James Fitzjames Stephen, perhaps the foremost legal author of the nineteenth century, said that for ordinary people a crime is an act ‘forbidden by law and revolting to the moral sentiments of society’. This emphasis on moral blameworthiness reflects the primary purpose of the criminal law, which is to uphold and re-enforce the values of society. It is therefore surprising to learn from Professor Andrew Ashworth that of the 8,000 offences in existence in England and Wales in 2000, 50% were offences of strict liability, where proof of mens rea is not required. These offences are sometimes referred to as ‘quasi-crimes’, as they do not reflect fault in the same way as mainstream crimes.
What constitutes behaviour deserving of criminal sanctions changes over time, for example the recent abolition of blasphemy by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and the likely creation of a new offence of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute where controlled by a third party for gain (Policing and Crime Bill 2009). In the first example, the offence owed its existence to Christian teaching and prevailing attitudes in society, and was abolished as it was out of step with modern times and had fallen into disuse. The second offence reflects a desire to protect the vulnerable and deter exploitation by punishing behaviour that is not currently (and never has been) a criminal offence. It is interesting to note that the new crime is an offence of strict liability and will be committed irrespective of the defendant’s knowledge.
Your organisation does not have access to this article.
Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise
Subscribe
