,yet the debate has looked mainly at whether it ''works'' to prevent crime. This volume addresses the ethics of situational crime prevention and also examines the place of situational crime prevention within criminology. The contributors are twelve distinguished criminologists who together advance our understanding of the ethical and societal questions underlying crime prevention. Contributors: Ron Clarke, Adam Crawford, Antony Duff, David Garland, Tim Hope, Richard Jones, John Kleinig, Clifford Shearing, David J. Smith, Richard Sparks, Andrew von Hirsch and Alison Wakefield."..presents several unique questions regarding the use of crime prevention strategies."Robert Hanser writing in The Literature of Criminal Justice January 2001

This latest volume in the Penal Theory and Penal Ethics series addresses one of the oldest and most contested questions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender''s previous convictions affect the sentence? This question provokes a series of others: Is it possible to justify a discount for first offenders within a retributive sentencing framework? How should previous convictions enter into the sentencing equation? At what point should prior misconduct cease to count for the purposes of fresh sentencing? Should similar previous convictions count more than convictions unrelated to the current offence? Statutory sentencing regimes around the world incorporate provisions which mandate harsher treatment of repeat offenders. Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here, as befits a volume in the series, is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists. The practice of sentencing repeat offenders in two jurisdictions (England and Wales, and Sweden) is also examined in detail.

When should we make use of the criminal law? Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs offers a philosophical analysis of the nature and ethical limits of criminalisation. The authors explore the scope of harm-based prohibitions, proscriptions of offensive behaviour, and ''paternalistic'' prohibitions aimed at preventing self-harm, developing guiding principles for these various grounds of state prohibition. Both authors have written extensively in the field. They have produced an integrated, accessible, philosophically-sophisticated account that will be of great interest to legal academics, philosophers, and advanced students alike. ''this elegant, closely argued and convincing book is of great value and can be expected to be of lasting influence.'' James Chalmers ''Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs . . . is a welcome addition to this field, and should clarify the reader''s thinking on a breathtakingly broad range of issues. . . . This is an important book, and [its] consideration of not only Anglo-American theory and law, but also German legal doctrines and writings on criminalisation, should ensure that this debate reaches new heights in the future.'' Findlay Stark ''the result of [the authors''] many decades of thought and writing on this fundamental subject is an integrated, accessible, philosophically sophisticated discussion of this subject.'' Justice Gilles Renaud ''A.P. Simester and Andreas von Hirsch present an informed and systematic account of the principles that, in their view, should structure decisions about what to criminalize, and when.'' Vincent Chiao ''an outstanding work, original in many respects and meticulous in its arguments. It represents the greatest advance on this subject since Feinberg''s four volumes . . . an outstanding contribution to the re-invigorated criminalization debate.'' Andrew Ashworth ''important, original, interesting, and often ingenious. Unlike some recent competitive books it has the virtue of making sound arguments. And like everything else the authors have written, it is a joy to read …This is an absolutely wonderful book.'' Douglas Husak

When should we make use of the criminal law? Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs offers a philosophical analysis of the nature and ethical limits of criminalisation. The authors explore the scope of harm-based prohibitions, proscriptions of offensive behaviour, and ''paternalistic'' prohibitions aimed at preventing self-harm, developing guiding principles for these various grounds of state prohibition. Both authors have written extensively in the field. They have produced an integrated, accessible, philosophically-sophisticated account that will be of great interest to legal academics, philosophers, and advanced students alike. ''this elegant, closely argued and convincing book is of great value and can be expected to be of lasting influence.'' James Chalmers ''Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs . . . is a welcome addition to this field, and should clarify the reader''s thinking on a breathtakingly broad range of issues. . . . This is an important book, and [its] consideration of not only Anglo-American theory and law, but also German legal doctrines and writings on criminalisation, should ensure that this debate reaches new heights in the future.'' Findlay Stark ''the result of [the authors''] many decades of thought and writing on this fundamental subject is an integrated, accessible, philosophically sophisticated discussion of this subject.'' Justice Gilles Renaud ''A.P. Simester and Andreas von Hirsch present an informed and systematic account of the principles that, in their view, should structure decisions about what to criminalize, and when.'' Vincent Chiao ''an outstanding work, original in many respects and meticulous in its arguments. It represents the greatest advance on this subject since Feinberg''s four volumes . . . an outstanding contribution to the re-invigorated criminalization debate.'' Andrew Ashworth ''important, original, interesting, and often ingenious. Unlike some recent competitive books it has the virtue of making sound arguments. And like everything else the authors have written, it is a joy to read …This is an absolutely wonderful book.'' Douglas Husak

