Download - Foundations of State Punishment in Modern Liberal Democracies Toward a Genealogy of American Criminal Law

Foundations of State Punishment in Modern Liberal Democracies: Toward aGenealogy of American Criminal Law

Page 1 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

UniversityPressScholarshipOnlineOxfordScholarshipOnline

PhilosophicalFoundationsofCriminalLawR.A.DuffandStuartGreen

Printpublicationdate:2011PrintISBN-13:9780199559152PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:May2011DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199559152.001.0001

FoundationsofStatePunishmentinModernLiberalDemocracies:TowardaGenealogyofAmericanCriminalLawMarkusDDubber

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199559152.003.0005

AbstractandKeywords

Thischapterfocusesonhowweshouldconceiveoftheinquiryintothefoundationsofcriminallaw,whetherlegal,philosophical,historical,genealogical,orpolitical.Itarguesthatwecannothopetodevelopafoundationalaccountofthecriminallawwithoutanaccountofwhat,ifanything,legitimizesthestatepowerthatunderliesthecriminallawaninquirythathasmostlyescapedtheattentionofAmericanthinkersbothatthetimethenationwasfoundedandintheyearssince.Thechapterisorganizedasfollows.Section1considersvariouswaysofconceivingofaninquiryintothefoundationsofcriminallaw.Section2exploresthedistinctionbetweenmodesoffoundationalinquirybyconsideringthesignificanceoftheRechtsgutprincipleinGermancriminallawscience,ononehand,andinthejurisprudenceoftheGermanConstitutionalCourt,ontheother.Section3presentspreliminaryremarksonaninquiryintothefoundationsofAmericancriminallaw.

Keywords:Americancriminallaw,foundationalinquiry,Rechtsgutprinciple,Germancriminallaw


Page 2 of 24


Thesearchforfoundationsofcriminallawcanbeaworthwhileproject,evenanimportantone,boththeoreticallyandpractically.Whetheritmakessensetolimit(p.84) thisprojecttoasearchforphilosophicalfoundationsisanotherquestion.Thephilosophicalnessofthefoundationalinquiryeitherundercutsitoraddsnothingtoit,dependingonwhatonemeansbyphilosophical.Itundercutsthefoundationalinquiryifphilosophicalistakentoimplyanahistorical,ifnotunhistorical,modeofinquirybecausethesearchforfoundationsisessentially,andimportantly,alsohistorical.Ifphilosophicalsimplymeanstheoretical,orperhapsconceptual,thenitaddsnothingtotheinquiry,exceptperhapsanaspirationsomehowtoreachbeyond,orbeneath,empiricalhistoricalresearch,whateverthatwouldbe.

Thepointofafoundationalproject,asIenvisionit,wouldnotbehistoricalinthesenseofcapturingwieeswirklichgewesen,nordescriptive,nomatterhowrichandrichlyconceptualthatdescriptionmightturnouttobe,butfunctional,and,ultimately,critical.Thepointofaninquiryintothefoundationsofcriminallaw,onthisaccount,istoenableandtofacilitatecriticalanalysisofthelegitimacyofstatepunishment.1

Section1considersvariouswaysofconceivingofaninquiryintothefoundationsofcriminallaw.Section2exploresthedistinctionbetweenmodesoffoundationalinquirybyconsideringthesignificanceoftheRechtsgutprincipleinGermancriminallawscience,ononehand,andinthejurisprudenceoftheGermanConstitutionalCourt,ontheother.Section3presentspreliminaryremarksonaninquiryintothefoundationsofAmericancriminallaw.

1PHILOSOPHICAL,HISTORICAL,GENEALOGICALInitially,itmaybehelpfultothinkofthefoundationalinquiryIhaveinmindaswalkingthelinebetweenhistoricalandphilosophicalsearchesforfoundations.Ifweneedanameforthisinquiry,wemightcallitgenealogical(or,ifyouprefer,historical-philosophical).Onedoesn'thavetobeaFoucauldian(orNietzschean)toappreciatetheattempttocarveoutanalternativetowhatFoucaultcalledtheantiquarianandmetaphysicalsearchesforfoundations,whichreallysimplyaresharpenedversionsofhistoricalandphilosophicalmodesofinquiry.2FoucaultchannellingNietzschehasaveryspecific,andsomewhatelusive,viewofwhatgenealogyis,orratherdoes,thatwecansafelyignore,andleavetotheFoucaultscholars,becauseitdoesn'taffect(p.85) andmayevenobscurethemaininsight:thatwhatwemightcallafunctional,andwhatFoucaultcallseffective,inquiryintothefoundationsofcriminallaw,beitlabelledhistoryorphilosophy(orgenealogy,oranythingelse),hasapoint,namelytofacilitate,andinfacttoenable,thecriticalanalysisofthepracticeofpunishmentasanexerciseofthelawpower(Rechtsmacht)ofthestate.3

Intheend,itmakesnodifferencewhetherthisinquiryislabelledhistorical,philosophical,orgenealogical,theoretical,practical,orevenlegalorpolitical;whatmattersisthepointoftheexercise,whichisascentraltotheenlightenment'scriticalprojectasthethreatandinflictionofpenalviolencebythestateuponitsconstituentsisfaciallyinconsistentwiththeraisondtre,andthelegitimatoryfoundation,oftheliberalstateundertheruleoflaw(Rechtsstaat).Putanotherway,ifthestate'spenalpowerisn'tsubjectedtofoundationalcritique,thecriticalanalysisofstatepowerhasfailedtotackleitsmostimportant,and


Page 3 of 24


mostdifficult,task.

Thisproject,thoughsweepinginscope,isalsolimited,evenparochial,inseveralsensesanditisimportanttobeawareofitslimitations,lestthesearchforfoundationsofcriminallawbecomeatimelessandspacelessexerciseinunintentionalmetaphysics.Thefirstlimitationislegal,thesecondpolitical,forlackofbetterwords.

Thesearchforfoundationsofcriminallawis,firstandforemost,asearchforfoundationsofaparticularsystemof(criminal)law,whichdefinesthesubjectofinquiry.Inmostcases,thesubjectofinquiryisthesearcher'sdomestic(own)criminallawsystem,thoughthisisnotalwaysmadeexplicit.Itis,ofcourse,possible,thoughquitedifficult,toanalysecriticallyaforeigncriminallawsystemor,lesstricky,totakeacomparativeapproachtothecriticalanalysisofthecriminallawsystemwithwhichoneismostfamiliar,usingcomparisontounearthandhighlightfeaturesofthesystemunderanalysisthatotherwisemightremainhiddeninplainview.4Thiscomparativemethod,thoughpotentiallyuseful,isnotaprerequisite;onemayidentifysystemicfoundationsforuseincriticalanalysisthroughimmanentinquiry.

Atthesametime,themethodofinquiry,includingitstoolsandpurpose,mustbeidentified,onceagainlimitingtheproject'sscope.Themethodofinquiryislesslimitedinscope,yetstillparochial.ThefoundationalpoliticalinquiryIhaveinmindisessentiallyanenlightenmentproject.Itislimitedtothosepoliticalsystemsthatprofessacommitmenttoenlightenmentidealsoflegitimacy,whereofcoursetheseidealsthemselvesaresubjecttocriticalanalysis,alongwiththeirmanifestationinparticularstatepractices.Iconsidertheconceptofpersonalautonomy,orself-government,(p.86) tolieatthecoreoftheenlightenmentcriticalprojectinallspheresofethicallife,includingmoralityandpolitics.5Othersmaydisagree,bothaboutthecentralityofautonomyandaboutthespecificcontoursoftheconceptofautonomyitself.Inmyview,autonomyisbothaformalandsubstantiveconceptthatreferstobothamodeofinquiry(orstructuralprinciple)andtoaparticularconceptofthepersonhoodthatispresupposedbythatmodeofinquiry:criticalself-analysisbypersonsthroughanexerciseofsomecapacityforautonomypresupposesthatpersonspossessorarethoughttopossessthatcapacity.6Inthisway,autonomyisboththemeansoftheinquiryanditsend,whichisthenusedtosubjectother,lessbasic,componentsofthelegalsysteminquestiontocriticalanalysis,formallyandsubstantively.

Itmayofcoursebepossibletolaunchadifferentfoundationalinquiry,onethatseeksoutthefoundationsofadifferentclusterofpoliticalsystemsandthepenalpowerofthestate(orwho-orwhateverholdsgovernmentalpower)withinthemthatarenotdefinedbytheircommitmenttoenlightenmentideals.Theocraticregimes,orotherauthoritariansystems,includingtotalitarianstates,characterizedbytheradicalinequalitybetweengovernorandgoverned,maybefoundtohavecertainorganizingprinciples,oratleastcommonfeaturesordogmas,thoughtheiressentialheteronomyprecludesmeaningfulcriticalanalysisinlightofthesenorms.7(Ofcourse,theabsenceofprinciplesitselfwouldproveilluminating.)Atanyrate,here,too,acomparativeapproachmayprovehelpful,atamoreabstractlevel,usingthesealternativesystemsaspointsofcontrastandreference,


Page 4 of 24


eveniftheanalysisofaradicallydifferentsystemonitsowntermswouldprovedifficult.Insofarastheenlightenmentevolvedasacritiqueofthesepoliticalsystems,theboundariesbetweenhistoricalandcontemporary(philosophical)analysiswillblur;theenlightenment'scriticalproject,inthissense,cannotbefullyappreciatedwithoutreferencetothemodesofstatepoweritarosetocritiqueinthefirstplace.

