It seems to be widely accepted that the presumption of innocence, and the attendant standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' properly apply in the courtroom as a procedural principle directly grounded in the moral imperative to avoid punishing those who should not be punished. In this article I argue that if this is correct, then we ought be as careful about what we criminalise, as we are about who we punish, since people can be wrongfully punished by criminalisation errors as well as by conviction errors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patrick Tomlin (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: