A Functional Analysis of
|1.||to forbid and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests;|
|2.||to give fair warning of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense;|
|3.||to safeguard conduct that is without fault from condemnation as criminal;|
|4.||to subject to public control persons whose conduct indicates that they are disposed to commit crimes;|
|5.||to differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses.1|
The first two purposes embody the rule articulation function, the second two the liability assignment function, and the last the grading function. This Chapter dissects current criminal law doctrine in terms of these three functions, and demonstrates that one can identify specific doctrines as serving specific functions.
The functional differences among doctrines have not been obvious in the past, in part because the current organizing structure of criminal law uses distinctions that obscure the law's different functions. The central organizing distinctions in criminal law doctrine have traditionally been those between offences and defences and between 'actus reus' and 'mens rea' requirements. Yet, as Chapter 3 demonstrates, each of these categories, as well as the subcategories into which they commonly are divided, contains doctrines that perform each of the three functions of rule articulation, liability assignment, and grading.____________________