Itisimportanttorecognize,then,thatthehistoricalandthephilosophicalinquiryintofoundations,orratherthehistoricalandphilosophicalaspectsofthegenealogicalinquiryintofoundations,arebothdistinctandcomplementary.Historicalinquiryintofoundationsofpenalpracticeextendsbeyondtheenlightenment;atthesametime,enlightenmentprinciples,whichguidephilosophicalanalysis,cannotbeunderstoodwithoutreferencetothepracticesthatprecededtheenlightenment.(p.87) Obviously,thepowerandpracticeofdiscipline,inhouseholdslargeandsmall,longprecedestheenlightenment,anditshistoryinformsthepowerandpracticeofcontemporarypunishment.Eveniftheenlightenmentgeneratedaradicallynew,evenrevolutionary,conceptionofpunishmentthatdoesnotproceedfromandreasserttheessentialsuperiorityofthepunishervis--visthepunished,thepowerandpracticeofdisciplinedidnotdisappearasamatteroffactfromtherealmofprivate,orpublic,governance,simplythroughtheemergenceofanewsetoflegitimacyrequirements(mostnotablythatpunishmentremainconsistentwiththeequalautonomyofallpersons).

Inthiscontext,itmaybehelpfultodistinguishbetweenasearchforfoundationsandonefororigins.Thegenealogicalinquiryintofoundationsisalso,butnotexclusively,historical.Foundingmomentsaresignificantnotbecausetheyputinstoneastaticstateofaffairs,butinsofarastheyframeandfacilitateacontinuousprocessofcreationandaction.Ifwepursuethefoundationalmetaphoralittlefurther,whilefoundationsprecedetheconstructionofthebuilding,whatmattersmoreisthattheysetbasicparametersfor,andalsomakepossible,itsexistence.Foundationsarebothpartofthestructure,anddistinctfromit.Morethanonesuperstructuremaybecompatiblewithasinglefoundation,yetsomearemorecompatiblewithitthanothers,andsomearealtogetherincompatible.Thepriceforerectingasuperstructurethatdoesnotfititsfoundation,andevenexceedsit,isinstabilityandultimatelycollapseunderstrain.Itispossibletochangethesuperstructure,notonlybyaddingtoit,internallyorexternally,butalsobyrebuildingit,evenfromthebottomup;changingthefoundationisnotimpossible,butwithgreatereffort,andatgreatercost.

Foundations,unlikeorigins,arenotdiscoveredasonemightdiscovertheoriginofariverbyfollowingitupstream.Foundationsaremade(byFoundersGenerations,FoundingFathers,andthelike),andmayberediscoveredremadeorreconstructedevenifthesuperstructureabovethemhasbeenlost,orhasbeenobscuredovertime.Genealogicalinquirydoesnotpresupposesomeexternalrealitythatawaitsdiscoverythroughhistoricalorphilosophicalinquiry;itisnotanempiricalscience,eventhoughitsiftsthroughmanifestationsofhumanactivitytounearthitsfundamentallayer,itselfamanifestationofhumanactivity.


Page 5 of 24


Heregenealogicalinquiryisusefullydistinguishedfromthepursuitofthestudyofstateactionintheformoflaw,andmorespecificallycriminallaw,aslegalscience.Legalscience,asitwaspractisedintheUnitedStatesinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiesandisstillpursuedinGermany,isanempiricalscience,inthepursuitoffactsaboutwhat(the)lawis.8Americanlegalscienceusedthe(p.88) laboratoryoflawlibrariesfilledwithreportsofappellatecourtopinionstodistilldoctrinalfactsaboutwhatthelawis.Germancriminallegalsciencecontinuestorelyon,andtorefine,discoveriesofontologicalfactsaboutwhatcriminallaw(andnotablycrime)is,whicharethenclaimedtogenerateacomprehensivedoctrinalsystem:Suchdiscoveriesinclude,forinstance,theontologicalstructureofcriminalconduct(ontologischeHandlungsstrukur),whichhasbeenfoundtorequireintentionality(Finalitt,literallyfinality)andtoaccountfortherelationshipbetweenactandomission,andthestructureofcriminalliability,notablythedistinctionbetweenunlawfulnessandguilt(orresponsibility)initsdoctrinalmanifestationofthedistinctionbetweenjustificationandexcuse.9

Bycontrast,genealogicalinquiryincriminallawisbestthoughtofasseekingtorediscoverfoundationsthatarelegaland,ultimately,political,ratherthanontological,andthereforesusceptibletophilosophicaldiscovery:criminallawisregardedasapoliticalact,asoneinstanceofamodeofstategovernance(law)thatmanifestsstatepower.Asapoliticalact,itsfoundationsarepolitical,ielocatedwithintheprojectofstategovernmentasawhole.Aspolitical,thefoundationsofcriminallawarealsoman-made(or,rather,person-made)andthereforesubjecttodiscussionandagreement,todisagreementandcritique,bothactually(seeHabermas)andconstructively(seeKant'sandRawls'sthoughtexperiments).Certaincommitmentsmaybesobasicastobebeyond,orbeneath,negotiation,buttheyremaincommitmentsnonetheless,thoughasfoundationaltheircompromise,oroutrightrejection,willdrawthepoliticalprojectasawholeintoquestion,byweakening(compromising)orevendestroyingitsfoundation.

2CRIMINALLAWSCIENCEANDPOLITICALLEGITIMACYThisdistinctionbetweenphilosophicalandpoliticalfoundationsofcriminallawmaybeillustratedbyadisputeabouttherelativesignificanceofbasictenetsofGermancriminallegalscience,asdiscoveredbyGermancriminallawscientists(ieGermancriminallawprofessors),andprinciplesofGermanconstitutionallaw,aspromulgatedbytheGermanConstitutionalCourtinlightoftheGermanBasicLaw.Thedisputearose,oratleastemerged,inawell-knownjudgmentinwhich(p.89) theConstitutionalCourtupheldtheconstitutionalityoftheincestprovisionintheGermanCriminalCode.10Theresultislesssignificantthanthereasoning,inthecourseofwhichtheCourtbrushedasideafundamentaltenetofGermanlegalscience,theRechtsgutprinciple,asconstitutionallyirrelevant,andinsteadinsistedonapplyingthestandardflexibleanddeferentialmeans-endsproportionalityanalysisofGermanconstitutionallawthattheCourthaddevelopedoverthesixdecadesofitsexistence.11

AsdiscoveredbyGermancriminallawscience,theRechtsgutprincipledeclaressubjecttoconsiderablevariationamongdifferentversionsoftheprinciple,afactthatissignificantinitsownrightbutwhichwe'llignoreforpresentpurposesthatthecriminallawmay


Page 6 of 24


onlybeemployedtoprotectaRechtsgut(lawgood),andthatonlycertainobjectsqualifyasaRechtsgut.

Standardconstitutionalanalysisunderthegeneralrubricofproportionality,bycomparisonifnotcontrast,lookstoseewhetherthestatuteunderreviewpursuesalegitimatepurposeanddoessoinareasonableway,withthelegislatureenjoyingconsiderableleewayonbothendsandmeans.TheCourt,then,sawitsjobintheincestcasesimplyascomingupwithalistofpurposes,anyorallofwhichcouldbereasonablyconsideredlegitimate(whichtheycould)andthencheckingwhetherthestatutecouldbeseenasreasonablyrelatedtothispurposeorthesepurposes(whichitcould).IntheCourt'sview,theRechtsgutconceptdidnotenterintotheanalysis.

Inonereadingofthecase,itpittedonedoctrinalsystem(ofconstitutionallaw)againstanother(ofcriminallaw).Inthislight,theGermanConstitutionalCourtandGermancriminallawprofessors/scientistsareengagedinthesametypeofproject:asGermancriminallawscientistspondertheSeinofcrime,GermanConstitutionalCourtjudgesalongwithGermanconstitutionallawprofessors/scientistspondertheSeinofconstitution(orofdignity,liberty,twonessinoneness,12etc).

Alternatively,andforourpurposesmorehelpfully,thecasecanbeseenassettingupacontrastbetween,ononehand,apoliticalinquiryintothelegitimacyofstatepowerbysubjectinganexerciseofthatpowerthroughpenallawtoscrutinyinlightofbasicconstitutionalprinciples,13and,ontheother,anapplicationoftheresultsof(p.90) aphilosophicalinquiryintothenatureofRechtsgutconductedbyexpertcriminallawscientistswithoutreferencetotheseconstitutionalprinciples.

Ofcourse,otherpolitical,ratherthanontological,phenomenological,ormetaphysicalapproachestoRechtsguttheoryareeasilyimagined.Afterall,theRechtsgutprinciplecouldbesaidtoderivefromanaccountofstatepowerinaliberaldemocracycommittedtothemanifestationofRecht,orright,understoodastherecognitionoftheequalpersonhoodofstateconstituentsbasedontheirsharedcapacityforautonomy,orself-government.ItistruethatsuchanaccountoftheRechtsgut,thoughtheoreticallystraightforwardenough,wouldflyinthefaceoftheactualorigins,development,anddeploymentoftheconcept,whichwasdrivenbyanefforttoexpand,oratleasttoreflecttheexpansionof,thescopeofcriminallawbeyondthemanifestationandprotectionofpersonalright.14Whatmattersatthispoint,however,isnotwhetherapoliticalaccountofRechtsgutisultimatelyconvincing,butwhetheritispossible.Infact,tracesofapoliticalaccountofRechtsgutcanbefoundinrecentcontributionstoGermancriminallegalscience,aswellasinthedissentingopinionintheGermanConstitutionalCourt'sincestjudgment,authoredbyJudgeWinfriedHassemer,(notso)coincidentallyaleadingGermancriminallawprofessorandcriticalcontributortotheRechtsgutliterature.15Totakeafurtherstep,itshouldbepossibletointegrateapoliticalaccountofRechtsgutintothepoliticalaccountofconstitutionalitydevelopedbytheGermanConstitutionalCourt(oranyothersuchaccount),byestablishing(ratherthansimplyasserting)theRechtsgutconcept'sconstitutionalstatus.


