JUSTIFICATIONS FOR PREVENTIVE OFFENCES

Abstract

This thesis examines preventive offences where states criminalise preliminary conduct on a pre-emptive basis: where objectively harmless conduct is prohibited in order to prevent a future harm occurrence. It argues that, despite their potential to be illiberal, preventive offences cannot be ruled out tout court by classical restraint principles. This thesis examines why the preparation/attempt line should be maintained. What sets an attempt and a preliminary action apart is the degree of culpability. Since an attempter burns a larger locus poenitentiae by longer manifesting his wrongful intention, a person who begins her criminal plan has lesser blameworthiness and attracts lesser criminal response. This thesis examines the defences of necessity, reasonableness, and renunciation as possible limits of preventive offences. Also, it argues that a non-criminal regime is a better regulatory solution for preparatory wrongs, since it can achieve the same preventive goal without compromising the criminal law’s functions and status.