This latest volume in the "Penal Theory and Penal Ethics" series addresses one of the oldest and most contested questions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender's previous convictions affect the sentence? This question provokes a series of others: Is it possible to justify a discount for first offenders within a retributive sentencing framework? How should previous convictions enter into the sentencing equation? At what point should prior misconduct cease to count for the purposes of fresh sentencing? Should similar previous convictions count more than convictions unrelated to the current offence? Statutory sentencing regimes around the world incorporate provisions which mandate harsher treatment of repeat offenders. Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here, as befits a volume in the series, is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists.The practice of sentencing repeat offenders in two jurisdictions (England and Wales, and Sweden) is also examined in detail.

Many liberals consider CCTV surveillance in public places - particularly when it is as extensive as it is in England - to be an infringement of important privacy-based rights. An influential report by the House of Lords in 2009 also took this view. However there has been little public, or academic, discussion of the underlying principles and ethical issues. What rights of privacy or anonymity do people have when abroad in public space? What is the rationale for these rights? In what respect does CCTV surveillance compromise them? To what extent does the state's interest in crime prevention warrant encroachment upon such privacy and anonymity rights? This book offers the first extended, systematic treatment of these issues. In it, the author develops a theory concerning the rationale for the entitlement to privacy and anonymity in public space, based on notions of liberty and dignity. She examines how CCTV surveillance may compromise these rights, drawing on everyday conventions of civil inattention among people in the public domain. She also considers whether and to what extent crime-control concerns could justify overriding these entitlements. The author's conclusion is that CCTV surveillance should be appropriate only in certain restrictively-defined situations. The book ends with a proposal for a scheme of CCTV surveillance that reflects this conclusion.

This latest volume in the Penal Theory and Penal Ethics series addresses one of the oldestquestions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender's previous convictions affect the sentence? Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists.

This book provides an accessible and systematic restatement of the desert model for criminal sentencing by one of its leading academic exponents. The desert model emphasises the degree of seriousness of the offender's crime in deciding the severity of his punishment, and has become increasingly influential in recent penal practice and scholarly debate. It explains why sentences should be based principally on crime-seriousness, and addresses, among other topics, how a desert-based penalty scheme can be constructed; how to gauge punishments' seriousness and penalties' severity; what weight should be given to an offender's previous convictions; how non-custodial sentences should be scaled; and what leeway there might be for taking other factors into account, such as an offender's need for treatment. The volume will be of interest to all those working in penal theory and practice, criminal sentencing and the criminal law more generally.

This book provides an accessible and systematic restatement of the desert model for criminal sentencing by one of its leading academic exponents. The desert model emphasises the degree of seriousness of the offender''s crime in deciding the severity of his punishment, and has become increasingly influential in recent penal practice and scholarly debate. It explains why sentences should be based principally on crime-seriousness, and addresses, among other topics, how a desert-based penalty scheme can be constructed; how to gauge punishments'' seriousness and penalties'' severity; what weight should be given to an offender''s previous convictions; how non-custodial sentences should be scaled; and what leeway there might be for taking other factors into account, such as an offender''s need for treatment. The volume will be of interest to all those working in penal theory and practice, criminal sentencing and the criminal law more generally.

This book provides an accessible and systematic restatement of the desert model for criminal sentencing by one of its leading academic exponents. The desert model emphasises the degree of seriousness of the offender''s crime in deciding the severity of his punishment, and has become increasingly influential in recent penal practice and scholarly debate. It explains why sentences should be based principally on crime-seriousness, and addresses, among other topics, how a desert-based penalty scheme can be constructed; how to gauge punishments'' seriousness and penalties'' severity; what weight should be given to an offender''s previous convictions; how non-custodial sentences should be scaled; and what leeway there might be for taking other factors into account, such as an offender''s need for treatment. The volume will be of interest to all those working in penal theory and practice, criminal sentencing and the criminal law more generally.

This book provides an accessible and systematic restatement of the desert model for criminal sentencing by one of its leading academic exponents. The desert model emphasises the degree of seriousness of the offender's crime in deciding the severity of his punishment, and has become increasingly influential in recent penal practice and scholarly debate. It explains why sentences should be based principally on crime-seriousness, and addresses, among other topics, how a desert-based penalty scheme can be constructed; how to gauge punishments' seriousness and penalties' severity; what weight should be given to an offender's previous convictions; how non-custodial sentences should be scaled; and what leeway there might be for taking other factors into account, such as an offender's need for treatment. The volume will be of interest to all those working in penal theory and practice, criminal sentencing and the criminal law more generally.