Page 7 of 24


Nonetheless,itissignificantthatGermancriminallegalscientistshavemadefew,ifany,seriouseffortseithertoconstitutionalizetheRechtsgutprincipleoreventorecognizeitspoliticalfoundationwithinsomeaccountofthelegitimacyofstatepower,(p.91) apartfromitsstandingasaconstitutionallegalnorm.Thereareseveralexplanationsforthisfailure,includingsociologicaloneshavingtodowithstatusrelationshipsbetweenprofessorsandjudges,particularlypoliticallyappointedjudges(asopposedtoprofessionaljudgeswhorisethroughthejudicialbureaucracy,suchasjudgesontheGermanSupremeCourt)andthegeneraldeclineinstatusamongGermanprofessorsingeneral.

Inthepresentcontext,themostnotableexplanationderivesfromthesensethatRechtsgutisaphilosophical,ratherthanapolitical,conceptthatisopentoontologicalinquirybyexpertsinthescienceofcriminallawie(German)criminallawprofessors.16Assuch,theRechtsgutisnotonlybeyondthediscretion,butbeyondthegrasp,ofConstitutionalCourtjudgesor,forthatmatter,ofconstitutionallawprofessors.TheymustcontentthemselveswithconsultingthediscoveriesofthoseexpertswhocanappreciatetheontologicalorDasein-relatedaspectsofRechtsgut.17Note,however,thatthereisnothingabouttheconceptofRechtsgutthatwouldmarkitasanexclusivelycriminallegalconcept;thislimitation,andtheclaimtocriminallawprofessorsparticularexpertiseinallthingsRechtsgut,insteadreflectsthelimited,andgenerallyapolitical,approachtotheconceptofRechtsgut(fromRechttoGuttoRechtsgut)inGermancriminallawscience.18

Itistempting,thoughperhapsfacile,todismissthisontological-scientificinquiryintofoundationsofcriminallawforanynumberofreasons,includingthatitisself-serving,undemocratic,obscurantist,andanachronistic.19Butwhatmattershereisnotwhethertheontologicalsearchforfoundationsisworthwhileor(re)commendable,butwhatconstitutesitandmoreprecisely,whatdistinguishesitfromthesortofgenealogicalpoliticalinquiryIhaveinmind.Similarly,itdoesn'tmakeadifferencewhetherthepoliticalinquiryintofoundationsofcriminallawtakestheformofthesortofhands-offconstitutionalityanalysisfavouredbytheGermanConstitutionalCourtorofanattempttogroundtheRechtsgutinfoundationsoflegitimatestatepower.Whatmattersistogetasenseofthegenealogicalproject,ofitspointandmethod,incontradistinctiontootherfoundationalprojects,historicalorphilosophical.(p.92)

3GENEALOGICALFOUNDATIONSOFAMERICANCRIMINALLAWAninquiryintothefoundationsofAmericancriminallawinparticular,beithistorical,philosophical,orgenealogical,facesanotherchallenge,asidefromclarifyingthenatureandfunctionofthefoundationalinquiryatstake.Definingthesubjectofthefoundationalinquiry,howeverframed,encountersthesamedifficultyfacedbyanydiscussionofAmericancriminallaw.Theriskisthatoneindeterminacyisreplacedbyanother;whileitisdifficulttospeaknon-metaphysicallyaboutfoundationsofcriminallaw,period,itisonlyslightlylessdifficulttospeaksensiblyaboutfoundationsofAmericancriminallaw,whichintheendmayprovetobesimplyanotherartificialconstructassembled,orpresupposed,forthesakeoftheoreticalinquiry.20


Page 8 of 24


Inanimportantsense,Americancriminallawnolongerexists,ifiteverdid.Despiteanever-growingbodyoffederalcriminallaw,criminallawintheUnitedStatesremainsprimarilyastatematter.Unlikeinothermodernliberaldemocracies,including,say,GermanyandCanada,thereisnosinglenationalcriminalcode(notevenoneasantiquatedandunsystematicasCanada'snineteenth-centuryStephenCode).TheclosestthingthereisandperhapseverhasbeentoabodyofAmericancriminallawis,ironically,anunenactedmodelcodedraftedbyaprivateorganizationoflawyers,judges,andacademicsdevotedtolawreform,theAmericanLawInstitute'sModelPenalandCorrectionalCode,conceivedintheinterbellumperiodduringthe1920sand1930sanddraftedbetween1952and1962underthedirectorshipofHerbertWechslerofColumbia.21

Inaway,theModelPenalCodeisverymuchnotAmericancriminallaw,bothbecausenoAmericanjurisdictionadopteditinitsentirety(norwasitdesignedtobeadoptedintoto,ratherthantoprovidereform-mindedlegislatureswithablueprintforcriminallawreformnotunlikeotheroptimisticandprogressivehow-tomanualsofthetime,suchasNorvalMorrisandGordonHawkins'sHonestPolitician'sGuidetoCrimeControl22or,lessexplicitly,HerbertPacker'sLimitsoftheCriminalSanction23)andbecauseitwasspecificallyintendedasamodelcode,ie,asamodelforcomprehensivecriminallawreform,incontrasttotheALI'seffortsin(p.93) otherareas,notablytortsandcontracts,whereRestatementsofthelawweredeemedsufficient.TheModelCode,then,emphaticallywasnotwhatAmericancriminallawis,orwas,butwhatitshouldbeoratbest,whatitcouldbeatitsverybest.Atanyrate,sincetheModelCodewasnotadoptedeverywhere,orinfactanywhere,withmanystatesfollowingitsubstantially,otherslessso,andsome(alongwiththefederalgovernment)notatall,itdoesnotreflectAmericancriminallawasitistoday,inthesenseofthesumofdisparatebodiesofstate(andfederal)criminallawbasedonseparate(stateandfederal)criminalcodesandseparatebodiesof(stateandfederal)caselaw.

Ideally,then,thefoundationalinquirywouldfocusonabodyofcriminallawthatisrecognizablydistinct,suchasthecriminallawsystemofanyofthestatesor,moreproblematically,thefederalgovernmentor,moreinterestingly,onAmericanmilitarycriminallaw(ascodifiedintheUniformCodeofMilitaryJustice)oreventhecriminallawofNativeAmericantribes,whichraiseintriguingquestionsabouttheorigin,nature,andscopeofsovereigntyandthereforeofthepowertopunish(and,morespecifically,thepowerofcriminallaw,iethepowertomakeandimposecriminalnorms,andtoinflictsanctionsfortheirviolation).Perhapsitisenough,andforpresentpurposesitwillhavetobeenoughnotleastbecauseAmericancriminallawscholarshaveshownlittleinterestinproducingreasonablysystematicoratleastcomprehensivecontemporary,nevermindhistorical,accountsofanyparticularsystemofAmericancriminallaw24toacknowledgethediversityofAmericancriminallawsystems,topointtotheModelPenalandCorrectionalCodeastheclosestavailableapproximationofasystemofAmericancriminallaw(atleastdelegeferenda)andatanyratetoshiftthetaskfromagenealogyofAmericancriminallawtooneofAmericancriminallaws.ByabstractingfromthediversityofpresentAmericancriminallawasacollectionofcriminallawsystemsthatisusefully


Page 9 of 24


comparedtothesystemsthatwouldconstituteEuropeancriminallaw,ifthattermwereusedinthissense(ratherthanasthecriminallawoftheEuropeanUnion,analogoustofederalcriminallawintheUnitedStates)onecansetouttotracethegenealogyofthatcollectionofcriminallawsystemsoftenlabelledAmericancriminallaw,ataskthatpresumablywillresultinthediscoveryoffoundationalcommonalitiesatsomepointinthenottoodistantpast.

ThiswayofproceedingisnotunfamiliarinAmericanlegalandpoliticaldiscourse,astheUnitedStates,likeFrance,continuestoviewitselfinlightofacertainfoundationalmoment,ormoments(dependingonwhatsignificanceisattributedtotheCivilWar).Thedifficultywiththisapproachisnotsomuchformal,ormethodological,(p.94) assubstantive.ThecommonfoundationalmomentinAmericanlegalandpoliticalhistorysignifiedbytheRevolution,theDeclarationofIndependence,andtheUSConstitution(includingtheoriginalBillofRights)didnotconcernitselfwiththefoundationsofcriminallawasamanifestationofthestate'spowertopunish.ThecommonfoundationofAmericancriminallawthusisanabsence,whichistosaytwothings:first,thattherewasnofoundationalmomentofAmericancriminallawassuch;and,secondandrelated,thatthefoundationsofAmericancriminallaw,suchastheyare,precedethefoundationsofAmericanlawandpolitics.Fewdoubt,atleastintheUnitedStates,thatthelateeighteenthcenturygeneratedanew,distinctlyAmerican,idealofgovernment,anewpoliticalscienceand,lessclearly,anewconceptoflaw,oratleastofthesignificanceoflaw(ThomasPaine'sTHELAWISKING!),howeverill-definedtheconceptoflawremained.Itdidnot,however,produceanewidealofcriminallaw.

Inotherwords,thefoundationalmomentofAmericanlawwasnotthefoundationalmomentofAmericancriminallaw.Whatisdistinctive,andinthissensefoundational,aboutAmericancriminallawduringthefoundationalmomentofAmericanlawinsteadistheveryfactthatthereisnofoundationalmomentofAmericancriminallaw.TheEnlightenment'scomprehensivecritiqueoflawandpoliticsidentifiedpunishmentasaninstanceofstatepowerthatwasinparticularlydireneedoflegitimation,notrelegitimationinlightofnewideasandprinciples,butlegitimationfortheveryfirsttimeaftermillenniaofunquestioned,andunquestionable,penalmight(Strafmacht),understoodasthehardessenceofsovereignty.

