ABSTRACT

In the first forty years of the nineteenth century the whole shape of criminal justice in England was brought into question through debates on the criminal law. On the one side were those who trusted the judiciary and defended the existing law as giving the discretion that prosecutors and the courts needed. On the other were those who portrayed this discretion as a lottery, arguing that the deterrent effects for criminals were negligible. This latter group called for consolidation and an alleviation of the severity of the law together with its more consistent application. In the passages below, the arguments for and against change are put forward by two writers: the first, taken from the works of William Paley-Archdeacon of Carlisle at the time of writing the Cambridge textbook Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (1785)—who argued that the law already provided a powerful, wide-ranging deterrent; the second is taken from a speech by Henry Brougham, a former Lord Chancellor (1830-34), editor of the radical journal Edinburgh Review and active civil-law reformist. He ridiculed the traditionalists, arguing for an approach to prevention which encompassed efficient implementation of the law and more attention to general morality.