This book launches a debate on the need to evaluate criminal policies and, what is more complex and ambitious, to develop an evaluation method. The contributions address topics such as the general methodology for evaluating public policy, preparing criminal statistics, and analyzing costs, cost-effectiveness and cost benefits. Additionally, the work explores the state of affairs in various countries including Spain, Sweden, USA, Germany and in the EU. It also examines issues such as the relationship between legislative evaluation and criminal principles and the constitutional courts’ control over criminal acts.

This book intends to contribute to the consolidation of the new approach to lawmaking that has taken place in the last 20 years in legal philosophy and legal theory, spreading to other legal fields, especially criminal law. This new legislation science focusing on criminal problems has triggered a growing interest in the field, a dynamic which has led to a long-needed convergence of disciplines such as administrative law, criminal law, criminology, political science, sociology and, of course, legal philosophy to contribute to a more rational decision-making process for the construct of criminal laws. With the intention to continue on with the building of a solid “Criminal Legislation Science”, this work presents scholars, lawmakers and students various emblematic approaches to enrich the discussion about different and promising tools and theoretical frameworks.

Constitutionalizing Criminal Law calls for an overhaul of the way the Supreme Court has developed the relationship between criminal and constitutional law. The court has relied heavily on its power to constitutionalize principles of “fundamental justice” under section 7 of the Charter. In so doing, it employs both principles of criminal law theory and instrumental rationality. The court less frequently invokes enumerated Charter rights when striking down criminal laws. This book persuasively argues that the court should abandon the use of instrumental rationality and constitutionalize principles of criminal law theory only when an unjust criminal law cannot be struck down using an enumerated right.

This volume brings together an international group of legal scholars to discuss different approaches to lawmaking. As well as reflecting the diversity of legisprudence as a re-emerging academic field, it offers a broad overview of current developments and challenges in the theory of legislation, and aspires, moreover, to counterbalance some questionable ideas or misconceptions, widespread among jurists, on what making laws entails. The book is organized into three parts. The first comprises a sample of ‘ways and models of legislation’, ranging from classic legislative ideals to contemporary forms of regulation. The essays in this part, variances of focus notwithstanding, revolve around the notions of legislative rationality, quality, effectiveness, and legitimacy, which may be regarded as the cornerstones of legisprudence. Interwoven with these notions is another core legisprudential concern: the justification of laws. We address it separately in the next part by exploring the connection between lawmaking, argumentation and constitutional democracy: under the heading ‘legislation in a culture of justification’, a number of aspects of this connection are tackled that have not been sufficiently considered so far in legisprudential literature, such as the intricacies of legislative reasoning and balancing, or the justificatory problems posed by special-interest legislation. The under privileged status of legisprudence in legal studies and the need for socially attentive and citizen-oriented legislative research come to the fore in the third part of the book which turns to the relationships between ‘legisprudence, lawyers, and citizens’. All in all, the thirteen articles gathered here provide a stimulating insight into the theory of legislation, and can hopefully contribute to the reconciliation of the study of law and the study of its making.

Judges and legal scholars explore the state of criminal law today and offer examinations of key issues, including suicide terrorism, drug legalization, and the reach of federal criminal liability. From publisher description.

The United States today suffers from too much criminal law and too much punishment. Husak describes the phenomena in some detail and explores their relation, and why these trends produce massive injustice. His primary goal is to defend a set of constraints that limit the authority of states to enact and enforce penal offenses. The book urges the weight and relevance of this topic in the real world, and notes that most Anglo-American legal philosophers have neglected it. Husak's secondary goal is to situate this endeavor in criminal theory as traditionally construed. He argues that many of the resources to reduce the size and scope of the criminal law can be derived from within the criminal law itself-even though these resources have not been used explicitly for this purpose. Additional constraints emerge from a political view about the conditions under which important rights such as the right implicated by punishment-may be infringed. When conjoined, these constraints produce what Husak calls a minimalist theory of criminal liability. Husak applies these constraints to a handful of examples-most notably, to the justifiability of drug proscriptions.