TheEnlightenmentdidnotmerelyproducenewanswerstothequestionofwhythestatehasarighttopunish,butpostedthequestionfortheveryfirsttime,andwithgreaturgency.Punishmentwasnolongerbeyondlegitimationasamanifestationofthesovereignsubject'sauthorityovertheobjectsofgovernment.Nowviewedasaparticularlydirectandprimafacieillegitimateviolationoftheveryrightsthestateexistedtomanifestandprotect,punishmentdesperatelyrequiredlegitimationintermsofthefundamentalprincipleoflegitimacy,autonomy,orself-government,whichinthepoliticalspherereflectedthecapacityforautonomythatdefinedtheequalpersonhoodofallstateconstituents.Onlyasystemofpenalpowerthatrespectedallpersonsassuch,ieasbeingswithacapacityforautonomy,couldhopetosurvivetheEnlightenment'scomprehensivecritique.


Page 10 of 24


IntheUnitedStates,bycontrast,thetraditionalconceptionandsystemofpenalitysurvivedthefoundationalandconstitutionalmomentessentiallyundisturbed.Thefoundationsofthestate'spenalpowerremainednotonlyunchallenged,butunexamined,andunnamed.Inoccasional,off-hand,referencestothesourceofthatpower,courts,orcommentators,whenmovedtostatetheobvious,mightremarkthatthepowertopunishwasone,ifaparticularlyobvious,instanceofthestate'scomprehensiveanddiscretionarypowertopolice,iethepowertosafeguardandmaximize(p.95) thepublicwelfareinallofitsmyriadaspects.25Thepolicepowerinturnwasdefinedbyitsveryundefinability,asamorphousandunquestionableassovereigntyitself,whichwastransferredunchangedfromthekingtothepeople,anintentionallyapersonalconstructthatobscuredthenatureofsovereigntyratherthanalteringit,therebycomplicatingitscriticalanalysisratherthanfacilitatingit.26

Here,Ithink,itisusefultodifferentiatethedistinctionamongbranchesofgovernmentfromthefracturingofsovereigntyitself.Thedivisionamonggovernmentalfunctionslegislative,judicial,executoryortheseparationoftheattendantpowerstoperformthesefunctions,isneitheressentiallydemocraticnormonarchic.Thesovereignactsthroughallstateactors,nomatterwhatfunctiontheyperform;andthepolicepower,asanessentialfeatureofsovereignty,isexercisedbyallbranchesofgovernment.Policepower,likesovereignty,isanattributeofstategovernance,notofanyparticularbranchordepartment.

ThesearchforthefoundationalmomentofAmericancriminallaw,asamanifestationofthestate'spowertopolice,thenisasearchforthefoundationalmomentoftheconceptofpoliceor,morefundamentallystill,theconceptofsovereigntyitembodies.Sovereignty,however,isalwaysalreadythere,complicatingasearchforitsfoundations,ifnotmakingitaltogetherimpossible.Moreover,insofarassovereigntyisbyitsnaturebeyondcritique,itresistsgenealogyinthepresentsense,ieasthesearchfortoolsforcriticalanalysisofthelegitimacyofstateinstitutions.Still,asahistoricalandconceptualmatter,itispossibletoinvestigatethefoundationsofthepowertopolice,andtheattendantconceptofsovereignty.

AsIhavearguedatlengthelsewhere,27theunderlyingconceptofsovereigntyasthenatureofpoliticalpowerisgroundedintheancientconceptofhouseholdership,iethepowerofthehouseholder(oikonomos)togovernhishousehold(oikos).28Thepolicepoweristhemodernmanifestationofthatpower,whichemergedasthemodeofgovernancewastransferredfromthemicrohouseholdofthefamilytothemacrohouseholdofthatgreatfamily,theState,inRousseau'sphrase29or,theindividualsofthestate,likemembersofawell-governedfamily,inBlackstone's.30Thepolicepoweristhemodeofgoverningthestateasamatterofpoliticaleconomy,(p.96) ie,asamatterofresourcemanagementofthebodypolitic,composedofhuman,andother(animateandinanimate)resources;itis,simply,thepowertogovernmenandthings.31

LocatingthefoundationofthepolicepowerinancientGreecenotonlyhelpstoelucidatetheinnerstructureofpoliceasamodeofgovernance,butalsomakesclearthatthepolicepowercannotberegardedinisolation,butmustbeseenincontrastto,andin


Page 11 of 24


tensionwith,anothermodeofgovernancerootedinAthenianpoliticallife.Fromtheverybeginning,theconceptofoikoswascontrastedwiththeconceptofpolis,acontrastthatoften,somewhatmisleadinglyoratleastblandly,isputintermsofthedistinctionbetweenprivateandpublic.32Whereastheoikoswasgovernedbytheoikonomos(or,lesspolitically,thedespots,lord,master),thepoliswasgovernedbythepolitikos.33Theoikoswasessentiallyheteronomous,characterizedbyother-government;thepoliswasessentiallyautonomous,characterizedbyself-government.Theoikoswasdefinedbytheradicaldistinctionbetweengovernorandgoverned,betweenoikonomosandoikos,thesubjectandobjectofgovernment;thepoliswasdefinedbytheradicalequalityofgovernorandgoverned,ofpolitikosandpolitikos,whowouldgovernhimselfandothersashimself.

Eachsphereofgovernanceisworthyofanalysisbyitself,inanefforttodefineitsscopeandcontours,itsstructureandmodeofoperation.Initially,however,itisworthconsideringtheinteraction,andinterrelation,ofthetwo.Whilethespheresofgovernanceweredistinguishedcarefully(morecarefullybysome,notablyAristotle,thanothers,Plato),theywerealsocomplementaryandconnectedthroughthepersonalunityoftheoikonomosandthepolitikosthepolitikosintheagorawastheoikonomosathome.Other-governmentathomequalifiedmenforself-governmentincitylife;thecapacityfor(political)autonomywasevidencedbythecapacityfor(domestic)heteronomy.Publicequalitypresupposedprivateinequality,thepolispresupposedtheoikos.Whilethetwospheresofgovernmentwereseenascomplementary,itcouldnotbesaidthatoikospresupposedpolis.Historically,andconceptually,thefamilyprecededthecity,oikonomikaprecededpolitika,andheteronomyprecededautonomy.Anxietiestriggeredbytheprospectofcollapsingthedistinctionbetweenthetwospheres,atleastsinceAristotle,havetendedtoconcerntheeliminationofthepolitical,ratherthantheoeconomic,sphere,whichisregardedasareversiontoapre-politicalstateofaffairs,historicalornot,withthedevelopmentofthenotionofequalityandself-governmentbeingseenasamorerecentphenomenon,ifnotaccomplishment(ordiscovery).(p.97)

Itisfruitful,Ithink,toseethedistinctionbetweenpoliceandlawinlightoftheancientdistinctionbetweenoikonomikaandpolitika.Theconceptofpolice,orofpoliticaleconomy,then,appearsasacomprehensiveandsystematicattempttobreakdownthedistinctionbetweenprivateandpublicmodesofgovernancethroughtheexpansion,orifyoupreferthetransfer,ofhouseholdgovernancefromthemicrofamilytothemacrofamilyofthestate.Domestic,orfamilial,economybecomespolitical,orstate,economy.Thestateasawholeisnowregardedasa(great)family,asheteronomousresourcemanagementspillsoverintothepublicsphere.

Thetensionbetweenoikonomiaandpolitika,however,remains;itis,infact,sharpenedasitistransferredontothemacrolevelofstategovernance.Whereasheteronomyandautonomyonceco-existedastheappropriatemodesofgovernancefortheprivateandthepublicsphere,respectively,nowbothstandindirecttensionatthestatelevel,aspoliceandlaw,andasthepolice(orwelfare)state(Wohlfahrtsstaat)andthelaw(orjustice)state(Rechtsstaat).Heteronomyandautonomyarebroughtintodirectcontrast


Page 12 of 24


atthesamelevelofgovernment,inthesamepoliticalsphere,astheobjectsofgovernancearebothandatthesametimeradicallydifferentthan(andinferiorto)thesubjectfromtheperspectiveofpoliceandidenticalwith(andequalto)itfromthatoflaw.

Thecriticalanalysisofstatepunishmentmakesthistensionbetweenpoliceandlaw,betweenheteronomyandautonomy,particularlyvisible.Fromapoliceperspective,statepunishmentisnotsomuchobviouslylegitimateasitisobviouslyinnoneedoflegitimation.Naturally,thesovereign-householderisempoweredtowieldpenaldisciplineasatoolofhumanresourcemanagementinwhatevercircumstanceandinwhatevermannerheseesfit.Withoutthepowertodiscipline,hewouldlackthepowertopolice,andwithoutthepowertopolicehewouldbenosovereign.Theconnectionbetweenthepolicepowerandsovereigntywassotight,andsounquestionable,thatAmericanfederalismatopicthat,unlikethelegitimacyofthepowertopunish,didattractconsiderableattentionduringthefoundationalperiodofAmericanlawandpoliticsrestedontheinsistencethatthestatesmustretainthepowertopoliceand,todrivehomethepoint,thatthenationalgovernmentmustnothavethepowertopolice.Deprivingthestatesoftheirpolicepowerwouldhavemeantstrippingthemoftheirsovereigntyandsimplyincorporatingthem,aspointsofdelegatedpower,intoaunitarynationalstate.