This latest volume in the Penal Theory and Penal Ethics series addresses one of the oldestquestions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender''s previous convictions affect the sentence? Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists.

The Insitute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge recently undertook,at the behest of the Home Office, a comprehensive study of the literature on criminal deterrence, concentrating on recent research. The result, published in this book, examines the popular claim that 'deterrence works'. That it works in general terms is beyond dispute, but the claim most favoured by law-makers is narrower: that tougher sentences have a direct impact on criminal behaviour, limiting the number and severity of offences committed. This study seeks to discover the truth of that claim. Deterrence as a penal aim, is a broad subject, hence the authors of this work decided to look at two elements of recent research. First they looked at studies which examine the marginal deterrent effects of changing the certainty of punishment, that is, of altering the likelihood of an offender's being apprehended and convicted for a crime. Secondly they looked at studies of the marginal deterrent effects of altering the severity of punishment through changes in sentencing policy.It is their evaluation and analysis of the latter which is the principal focus of the work, and which will make the book essential reading for all those interested in sentencing and penal policy.

Restorative Justice has emerged around the world as a potent challenge to traditional models of criminal justice,and restorative programmes, policies and legislative reforms are being implemented in many western nations. However, the underlying aims, values and limits of this new paradigm remain somewhat uncertain and those advocating Restorative Justice have rarely engaged in systematic debate with those defending more traditional conceptions of criminal justice. This volume, containing contributions from scholars of international renown, provides an analytic exploration of Restorative Justice and its potential advantages and disadvantages. Chapters of the book examine the aims and limiting principles that should govern Restorative Justice, its appropriate scope of application, its social and legal contexts, its practice and impact in a number of jurisdictions and its relation to more traditional criminal-justice conceptions. These questions are addressed by twenty distinguished criminologists and legal scholars in papers which make up this volume.These contributions will help clarify the aims that Restorative Justice might reasonably hope to achieve, the limits that should apply in pursuing these aims, and how restorative strategies might comport with, or replace, other penal strategies. Contributors: Andrew Ashworth, Anthony E Bottoms, John Braithwaite, Kathleen Daly, James Dignan, R A Duff, Carolyn Hoyle, Barbara Hudson, Leena Kurki, Allison Morris, Kent Roach, Julian V Roberts, Paul Roberts, Mara Schiff, Joanna Shapland, Clifford Shearing, Daniel van Ness, Andrew von Hirsch, Lode Walgrave, Richard Young.

Prohibitions against offensive conduct have existed for many years, but their extent and use was on the decline. Recently, however, several jurisdictions, including England and Wales, have moved to broaden the reach and severity of measures against incivilities. New measures include expanded targeting of unpopular forms of public conduct, such as begging, and legislation authorising magistrates to issue prohibitory orders against anti-social behaviour. Because these quality-of-life prohibitions can be so restrictive of personal liberties, it is essential to develop adequate guiding and limiting principles concerning State intervention in this area. This book addresses the legal regulation of offensive behaviour. Topics include: the nature of offensiveness; the grounds and permissible scope of criminal prohibitions against offensive behaviour; the legitimacy of civil orders against incivilities; and identifying the social trends that have generated current political interest in preventing incivilities through intervention of law. These questions are addressed by eleven distinguished philosophers, criminal law theorists, criminologists, and sociologists.In an area that has attracted much public comment but little theoretical analysis to date, these essays develop a fuller conceptual framework for debating questions about the legal regulation of offensive behaviour.

