The Advent of Preventive Criminal Law: An Erosion of the Traditional Criminal Law?

Abstract

Criminal law in contemporary societies is undergoing a transformation or according to some, even a paradigm shift. The reach of criminal law is now extended to terrains that were hitherto immune to criminalization. These new forms of criminalization. in post-heroic risk societies are targeting conduct well before it causes a harm. The prime examples of this preventive criminalization. are pre-inchoate offences, crimes of possession of “innocent” objects and crimes of abstract endangerment. The common trait of these offences is that they enable the so-called preponing criminal liability (Vorverlagerung), through which the earliest of preparatory acts, neutral, everyday activities such as merely standing around or merely possessing may well fall within the reach of criminal law. This phenomenon is now taking place virtually everywhere considered by many as an erosion of the traditional post-enlightenment criminal law model. Yet, proponents of the preventive criminal law are suggesting that such laws are needed in order to avert risks (terrorist attacks, for instance) while they are at preparation phase. There is, therefore, a tension between the traditional criminal law and new security interests that pose new questions which need to be addressed by a meticulous analysis. In this article I shall try to deal with following questions: Whether these preventive offences are inherently incompatible with the rule of law? How far a law-abiding nation can go in criminalizing preparatory acts? Are there any promising constraining constitutional principles or instances that delimit preventive criminalization?