Withinthepolicerealm,then,thelegitimacyofstatepunishmentis,quiteliterally,anon-issue.Thelegitimacychallengeofstatepunishmentonlyemergesifoneshiftsintotherealmoflaw.Suddenly,statepunishmentappearsnolongerasaquintessentiallysovereignactofstate,butastheintentionalinflictionofviolenceuponaperson.Fromtheperspectiveofpolice,punishmentisanactofheteronomythroughwhichthesuperiorsubjectofgovernmentinscribeshisverysuperiorityontothebodyofitsobject,andassuchisbeyondreproach.Itispreciselythisconceptionofpunishmentthatcouldnotwithstandcriticalanalysisfromtheperspectiveoflaw.Legalpunishment,punishmentundertheruleoflaw(notofpolice),cannot(p.98) beessentiallyheteronomous.Legalpunishmentinsteadmustbeautonomous,ofpersonsbypersonsforpersons.34

Incidentally,whatisoftenportrayedasthesecondconstitutionalmomentinAmericanlegalandpoliticalhistory,triggeredbytheCivilWar,alsodidnotreachtheissueofthelegitimacyofstatepunishment.WhenLincolncalledforgovernmentofthepeople,bythepeople,forthepeople,thepeopledidnotincludecriminaloffendersaspassive(of)oractive(by)citizens,norasbeneficiaries(for).TheThirteenthAmendmenttotheUSConstitutionabolishedslaveryandinvoluntaryservitudeexceptascriminalpunishment,andlatenineteenth-centuryprisonlaw,suchasitwas,consideredincarceratedfelonsasrightlessslavesofthestate.35

Duringthe(original)Americanfoundationalmoment,ifquestionsofcriminallawattractedtheattentionoftheFoundingFathersliving,andmaking,thatmomentatall,whichwasrareenough,theyconcernedtheexpedientuseofthecriminalsanctionratherthanthepriorquestionofitslegitimacy.SothecontributorstotheFederalistpaperscanbeseenexploringtheuseofpenaldisciplinetosuppressinternalrebellion,whichtheytreatedas


Page 13 of 24


aproblemofpublicpoliticalhealth(ieofhealthpolice),withHamiltoninsistingontheneedforpunishmentfordisobedience,36notablythedisorderlyconductofrefractoryorseditiousindividuals.37Penalsanctions,heexplained,wererequiredtoremovethoseseditionsandinsurrectionsthatare,unhappily,maladiesasinseparablefromthebodypoliticastumorsanderuptionsfromthenaturalbody.38TheBillofRights,ofcourse,didendupaddressingitselftosomeissuesinthepenalprocess,buttherelevantprovisions,too,presumedtheexistenceandlegitimacyofasystemofstatepunishmentandwerecontenttoregulatethepre-trialandtrialprocessofinvestigation(search,seizure,confrontation,jury,etc),iethestageofthepenalprocessbeforetheclassificationofitsobjectsasoffender(orfelon)ratherthanasmeresuspectsordefendants.39

Therewasonenotable,butultimatelyonlyapparent,exceptiontothegeneralfailuretorecognize,nevermindtoaddress,thequestionofthefoundationsofthestate'spowertopunishinthecourseofthecomprehensiveanalysisofthe(p.99) foundationsofAmericanlawandgovernmentduringtheAmericanGrnderzeit.40ThomasJefferson,havingreturnedtoVirginiaafterhisworkontheDeclarationofIndependence,draftedacriminallawbill(orrather,moremodestly,aBillforProportioningCrimesandPunishmentsinCasesHeretoforeCapital)asoneofhiscontributionstoageneralrevisionofVirginialawinlightofourrepublicanformofgovernment.[N]owthatwehadnonegativesofCouncils,Governors&Kingstorestrainusfromdoingright,Jeffersonsetouttocorrect[]thelawofVirginiainallit's[sic]parts,withasingleeyetoreason,&thegoodofthoseforwhosegovernmentitwasframed.41

Jefferson'scriminallawbillisworthacloserlookbecauseitcapturesthefoundinggeneration'slackofinterestincriminallaw,andnotablythefoundationsofandlegitimationofcriminallaw.Jeffersonpickedupcriminallawonlyafterthecommitteememberwhohadoriginallybeenassignedthetopic(GeorgeMason)resigned.Theclosestthingtoaleadingprinciple[]thatthecommittee'sbriefconsiderationofcriminallawyieldedwasthelextalionis.Byfarthemostoriginal,andpotentiallyfoundational,partofthebillwasitspreamble,whichisworthreproducinginfull:

Whereasitfrequentlyhappensthatwickedanddissolutemenresigningthemselvestothedominionofinordinatepassions,commitviolationsonthelives,libertiesandpropertyofothers,and,thesecureenjoymentofthesehavingprincipallyinducedmentoenterintosociety,governmentwouldbedefectiveinit's[sic]principalpurposewereitnottorestrainsuchcriminalacts,byinflictingduepunishmentsonthosewhoperpetratethem;butitappearsatthesametimeequallydeduciblefromthepurposesofsocietythatamemberthereof,committinganinferiorinjury,doesnotwholyforfiet[sic]theprotectionofhisfellowcitizens,but,aftersufferingapunishmentinproportiontohisoffenceisentitledtotheirprotectionfromallgreaterpain,sothatitbecomesadutyinthelegislaturetoarrangeinaproperscalethecrimeswhichitmaybenecessaryforthemtorepress,andtoadjusttheretoacorrespondinggradationofpunishments.

Andwhereasthereformationofoffenders,thoanobjectworthytheattentionofthelaws,isnoteffectedatallbycapitalpunishments,whichexterminateinsteadof


Page 14 of 24


reforming,andshouldbethelastmelancholyresourceagainstthosewhoseexistenceisbecomeinconsistentwiththesafetyoftheirfellowcitizens,whichalsoweakenthestatebycuttingoffsomanywho,ifreformed,mightberestoredsoundmemberstosociety,who,evenunderacourseofcorrection,mightberenderedusefulinvariouslaborsforthepublic,andwouldbelivingandlongcontinuedspectaclestodeterothersfromcommittingthelikeoffences.

Andforasmuchtheexperienceofallagesandcountrieshathshewnthatcruelandsanguinarylawsdefeattheirownpurposebyengagingthebenevolenceofmankindtowithholdprosecutions,tosmothertestimony,ortolistentoitwithbias,when,ifthepunishmentwere(p.100) onlyproportionedtotheinjury,menwouldfeelittheirinclinationaswellastheirdutytoseethelawsobserved.

HereJeffersoncomescloserthananyoneinthefoundinggenerationtoformulatingthechallengeofthelegitimacyofstatepunishmentinthenewself-governingrepublic.Sincethestate'spurposeistosafeguardthelives,libertiesandpropertyofitsconstituents,ithastheright(andeventheduty)42torestrainsuchcriminalactswhicharedefinedasviolationsonthelives,libertiesandpropertyoftheirfellowstateconstituentsbyinflictingduepunishmentsonthosewhoperpetratethem.Yet,noteverycriminaloffender(ieviolatorofothersfundamentalrights)byhiscriminalactwholyforfiet[s]theprotectionofhisfellowcitizens.Thosewhoinflictinferiorinjuryandhavegoodrehabilitativeprospectsmightberestoredsoundmemberstosociety.Others,whoseexistenceisbecomeinconsistentwiththesafetyoftheirfellowcitizens,areexterminate[d],ifonlyasthelastmelancholyresource.

Thisisnotmuchofanaccountofthefoundationofstatepunishment,butitdoesindicateatleastanattempttoconnecttheinstitutionofstatepunishmenttothestate'sraisondtreinthenewrepublic,itsprincipalpurposesafeguardingtherightsofitsconstituents.Thelegitimacyofpunishmentisnotproblematized,buttakenforgranted;stillJeffersonatleaststatestheobviousintermsthatwouldbeopentothepossibilityofcriticalanalysis:thequestionmayhaveanobviousanswer,butitremainsaquestion.Punishmentisnotsimplydismissedasbeyondlegitimationasaandinfactthemostvisiblemanifestationofstatesovereignty.

Thisisasfarasitgoes.WhileJeffersongrantsthatsomeoffendersmayretaintheirstatusasstateconstituents,providedtheirdeficiency(intheircapacityforautonomytheyarenotgovernedbythemselves,butareunderthedominionofinordinatepassions)istreatablethroughpenalreform,othersarecutofffromthebodypolitic,muchastheseditioustumorsandmaladiesthatintheFederalistwerethoughttorequirepenalinterventionasamatterofpublichealth.Eventhereformableoffendersarekeptaliveaspublicresources,orlong-continuedspectacles.43Recallthatthenotionofpenalservitudesurvivedeventheabolishment(p.101) ofslaveryintheThirteenthAmendment,somesevendecadeslater.Exterminatingtheusefuloffenderwouldbeawasteofhumanresources;excessivepunishmentisbadresourcemanagement.Atthemargins,extremedisproportionalityinfactmaynotmerelybeimprudent,butascruel


Page 15 of 24


andunusual,inthefamiliarwordsoftheEighthAmendment,copiedfromtheEnglishBillofRightsof1689,whichitselfdrewonMagnaCartamaymanifestabasicunfitnessforthejobofhouseholder,onthegroundthattheheartiswrong.44

Whenpenaldisciplineisclearlyinconsistentwithproperhouseholdingiesafeguardingandmaximizing,inotherwords,managingresourcesitmaysuggestthatitisnotpenaldisciplineatall;insteaditisanacting-outonthepartofthegovernor/householderwho,intheguiseofheteronomoushouseholdrule,infactdisplaystheveryincapacityforruleofhimselfandothersthatmarkstheobjectsofhispowerasobjects.Asaslavetohispassions(hismalice,cruelty,etc),hehasrevealedhimself(asmeasuredthroughprudentialdevicessuchastheruleofthumborthedeprivationoflifeorlimb)asunfittogovern,andasfittobegovernedinstead.45Andsothelimitationonthestate'spowertopunish(aslaidoutintheEighthAmendmentanditsverysimilarlywordedstateanalogues)emergesasrootedinthesamepoliceparadigmthatJefferson'spreamblecannot,intheend,transcend.46

ItisofcourseunfairtosubjectJefferson'sshortpreambletohisshortVirginiacriminallawbilltoprolongedcriticalanalysis.Itistheclosestthingtoarecognitionoftheideaofnewfoundationofcriminallawinthenewrepublicthatthefoundinggenerationproduced.Itcouldwellhavebeendevelopedintoamorecomprehensiveaccountofthenewcriminallawinlightofthefundamentalprinciplesthatdrovetherevolution.Andsuchacomprehensiveaccount,ratherthanJefferson'sbriefcommentsinthepreamble,wouldthenbetheproperobjectofsustainedcriticalanalysis.Butnosuchcomprehensiveaccountmaterialized.Thepreambleisnotonlybrief,andambiguousinitsrecognitionoftheenormityandtheimportanceofthetaskoflegitimatingcriminallawaslawaspartofaprojectthatvieweditselfasaradicalreconsiderationofthefundamentalsofstatepower,italsohadnoimpactwhatsoever.

