ABSTRACT
A common form of argument and analysis when discussing legal liability is to claim that “justice” requires one result or another. The “justice” argument is used most often and with greatest conviction when analyzing criminal liability, because criminal law is thought to be premised on principles of blameworthiness and desert. Desert theorists argue that criminal law doctrine should be formulated to punish blameworthy offenders; the distribution of just punishments ought to be the ultimate goal of criminal law. Professor Robinson is knowledgeable about criminal law as it is represented in the legal codes that govern the criminal justice system’s determinations of trial outcomes and assignments of criminal liability. Much empirical work has been done on criminal justice issues, especially those that relate to the causes of crime and its effective treatment or control. In light of the social science interest in a wide range of criminal justice issues, the absence of liability and punishment studies puzzles us.
