Beyond fair labelling: Offence differentiation in criminal law

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract / Description of output

How should criminal conduct be divided among different offences? To date, this question has received only one serious answer: the fair labelling principle, which states that distinctions among offences should reflect distinctions in the nature and seriousness of the wrongdoing that they criminalise. This article argues that the fair labelling principle should not be the sole or main principle governing offence differentiation decisions. Its argument consists in three main claims. First, the only plausible foundation for the principle is a duty to ensure that the blame expressed through criminal conviction is allocated justly. Second, this duty cannot be absolute: if it were, the result would be an absurdly highly differentiated criminal law. Third, several other factors are relevant to how we should differentiate offences, and these will often count against the demands of just blaming. A complete normative account of offence differentiation must thus extend beyond fair labelling – or indeed, any single principle.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbergqac007
Pages (from-to)985-1011
Number of pages28
JournalOxford Journal of Legal Studies
Issue number4
Early online date28 May 2022
Publication statusPublished - 12 Dec 2022

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

  • fair labelling
  • offence differentiation
  • blame
  • blameworthiness


Dive into the research topics of 'Beyond fair labelling: Offence differentiation in criminal law'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this