Jefferson'scontemporariesignoredit;Jeffersonscholarsignoredit;and,what'smosttelling,Jeffersonhimselfignoredit,notjustingeneralandlateron,butintheverybilltowhichthepreambleisattached.Thebillitselfbearsvirtuallynotraceofthepreamble'sapproachtotheproblemofstatepunishmentinthenewrepublic.Thebillinsteadisahaphazardcollectionofunconsideredrestatementsofcommonlawpunishments,asdescribedbyLordCoke,whomJeffersongreatlyadmired.The(p.102) lextalionistruetoJefferson'srenditionoftheVirginialawrevisioncommittee'sbriefdiscussionofcriminallawmakesseveralappearances,bothinthetextofthebillandinthecopiousfootnotes,whichcontainsomanyquotesfromAnglo-SaxondoomsthattheeditorofJefferson'spapershadtoenlisttheservicesofanAnglo-Saxonscholar.Ducking,whipping,andthepilloryappearassanctions,asdoescastrationor,inthecaseofafemaleoffender,cuttingthrothecartilageofhernoseaholeofonehalfinchdiameterattheleast(forrape,polygamy,orsodomy),alongwithpoisoning(astalionicpunishmentforpoisoning)andmaiming(formaiming).

Jeffersondidspendalotoftimeonthecriminallawbill,notonitssubstance,butonitsform.Hecreatedtwoversionsofthebill,withornatemarginaliainthestyleofhisadmiredCoke.SoeagerwasJeffersontoadoptaCokelookthatheadoptedCoke's


Page 16 of 24


spellingby,forinstance,changingthespellingofforfeittoforfiet(seeabove).47Intheend,Jeffersonusedthecriminallawbillasanelaborate,andtime-consuming,calligraphicexercise,practisinganddisplayinghissuperbpenmanship.48ThebestthatcanbeandhasbeensaidaboutthebillbythefewJeffersonbiographersandeditorswhohavepaidattentiontoitisthatitisanextraordinarilybeautifuldocument.49

Inhindsight,Jefferson'smodestpreambletohisuniversallyignored(andneverenacted)criminallawbillforthestateofVirginiaturnsouttohavebeenthe(firstand)lastbestchanceforengagementwiththefoundationsofAmericancriminallaw.50Thefoundationalmomenthadpassed,tobeinvokedbutneverrepeated.ThesecondconstitutionalmomentoftheCivilWaranditsimmediateaftermathdidnot,andcouldnot,createanewrepublic,norcritiquethefoundationsoflawandpoliticswiththeoriginalradicalismoftherevolutionaryperiodanditsFoundingFathers.Atanyrate,itdidnotgenerateafundamentalrevisionofAmericancriminallawinlightofbasicprinciplesoflegitimacy.Instead,theCivilWarperiodservedtocementthepre-revolutionaryviewofpenalityasbeyondcriticalanalysisand,specifically,constitutionalscrutiny.Inthisway,theThirteenthAmendmentabolishedslaverywhileatthesametimereaffirming,intheconstitutionitself,theessentialaconstitutionalityofthestate'spenalpower.(p.103)

Americancriminallawdoctrine,ifnotitsfoundations,didnotcomeinforacomprehensivereconsiderationuntilthe1950s,whentheAmericanLawInstituteturneditsattentiontothesubject.(TheALIfirstdealtwithcriminalprocedure,in1930;WorldWarIIintervenedbeforeitcouldattendtosubstantivecriminallaw.)TheprojectwasheadedupbyHerbertWechsler,whoin1937hadpublishedaprogressivecriminallawmanifestoinatwo-partarticleco-authoredwithhisColumbiacolleagueJeromeMichael,entitledARationalefortheLawofHomicide.51Thoughdraftedinthe1950sandearly1960sandcompletedin1962theModelPenalandCorrectionalCodereflectedtheprogrammesetoutinARationale,whichbothrecognizedthelackofseriousinterestincriminallawasasubjectofstudy,orreform,intheUnitedStates(thusnecessitatingamodelcode,ratherthanarestatement)andsetouttorationalizethesubjectinlightoftheprogressiveideasoftheday.52Thismeantreconceivingcriminalpunishmentaspeno-correctionaltreatment,replacingwoollynotionsofmaliceandintentwithscientificinquiriesintodangerousness,andconstructingthepenalsystemasasystemfortheidentificationandtreatmentofabnormallydangerousoffenders.TheModelPenalandCorrectionalCodethushadfourparts,thefirsttwoofwhich(thePenalCode)weredevotedtothemodernizedversionofthetraditionalrulesofcriminalliability,reconceivedaspreliminaryjudicialdiagnosesofdangerousnessleadingtopreliminarysentences,andthelattertwo(theCorrectionalCode)concernedthemselveswiththeindividualizedprofessionaldiagnosisandtreatmentofthatdangerousnessasitmanifesteditselfinspecificoffenders.53

TheModelPenalCodehadnopatienceforwhatitconsideredanachronisticandpre-scientificnotionslikeautonomyorthewill(asevidenced,forinstance,byitsrefusaltodefinevoluntarinessrequirementforcriminalliabilitysoasnottoinjectintothecriminallawquestionsaboutdeterminismorfreewill54).Itstreatmentistapproachfitsmore


Page 17 of 24


comfortablywiththepoliceparadigmofhumanresourcemanagement(bythestateofabnormalindividuals)thanwiththelawparadigm(ofequalrespectforthedignityofpersonsasendowedwithacapacityforautonomy).Atanyrate,theModelPenalCodedidnotsetouttoderiveanaccountofcriminallawfromthefoundationsoflawandpolitics.TheALIisnotabodyofPlatonianstatesmen,orFoundingFathers,butagroupoflegalprofessionals,foundedin1923topromotetheclarificationandsimplificationofthelawanditsbetteradaptationtosocialneeds,tosecurethebetteradministrationofjustice,andtoencourageandcarryonscholarlyandscientificlegalwork.(p.104)

TheModelCodeproject,then,cannotbeseenasafoundationalmomentinAmericancriminallaw.ItwassuccessfulwithinthescopeofitsambitionittriggeredwidespreadreformofAmericancriminalcodesandprovidedAmericancriminallawteachingandscholarshipwithacommon,ifartificial,platform.Itdidnot,however,facilitatethecriticalanalysisofthelegitimacyofstatepunishment.TheModelPenalandCorrectionalCodetookthesovereign'spenalpowerforgrantedand,fromthatassumption,proceededtodevisethemostsensible(andpracticallypalatable)systemforitsexercise.55Ironically,ithadvirtuallynoeffectonthetermsofcriminallawdiscourse.Whileitsrulesnotablyitstaxonomyofmentalstatesreshapedcriminallawdoctrine,theirunderlyingtreatmentistrationalewasignored,nomatterhowexplicitlyandsystematicallythatrationalewassetout,asearlyas1937,andappliedthroughoutthePenalCode(parts1and2)andtheCorrectionalCode(parts3and4).(Infact,theCorrectionalCode,whichmakesupthesecondhalfoftheModelCode,hasbeenignoredinitsentirety,eventhough,fromtheCode'streatmentistperspective,thePenalCodemakesnosensewithouttheCorrectionalCodesinceitfunctionsasthegatewaytothelatter,byproducingtheroughandpenologicallyamateurishpreliminarydiagnosesthatarefine-tunedundertheregimesetoutintheCorrectionalCode.)

Toignoredoesnotmeantoreject.ThepointisthattheModelPenalandCorrectionalCodeneithersoughtnorproducednorstimulatedaninquiryintothefoundationsofcriminallaw.Totheextentitreliesonsystematicconsiderationsthatgobeyond,orbeneath,concernsofgoodhousekeeping(suchasclarity,consistency,orevenrationality,narrowlyconstrued),ietotheextentitpresenteditselfasworkingoutthetreatmentistprogramsketchedinARationale(andotherpublicationsoftheperiod,notonlyintheUnitedStates),theModelCodehadnoimpact,orratheritappearedtomakenodifferencethatitchosetopresentitselfinthisway,ratherthaninanyother.

4CONCLUSIONAndsothegenealogyofAmericancriminallawgoesnowhere.Americancriminallawremainswithoutfoundationsand,what'smore,withoutaninquiryintoitsfoundations.ThisabsenceoffoundationshelpsaccountforthephenomenonoftheWaronCrime,whichrecentlyhasmorphedintoaWaronTerror,withoutanynoticeablesystematicresistanceintheformoffoundationalprinciplesthatrequired(p.105) engagement.Doctrinalrulesaboutmensreaandactusreus,forinstance,arebutancientbroadsheetsblowinginthewindofimminentthreatstotheauthorityofthesovereignorthewelfareofthehouseholdunderits/hiscontrol.Anachronisticslogansarenomatchfor


Page 18 of 24


therhetoricofemergency.

