Indirect Crimes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract / Description of output

Both law and morality routinely distinguish between direct wrongs of causing harm oneself and indirect wrongs of contributing to another’s harmful actions. This article asks whether this distinction matters for the purposes of a theory of criminalisation. It argues that, in some respects, the distinction matters less than is often supposed: generally, the potential future actions of others have at least some relevance to what we ought to do. However, it is morally significant that criminal liability for indirect wrongdoing can make our freedom to do valuable things contingent upon others’ failure to comply with their moral obligations. This raises substantial concerns of autonomy and fairness that tell against the creation of some – but by no means all – indirect crimes.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)485-514
JournalLaw and Philosophy
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2013


Dive into the research topics of 'Indirect Crimes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this