Wrongfulness and crimes

Focused Summary

In Crimes, Harms, and Other Wrongs, AP Simester and Andreas von Hirsch insightfully address a countervailing argument in identifying wrongs as crimes. Criminal law is a coercive response of the state, used as a means in controlling citizen behavior. The criminal justice system is supposed to act as a moral voice and leader within society, however, it is of the utmost importance the imposed system does not overreach its boundaries. Within the chapter titled “Wrongfulness and Reasons,” the authors illustrate that the element of moral wrongfulness is not enough to suffice an action is criminal.

There are many reasons wrongful conduct should be criminalized; culpability in harming others, unwarranted risks of injuring others, and the importance of creating communal obligations (Simester, 20). As a result of criminal law having lasting legal and civic implications on violators of the law, it is essential not to over-criminalize, especially those who are innocent. Sole reliance on wrongfulness of an action is misleading and is often mistaken as a culpability element. The principle of strict liability ensures that even if one’s conduct was wrong, the conduct does not hold them responsible of committing said crime. The Drug War of the 1990s tackled drug consumption across the nation and unfairly punished users for overextended periods of time. Yet, drug users have liberty to control their bodies, and if one desires to use a drug, it is their decision and does not make their action morally wrong. There are countless other examples that show the need to determine which behaviors should be criminalized through a fair system, and the disassociation of wrongfulness as a culpability element.

The role of the state is to find a thin balance between holding society accountable, while also holding itself accountable. In order for norms to be successfully established, society needs to follow coordinating rules. The state then uses these norms to base laws around. However, performing an action that the state declares wrong does not necessarily make the action morally wrong. Driving on the wrong side of the road is an illustrative example of the relationship between wrongfulness and culpability. In the United States, driving on the left side is a violation of the law. Although that action may not be morally wrong, it is against the law, wrong in the eyes of the state, and the perpetrator would be held liable in this situation. Punishment is appropriate when an action is wrong, however, as seen in the above case, the action does not need to be independently wrong- if it were not for the law, there would be nothing wrong with driving on whatever side of the road. Reasons in determining culpability of a behavior should be assessed post-legally, not pre-legally.