Ofcourse,thegenealogyofAmericancriminallawasaninquiryintofoundationsthatmayserveasthepointofreferenceforcriticalanalysisisnotemptyifonebroadensthescopeoftheinquiryfromcriminallaw,tolaw,andeventuallytostategovernmentingeneral.Thenthetaskofcriticalanalysisbecomesonemoreofapplicationthanofexcavation,orreconstruction.Thephilosophyofcriminallawwouldthenbeconcernedwiththequestionofhowasystemofcriminallawmightmanifestthefundamentalprinciple,orprinciples,oflegitimatestatepower,inotherwords,whatcriminallawaslawwouldlooklike.Eventhoughthisstrikesmeasaworthwhileendeavour,thegenealogyofAmericancriminallaw,narrowlyspeaking,remainssignificantifonlybecausethecriticalanalysisofaparticularsystemoflawmusthaveanaccountofitsabsence.Itisameaningful,andarguablydistinctive,featureofAmericancriminallawthatithasescapedcriticalanalysisinlightoffoundationalprinciplesforsolongandthatthelegitimacyofstatepunishmentattractednoattentionattheveryfoundationalmomentwhichistoserveasthebasisforitsbelatedcritique,whensomanyotherexercisesofstatepowerwerescrutinizedwithgreatenthusiasm(taxation!).

Withallthistalkabouttheabsenceofaninquiryintothefoundationsofcriminallawaslaw,onemightgetthesensethatthepolicemodelnotonlyrepresentstherealityofAmericanpenalitybutalsothatithasbeenshoweredwithsustainedattention.Thatsensewouldbemistaken.Itisonethingtopointoutthatpoliceisessentiallydiscretionary,undefinable,andultimatelyalegitimate;it'sanothertosaythatthepolicemodelisinconsistentwithseriousanalysis,period.Theabsenceofcomprehensivetreatmentsofpenalityaspoliceisnotanecessaryfeatureofthepolicemodel.Andyettherecanbenotalkofawell-worked-outprojectofAmericancriminalpolice.Americanpenalpolice,then,isnotonlyessentiallydiscretionary,butthesovereigninfacthasexercisedthatdiscretionwithoutsystematicguidance.

Thepolicesovereign,ofcourse,isnotboundbyprinciple,orlegitimacyconstraints,todevelop,recognize,orfollowguidelinesofanykind.Butthatisnottosaythatchoosingtoguideitsdiscretioninthiswaywouldbeinconsistentwithitssovereignty.Afterall,eventheancientGreekshadtheirstudiesofoikonomia(asanart,ratherthanascience),FlorencehadMachiavelli'sThePrince,seventeenth-andeighteenth-centuryGermanandFrenchrulershadtheirpolicescience(Polizeiwissenschaft)andtheirpolicetreatises(forexample,Delamare'sTraitdelapolice(17051738)),andslaveholdersintheAmericanantebellumSouthhadtheirplantationmanuals.56Inlegalacademe,theeconomicanalysisoflawhasshown(p.106) little,ifany,interestinimagininganefficientsystemofcrimecontrol(occasionalprogrammaticefforts,notablybyRichardPosner,notwithstanding57),whichisnottosaythatAmericanstateofficialswouldbeinclinedtoaccepttheguidanceofwhateversystemsof,orapproachesto,criminalpolicemightbegenerated.Intheend,thefoundationsofAmericancriminalpolicenolessrequireattentionthandothefoundationsofAmericancriminallaw.

Notes:


Page 19 of 24


(1)SeeMDubber,HistoricalAnalysisofLaw(1998)16Law&HistoryReview159.

(2)SeeMFoucault,Nietzsche,Genealogy,History,inPRabinow(ed),TheFoucaultReader(NewYork:PantheonBooks,1984),76.

(3)Onthecontrastbetweenthelawpower(Rechtsmacht)ofthestateanditspolicepower(Polizeimacht),seebelow.Thesetwopowerscorrespondtotwo,morefamiliar,conceptionsofthestate,thelawstate,orstateundertheruleoflaw(Rechtsstaat),andthepolicestate(Polizeistaat).Criminallaw(Strafrecht),ratherthancriminalpolice(Strafpolizei),then,isaparticularaspectofthestateslawpower,ratherthanitspolicepower.

(4)Ondifferentformsandusesofcomparativeanalysisincriminallaw,seeMDDubber,ComparativeCriminalLaw,inMReimannandRZimmermann(eds),OxfordHandbookofComparativeLaw(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2006),1287.

(5)Forahistoricalperspective,focusingonmoralcritique,seeJBSchneewind,TheInventionofAutonomy:AHistoryofModernMoralPhilosophy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998).

(6)Forausefuloverviewofdistinctionsamongvariousconceptsofautonomy,andtheirinterrelationship,seeJChristman,AutonomyinMoralandPoliticalPhilosophy,inENZalta(ed),StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(2003),http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/.

(7)Examplesmayincludetheoreticaland,especially,programmaticwritingsonNationalSocialistcriminallaw.SeeegGDahmandFSchaffstein,LiberalesoderautoritresStrafrecht(Hamburg:HanseatischeVerlogsanstalt1933)[LiberalorAuthoritarianCriminalLaw];GDahm,VerratundVerbrechen,(1935),95ZStW283[TreasonandFelony];FSchaffstein,DasVerbrechenalsPflichtverletzung,inKLarenz(ed),GrundfragenderneuenRechtswissenschaft(Berlin:JunkerundDnnhauptVerlag,1935),108[FelonyasViolationofDuty].

(8)OnGermancriminallegalscience,seeMDDubber,ThePromiseofGermanCriminalLaw:AScienceofCrimeandPunishment(2005)6GermanLawJournal1049.Morerecentworkinsocialscienceoflaw(lawandsociety,lawandeconomics,etc)doesnottreatthestudyoflawitselfasascience,butmerelyappliesexternalscientificmethods(sociological,psychological,economic)tolawasanobjectofstudy(likeothersocialphenomenaorhumancommunalactivitiesorinstitutions,suchasplayinggamesorrunningagang,orabusiness).

(9)SeeegE-JLampe,ZurontologischenStrukturdesstrafbarenUnrechts,inTWeigendandGKpper(eds),FestschriftfrHansJoachimHirschzum70.Geburtstag(Berlin:WalterdeGruyter,1999),83.

(10)BVerfGE120,224(26Feb2008).


Page 20 of 24


(11)Foramoredetaileddiscussionofthiscase,seeMDDubber,MoralPoliceandConstitutionalLaw(2011)61UTorontoLawJournal___(SymposiumonConstitutionalismandtheCriminalLaw).

(12)See[1993]BVerfGE88,203(SecondAbortionDecision)(relationshipbetweenmotherandembryo);cfHWeinkauff,DerNaturrechtsgedankeinderRechtsprechungdesBundesgerichtshofes(1960)NJW1689.

(13)SeeegABrudner,PunishmentandFreedom(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009)(criticalanalysisofthelegitimacyofstatepunishmentasamatterofpoliticalandconstitutionaltheory).Constitutionallaw,ofcourse,alsocanblockcriticalanalysisofthelegitimacyofstatepowerratherthanfacilitate,andreflect,it,particularlyinlegalsystemswithwrittenconstitutions.Forinstance,theAmericanlawofcriminalprocedureisbothover-constutionalizedand,atthesametime(andnotcoincidentally),under-theorized.Ratherthanprovidingthedoctrinalmeansforinquiriesintothelegitimacyofvariousproceduralinstitutionsandpractices,Americanconstitutionalcriminalprocedureobscurestheseinquiriesbyinsteadbecomingentangledinsuperficialdoctrinalmattersrevolvingaroundtheinterpretationofthespecific(andverysparse)constitutionalprovisionsinquestion,notablythe4th,5th,and6thAmendmentstotheUSConstitution.SeeMDubber,TheCriminalTrialandtheLegitimationofPunishment,inRADuffetal(eds),TheTrialonTrial(Oxford:HartPublishing,2004),85,858.

(14)SeegenerallyMDDubber,TheoriesofCrimeandPunishmentinGermanCriminalLaw(2006)53AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw679.TheconceptfirstemergedintheearlynineteenthcenturyasapositivisticchallengetoPJAFeuerbachstheoryofcrimeasaviolationofsubjectiveright(Recht),whichcouldnotaccountformoralsandpublicorderoffenses,incidentallyincludingincest,among(agreatmany)others.JMFBirnbaum,berdasErfordernieinerRechtsverletzungzumBegriffedesVerbrechens(1834)15ArchivdesCriminalrechts(NeueFolge)149.Thecompetingconceptionsofcrimeasviolationof,andthreatto,(objective)goods(Gter),ratherthan(subjective)rights(Rechte)werethencombinedinthelatenineteenthcenturyintotheconceptofRechtsgutandplacedattheheartofKarlBindingshighlyinfluentialtheoryofcriminallaw,wherethestatesrighttopunishwasnothingbuttherighttoobedienceofthelawandRechtsguthadmorphedintoanythingthatthelegislatureconsidersvaluableandtheundisturbedretentionofwhichitthereforemustensurethroughnorms.KBinding,HandbuchdesStrafrechts,vol1(Leipzig:DunckerundHumblot,1885),169.

(15)SeeegWHassemer,TheorieundSoziologiedesVerbrechens(2ndedn;Frankfurt/Main:EuropischeVerlagsanstalt,1980).