Restorative Justice has emerged around the world as a potent challenge to traditional models of criminal justice, and restorative programmes, policies and legislative reforms are being implemented in many western nations. However, the underlying aims, values and limits of this new paradigm remain somewhat uncertain and those advocating Restorative Justice have rarely engaged in systematic debate with those defending more traditional conceptions of criminal justice. This volume, containing contributions from scholars of international renown, provides an analytic exploration of Restorative Justice and its potential advantages and disadvantages. Chapters of the book examine the aims and limiting principles that should govern Restorative Justice, its appropriate scope of application, its social and legal contexts, its practice and impact in a number of jurisdictions and its relation to more traditional criminal-justice conceptions. These questions are addressed by twenty distinguished criminologists and legal scholars in papers which make up this volume.These contributions will help clarify the aims that Restorative Justice might reasonably hope to achieve, the limits that should apply in pursuing these aims, and how restorative strategies might comport with, or replace, other penal strategies. Contributors: Andrew Ashworth, Anthony E Bottoms, John Braithwaite, Kathleen Daly, James Dignan, R A Duff, Carolyn Hoyle, Barbara Hudson, Leena Kurki, Allison Morris, Kent Roach, Julian V Roberts, Paul Roberts, Mara Schiff, Joanna Shapland, Clifford Shearing, Daniel van Ness, Andrew von Hirsch, Lode Walgrave, Richard Young. 'Discussions of restorative justice as a complement to or alternate to criminal or retributive justice remain in their infancy, yet this collection assures that this critically important discussion moves forward. These thought-provoking essays on a timely topic need to be read by people in the punishment business. Summing up: Highly recommended.' MA Foley, Marywood University, December 2003. 'This book is essential reading for anybody interested in the development of restorative justice and the future of criminal justice. Each contribution is significant and well written.'Gerry Johnstone, in the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, February 2004 'One of the strengths of this collection is the way it places restorative justice developments in context. In this publication, and the earlier 'Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles', Hart Publishing establishes a reputation for publishing some of the best, and most thoughtful, material on restorative justice.' Declan Roche, in the British Journal of Sociology, January 2004

Situational crime prevention has drawn increasing interest in recent years,yet the debate has looked mainly at whether it 'works' to prevent crime. This volume addresses the ethics of situational crime prevention and also examines the place of situational crime prevention within criminology. The contributors are twelve distinguished criminologists who together advance our understanding of the ethical and societal questions underlying crime prevention. Contributors: Ron Clarke, Adam Crawford, Antony Duff, David Garland, Tim Hope, Richard Jones, John Kleinig, Clifford Shearing, David J. Smith, Richard Sparks, Andrew von Hirsch and Alison Wakefield. "..presents several unique questions regarding the use of crime prevention strategies." Robert Hanser writing in The Literature of Criminal Justice January 2001

This new, third edition of Principled Sentencing offers students of law, legal philosophy, criminology and criminal justice a wide-ranging selection of the leading scholarship on contemporary sentencing. The volume offers readers critical readings relating to the key moral, philosophical and policy issues in sentencing today. It contains many new readings on subjects that have recently emerged and which have consequences for sentencing in many jurisdictions. The contents of each chapter consists of a selection of readings, some very recent, some more timeless - but each in its own way important to the field. As before, each chapter begins with an introduction by one of the editors accompanied by a selection of further readings. All the chapters have been substantially revised, as have the editorial introductions.

When should we make use of the criminal law? Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs offers a philosophical analysis of the nature and ethical limits of criminalisation. The authors explore the scope of harm-based prohibitions, proscriptions of offensive behaviour, and ‘paternalistic’ prohibitions aimed at preventing self-harm, developing guiding principles for these various grounds of state prohibition. Both authors have written extensively in the field. They have produced an integrated, accessible, philosophically-sophisticated account that will be of great interest to legal academics, philosophers, and advanced students alike.‘this elegant, closely argued and convincing book is of great value and can be expected to be of lasting influence.’ James Chalmers‘Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs . . . is a welcome addition to this field, and should clarify the reader’s thinking on a breathtakingly broad range of issues. . . . This is an important book, and [its] consideration of not only Anglo-American theory and law, but also German legal doctrines and writings on criminalisation, should ensure that this debate reaches new heights in the future.’ Findlay Stark‘the result of [the authors’] many decades of thought and writing on this fundamental subject is an integrated, accessible, philosophically sophisticated discussion of this subject.’ Justice Gilles Renaud‘A.P. Simester and Andreas von Hirsch present an informed and systematic account of the principles that, in their view, should structure decisions about what to criminalize, and when.’ Vincent Chiao‘an outstanding work, original in many respects and meticulous in its arguments. It represents the greatest advance on this subject since Feinberg’s four volumes . . . an outstanding contribution to the re-invigorated criminalization debate.’ Andrew Ashworth‘important, original, interesting, and often ingenious. Unlike some recent competitive books it has the virtue of making sound arguments. And like everything else the authors have written, it is a joy to read …This is an absolutely wonderful book.’ Douglas Husak

Restorative Justice has emerged around the world as a potent challenge to traditional models of criminal justice,and restorative programmes, policies and legislative reforms are being implemented in many western nations. However, the underlying aims, values and limits of this new paradigm remain somewhat uncertain and those advocating Restorative Justice have rarely engaged in systematic debate with those defending more traditional conceptions of criminal justice. This volume, containing contributions from scholars of international renown, provides an analytic exploration of Restorative Justice and its potential advantages and disadvantages. Chapters of the book examine the aims and limiting principles that should govern Restorative Justice, its appropriate scope of application, its social and legal contexts, its practice and impact in a number of jurisdictions and its relation to more traditional criminal-justice conceptions.These questions are addressed by twenty distinguished criminologists and legal scholars in papers which make up this volume. These contributions will help clarify the aims that Restorative Justice might reasonably hope to achieve, the limits that should apply in pursuing these aims, and how restorative strategies might comport with, or replace, other penal strategies. Contributors: Andrew Ashworth, Anthony E Bottoms, John Braithwaite, Kathleen Daly, James Dignan, R A Duff, Carolyn Hoyle, Barbara Hudson, Leena Kurki, Allison Morris, Kent Roach, Julian V Roberts, Paul Roberts, Mara Schiff, Joanna Shapland, Clifford Shearing, Daniel van Ness, Andrew von Hirsch, Lode Walgrave, Richard Young.

Prohibitions against offensive conduct have existed for many years, but their extent and use was on the decline. Recently, however, several jurisdictions, including England and Wales, have moved to broaden the reach and severity of measures against incivilities. New measures include expanded targeting of unpopular forms of public conduct, such as begging, and legislation authorising magistrates to issue prohibitory orders against anti-social behaviour. Because these quality-of-life prohibitions can be so restrictive of personal liberties, it is essential to develop adequate guiding and limiting principles concerning State intervention in this area.This book addresses the legal regulation of offensive behaviour. Topics include: the nature of offensiveness; the grounds and permissible scope of criminal prohibitions against offensive behaviour; the legitimacy of civil orders against incivilities; and identifying the social trends that have generated current political interest in preventing incivilities through intervention of law.These questions are addressed by eleven distinguished philosophers, criminal law theorists, criminologists, and sociologists. In an area that has attracted much public comment but little theoretical analysis to date, these essays develop a fuller conceptual framework for debating questions about the legal regulation of offensive behaviour.

Situational crime prevention has drawn increasing interest in recent years,yet the debate has looked mainly at whether it ''works'' to prevent crime. This volume addresses the ethics of situational crime prevention and also examines the place of situational crime prevention within criminology. The contributors are twelve distinguished criminologists who together advance our understanding of the ethical and societal questions underlying crime prevention. Contributors: Ron Clarke, Adam Crawford, Antony Duff, David Garland, Tim Hope, Richard Jones, John Kleinig, Clifford Shearing, David J. Smith, Richard Sparks, Andrew von Hirsch and Alison Wakefield."..presents several unique questions regarding the use of crime prevention strategies."Robert Hanser writing in The Literature of Criminal Justice January 2001

This latest volume in the Penal Theory and Penal Ethics series addresses one of the oldest and most contested questions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender''s previous convictions affect the sentence? This question provokes a series of others: Is it possible to justify a discount for first offenders within a retributive sentencing framework? How should previous convictions enter into the sentencing equation? At what point should prior misconduct cease to count for the purposes of fresh sentencing? Should similar previous convictions count more than convictions unrelated to the current offence? Statutory sentencing regimes around the world incorporate provisions which mandate harsher treatment of repeat offenders. Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here, as befits a volume in the series, is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists. The practice of sentencing repeat offenders in two jurisdictions (England and Wales, and Sweden) is also examined in detail.