(16)OnremainingontologicalfoundationsofGermancriminallawscience,seeMMHernndez,berdieVerknpfungenvonStrafrechtsdogmatikundKriminalpolitik,inBSchnemannetal(eds),FestschriftfrClausRoxinzum70.Geburtstag(Berlin:WalterdeGruyter,2001),69,89.

(17)DSpinellis,DieStrafbarkeitdersexuellenBelstigungnachgriechischemRecht,


Page 21 of 24


inBSchnemannetal(eds),FestschriftfrClausRoxinzum70.Geburtstag(Berlin:WalterdeGruyter,2001),1467,1469.

(18)Aspurelydescriptive,positivisticaccounts,suchasthoseofBirnbaumandBinding,ofcoursearenotmeanttoplayaroleincriticalanalysisinthefirstplace.

(19)ForarecentattempttomakesenseofGermancriminallawscholarshipsself-conceptionasscience,seeUrsKindhuser,DiedeutscheStrafrechtsdogmatikzwischenAnpassungundSelbstbehauptung:GrenzkontrollederKriminalpolitikdurchdieDogmatik?(2009)121ZStW954.

(20)Consider(eg)theconstructAnglo-Americancriminallaw,whichisatbestaconvenientshorthandandatworstagrossover-simplificationthatblocksthesortofcarefulcomparativecross-systemicinquirythatmightrevealnoteworthysimilaritiesanddifferences.SeeDubber,ComparativeCriminalLaw,1287.

(21)OnthehistoryoftheCodeproject,seeSHKadish,CodifiersoftheCriminalLaw:WechslersPredecessors(1978)78ColumbiaLawReview1098;MDDubber,PenalPanopticon:TheIdeaofaModernModelPenalCode(2000)4BuffaloCriminalLawReview53.

(22)NMorrisandGJHawkins,TheHonestPoliticiansGuidetoCrimeControl(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1970).

(23)HLPacker,TheLimitsoftheCriminalSanction(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1968).

(24)Forsomeexceptions,fromthecasebookliterature,seePWLow,FederalCriminalLaw(2ndedn;NewYork:FoundationPress,2003);NAbrams,SSBeale,andSRKlein,FederalCriminalLawandItsEnforcement(5thedn;StPaul,Minn:WestPublishing,2006);MMoskovitz,CasesandProblemsinCaliforniaCriminalLaw(Cincinnati,Ohio:AndersonPublishingCompany,1999);SFShatz,CaliforniaCriminalLaw:CasesandProblems(2ndedn;Newark,NJ:LexisNexis,2004);MDDubber,NewYorkCriminalLaw:CasesandMaterials(NewYork:Aspen,2008).

(25)SeeegFouchavLouisiana,504US71,80(1992);SuttonvNewJersey,244US258(1917);CELaylinandAHTuttle,DueProcessandPunishment(1922)20MichiganLawReview614;WRLaFaveandAWScott,Jr,SubstantiveCriminalLaw(2ndedn;StPaul,Minn:West,1986),2.10;seegenerallyMDDubber,ThePolicePower:PatriarchyandtheFoundationsofAmericanGovernment(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2005).

(26)SeeMDDubber,TheStateasVictim:TreasonandtheParadoxofAmericanCriminalLaw,inMKremnitzerandKGhanayim(eds),OffencesAgainsttheState(forthcoming2011).

(27)MDDubber,ThePolicePower:PatriarchyandtheFoundationsofAmericanGovernment(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2005).


Page 22 of 24


(28)SeeKSinger,Oikonomia:AnInquiryintoBeginningsofEconomicThoughtandLanguage(1958)11Kyklos29.

(29)JJRousseau,DiscourseonPoliticalEconomy(1755).

(30)WBlackstone,CommentariesontheLawsofEnglandvol4(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1769),162.

(31)LicenseCases,46US(5How)504,583(1847);seeMDubber,ThePowertoGovernMenandThings:PatriarchalOriginsofthePolicePowerinAmericanLaw(2005)52BuffaloLawReview1277.

(32)SeeegDBNagle,TheHouseholdastheFoundationofAristotlesPolis(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006);JRoy,PolisandOikosinClassicalAthens(1999)46Greece&Rome,SecondSeries1.

(33)Foraninterestingdiscussion,seeAVirtanen,GeneralEconomy:TheEntranceofMultitudeintoProduction(2004)4Ephemera209.

(34)Thefocusofthischapterisnotonanyparticularaccountofthephilosophicalfoundationsofcriminallaw,butonthefoundationalprojectingeneral.Forrecentcitizen-,ratherthanperson-,basedtheoriesofstatepunishmentandcriminallaw,see,eg,RADuff,AnsweringforCrime(Oxford:HartPublishing,2007);CBrettschneider,TheRightsoftheGuilty:PunishmentandPoliticalLegitimacy(2007)35PoliticalTheory175;GJakobs,BrgerstrafrechtundFeindstrafrecht(2004)5HRR-Strafrecht88;MPawlik,Person,Subjekt,Brger(Berlin:DunckerundHumblotVerlag,2004);seegenerallyMDubber,CitizenshipandPenalLaw(2010)13NewCriminalLawReview190.

(35)RuffinvCommonwealth,62Va790,796(1871).

(36)AHamilton,FederalistNo15,pp73,78;AHamilton,FederalistNo21,p106.

(37)AHamilton,FederalistNo16,pp81,85.

(38)AHamilton,FederalistNo28,pp146,146.

(39)Onthepointlessnessofproceduralprotectionsinthefaceofanunconstrainedandunconsideredsubstantivepenalregime,seeegHMHart,Jr,TheAimsoftheCriminalLaw(1958)23LawandContemporaryProblems401,431;seealsoMDubber,TowardaConstitutionalLawofCrimeandPunishment(2004)55HastingsLawJournal509.

(40)Foramoredetailedanalysisofthebill,seeMDDubber,AnExtraordinarilyBeautifulDocument:JeffersonsBillforProportioningCrimesandPunishmentsandtheChallengeofRepublicanPunishment,inMDDubberandLFarmer(eds),ModernHistoriesofCrimeandPunishment(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,2007),115.

(41)TJefferson,Autobiography(1821).


Page 23 of 24


(42)Onthedutytopunish,seeKGnther,IsthereaResponsibilitytoProtectByCriminalLaw?(2011)61UTorontoLawJournal___(SymposiumonConstitutionalismandtheCriminalLaw).

(43)Capitaloffenders,too,mightserveaspublicspectacles,asinthecaseofthoseconvictedofduelling,whowerehanged,and,iftheywerethechallenger,hadtheirbodygibbetedafterdeath;theremovaloftheircorpse,forgoodmeasure,wasdeclaredamisdemeanourandtheofficerinstructedtoseethatitbereplaced.SecVI.Inanotherbill,Jeffersonsetoutingreaterdetailwhathehadinmindforthoseconvictedofnon-capitaloffences:[M]alefactorsshallbeemployedtorowinthegalliesofthecommonwealth,ortoworkintheleadmines,oronfortificationsorsuchotherhardandlaboriousworks,forthebehoofofthecommonwealth,asbytheGovernorandCouncil,intheirdiscretion,shallbedirected:Andduringthetermoftheircondemnationshallhavetheirheadsandbeardsconstantlyshaven,andbeclothedinhabitsofcoarsematerials,uniformincolorandmake,anddistinguishedfromallothersusedbythegoodcitizensofthiscommonwealthABillfortheEmployment,GovernmentandSupportofMalefactorsCondemnedtoLabourfortheCommonwealth,inJPBoydetal(eds),ThomasJefferson,Papers,vol2(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1950),513.

(44)UnitedStatesvClark,31F710(EDMich1887).

(45)SeeDubber,AnExtraordinarilyBeautifulDocument,115,1224.

(46)Seegenerallyibid115.

(47)JPBoydetal(eds),ThomasJefferson,Papersvol2(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1950),504.

(48)Ibid505;cfDMalone,JeffersonandHisTimevol1:JeffersontheVirginian(Boston:LittleBrownandCompany,1948),26970.

(49)Ibid26970.

(50)EdwardLivingstonsambitious,andalsounenacted,criminalcodeswereanexerciseincodification,andmoreparticularlytheapplicationofBenthamsgreatprincipleofutility!;theydidnotundertakeacriticalanalysisofthelegitimacyofstatespowertopunishinarepublicbasedontheprincipleofautonomy,butinsteadsoughttocategorizeand,perhaps,torationalizetheexerciseofthatpowerinvariousdoctrinalcontexts.SeeKadish,CodifiersoftheCriminalLaw,1098;ELivingston,TheCompleteWorksofEdwardLivingstononCriminalJurisprudence,vol1(NewYork,1873).

(51)JMichaelandHWechsler,ARationaleoftheLawofHomicide(PartsI&II)(1937)37ColumbiaLawReview701,1261.

(52)SeeDubber,PenalPanopticon,53;MDDubber,VictimsintheWaronCrime:TheUseandAbuseofVictimsRights(NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,2002),12847.


Page 24 of 24


(53)SeeMDubber,CriminalLaw:ModelPenalCode(NewYork:FoundationPress,2002),ch1;Dubber,PenalPanopticon,53.

(54)ModelPenalCodeandCommentaries2.01,at215(1985).

(55)HerbertPackercalledthisthedraftersprincipledpragmatism.HLPacker,TheModelPenalCodeandBeyond(1963)63ColumbiaLawReview594.

(56)SeeJABush,FreetoEnslave:TheFoundationsofColonialAmericanSlaveLaw(1993)5YaleJournalofLawandtheHumanities417,426.

(57)EgRAPosnerandTJPhilipson,TheEconomicEpidemiologyofCrime(1996)39JournalofLawandEconomics405.

Accessbroughttoyouby: PontificiaUniversidadCatolicadelPeru(PUCP)