When should we make use of the criminal law? Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs offers a philosophical analysis of the nature and ethical limits of criminalisation. The authors explore the scope of harm-based prohibitions, proscriptions of offensive behaviour, and ''paternalistic'' prohibitions aimed at preventing self-harm, developing guiding principles for these various grounds of state prohibition. Both authors have written extensively in the field. They have produced an integrated, accessible, philosophically-sophisticated account that will be of great interest to legal academics, philosophers, and advanced students alike. ''this elegant, closely argued and convincing book is of great value and can be expected to be of lasting influence.'' James Chalmers ''Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs . . . is a welcome addition to this field, and should clarify the reader''s thinking on a breathtakingly broad range of issues. . . . This is an important book, and [its] consideration of not only Anglo-American theory and law, but also German legal doctrines and writings on criminalisation, should ensure that this debate reaches new heights in the future.'' Findlay Stark ''the result of [the authors''] many decades of thought and writing on this fundamental subject is an integrated, accessible, philosophically sophisticated discussion of this subject.'' Justice Gilles Renaud ''A.P. Simester and Andreas von Hirsch present an informed and systematic account of the principles that, in their view, should structure decisions about what to criminalize, and when.'' Vincent Chiao ''an outstanding work, original in many respects and meticulous in its arguments. It represents the greatest advance on this subject since Feinberg''s four volumes . . . an outstanding contribution to the re-invigorated criminalization debate.'' Andrew Ashworth ''important, original, interesting, and often ingenious. Unlike some recent competitive books it has the virtue of making sound arguments. And like everything else the authors have written, it is a joy to read …This is an absolutely wonderful book.'' Douglas Husak

When should we make use of the criminal law? Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs offers a philosophical analysis of the nature and ethical limits of criminalisation. The authors explore the scope of harm-based prohibitions, proscriptions of offensive behaviour, and ''paternalistic'' prohibitions aimed at preventing self-harm, developing guiding principles for these various grounds of state prohibition. Both authors have written extensively in the field. They have produced an integrated, accessible, philosophically-sophisticated account that will be of great interest to legal academics, philosophers, and advanced students alike. ''this elegant, closely argued and convincing book is of great value and can be expected to be of lasting influence.'' James Chalmers ''Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs . . . is a welcome addition to this field, and should clarify the reader''s thinking on a breathtakingly broad range of issues. . . . This is an important book, and [its] consideration of not only Anglo-American theory and law, but also German legal doctrines and writings on criminalisation, should ensure that this debate reaches new heights in the future.'' Findlay Stark ''the result of [the authors''] many decades of thought and writing on this fundamental subject is an integrated, accessible, philosophically sophisticated discussion of this subject.'' Justice Gilles Renaud ''A.P. Simester and Andreas von Hirsch present an informed and systematic account of the principles that, in their view, should structure decisions about what to criminalize, and when.'' Vincent Chiao ''an outstanding work, original in many respects and meticulous in its arguments. It represents the greatest advance on this subject since Feinberg''s four volumes . . . an outstanding contribution to the re-invigorated criminalization debate.'' Andrew Ashworth ''important, original, interesting, and often ingenious. Unlike some recent competitive books it has the virtue of making sound arguments. And like everything else the authors have written, it is a joy to read …This is an absolutely wonderful book.'' Douglas Husak

This latest volume in the "Penal Theory and Penal Ethics" series addresses one of the oldest and most contested questions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender's previous convictions affect the sentence? This question provokes a series of others: Is it possible to justify a discount for first offenders within a retributive sentencing framework? How should previous convictions enter into the sentencing equation? At what point should prior misconduct cease to count for the purposes of fresh sentencing? Should similar previous convictions count more than convictions unrelated to the current offence? Statutory sentencing regimes around the world incorporate provisions which mandate harsher treatment of repeat offenders. Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here, as befits a volume in the series, is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists.The practice of sentencing repeat offenders in two jurisdictions (England and Wales, and Sweden) is also examined in detail.

Many liberals consider CCTV surveillance in public places - particularly when it is as extensive as it is in England - to be an infringement of important privacy-based rights. An influential report by the House of Lords in 2009 also took this view. However there has been little public, or academic, discussion of the underlying principles and ethical issues. What rights of privacy or anonymity do people have when abroad in public space? What is the rationale for these rights? In what respect does CCTV surveillance compromise them? To what extent does the state's interest in crime prevention warrant encroachment upon such privacy and anonymity rights? This book offers the first extended, systematic treatment of these issues. In it, the author develops a theory concerning the rationale for the entitlement to privacy and anonymity in public space, based on notions of liberty and dignity. She examines how CCTV surveillance may compromise these rights, drawing on everyday conventions of civil inattention among people in the public domain. She also considers whether and to what extent crime-control concerns could justify overriding these entitlements. The author's conclusion is that CCTV surveillance should be appropriate only in certain restrictively-defined situations. The book ends with a proposal for a scheme of CCTV surveillance that reflects this conclusion.

This latest volume in the Penal Theory and Penal Ethics series addresses one of the oldestquestions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender's previous convictions affect the sentence? Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists.