The specialness of the general part of the criminal law

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

Glanville Williams and the general part Glanville Williams is often and rightly credited with the emergence of the idea that criminal law has something aptly called a “general part.” This is because of his highly regarded book of 1953, Criminal Law: The General Part, reissued in its even better known second edition in 1961. Williams was in truth the originator of neither the idea nor the label. In 1947, Jerome Hall had earlier explored the idea of there being “the ‘general part’ of the criminal law,” tracing the origins of the idea and the label to Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, published in 1682. Hall also mentions James Stephen, who (in Stephen’s own words) sought to give a systematic treatment of the “general doctrines pervading the whole subject” of criminal law, doctrines “which enter more or less into the definition of all offenses.” Still, it was Williams’ book that placed the general part of the criminal law squarely in the forefront of the agendas of both academics writing about criminal law, and drafters seeking to systematically codify the criminal law. Despite occasional dissents, it is the agenda that we all carry on today. Williams himself appeared to regard the distinction (between the general and special parts of the criminal law) to be unproblematic. The general part was. well, general. As he said in his preface to Criminal Law: The General Part, the general part consisted of those “general rules of the criminal law, i.e., those applying to more than one crime.” In its reliance on generality to mark the distinction, this was similar to Jerome Hall’s conception of the distinction. Hall wrote in 1947 that the general part consisted of “certain generalizations [that] apply to all prescriptions of particular offenses,” whereas the rules containing such prescriptions constituted the special part.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationThe Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law
Subtitle of host publicationThe Legacy of Glanville Williams
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages69-105
Number of pages37
ISBN (Electronic)9781139104159
ISBN (Print)9781107020474
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

criminal law
offense
doctrine
medication
edition

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Moore, M. (2013). The specialness of the general part of the criminal law. In The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of Glanville Williams (pp. 69-105). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139104159.005

The specialness of the general part of the criminal law. / Moore, Michael.

The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of Glanville Williams. Cambridge University Press, 2013. p. 69-105.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Moore, M 2013, The specialness of the general part of the criminal law. in The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of Glanville Williams. Cambridge University Press, pp. 69-105. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139104159.005
Moore M. The specialness of the general part of the criminal law. In The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of Glanville Williams. Cambridge University Press. 2013. p. 69-105 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139104159.005
Moore, Michael. / The specialness of the general part of the criminal law. The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of Glanville Williams. Cambridge University Press, 2013. pp. 69-105
@inbook{f7b45136a2244c1e81f2509b5d61ce22,
title = "The specialness of the general part of the criminal law",
abstract = "Glanville Williams and the general part Glanville Williams is often and rightly credited with the emergence of the idea that criminal law has something aptly called a “general part.” This is because of his highly regarded book of 1953, Criminal Law: The General Part, reissued in its even better known second edition in 1961. Williams was in truth the originator of neither the idea nor the label. In 1947, Jerome Hall had earlier explored the idea of there being “the ‘general part’ of the criminal law,” tracing the origins of the idea and the label to Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, published in 1682. Hall also mentions James Stephen, who (in Stephen’s own words) sought to give a systematic treatment of the “general doctrines pervading the whole subject” of criminal law, doctrines “which enter more or less into the definition of all offenses.” Still, it was Williams’ book that placed the general part of the criminal law squarely in the forefront of the agendas of both academics writing about criminal law, and drafters seeking to systematically codify the criminal law. Despite occasional dissents, it is the agenda that we all carry on today. Williams himself appeared to regard the distinction (between the general and special parts of the criminal law) to be unproblematic. The general part was. well, general. As he said in his preface to Criminal Law: The General Part, the general part consisted of those “general rules of the criminal law, i.e., those applying to more than one crime.” In its reliance on generality to mark the distinction, this was similar to Jerome Hall’s conception of the distinction. Hall wrote in 1947 that the general part consisted of “certain generalizations [that] apply to all prescriptions of particular offenses,” whereas the rules containing such prescriptions constituted the special part.",
author = "Michael Moore",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9781139104159.005",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781107020474",
pages = "69--105",
booktitle = "The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - The specialness of the general part of the criminal law

AU - Moore, Michael

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Glanville Williams and the general part Glanville Williams is often and rightly credited with the emergence of the idea that criminal law has something aptly called a “general part.” This is because of his highly regarded book of 1953, Criminal Law: The General Part, reissued in its even better known second edition in 1961. Williams was in truth the originator of neither the idea nor the label. In 1947, Jerome Hall had earlier explored the idea of there being “the ‘general part’ of the criminal law,” tracing the origins of the idea and the label to Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, published in 1682. Hall also mentions James Stephen, who (in Stephen’s own words) sought to give a systematic treatment of the “general doctrines pervading the whole subject” of criminal law, doctrines “which enter more or less into the definition of all offenses.” Still, it was Williams’ book that placed the general part of the criminal law squarely in the forefront of the agendas of both academics writing about criminal law, and drafters seeking to systematically codify the criminal law. Despite occasional dissents, it is the agenda that we all carry on today. Williams himself appeared to regard the distinction (between the general and special parts of the criminal law) to be unproblematic. The general part was. well, general. As he said in his preface to Criminal Law: The General Part, the general part consisted of those “general rules of the criminal law, i.e., those applying to more than one crime.” In its reliance on generality to mark the distinction, this was similar to Jerome Hall’s conception of the distinction. Hall wrote in 1947 that the general part consisted of “certain generalizations [that] apply to all prescriptions of particular offenses,” whereas the rules containing such prescriptions constituted the special part.

AB - Glanville Williams and the general part Glanville Williams is often and rightly credited with the emergence of the idea that criminal law has something aptly called a “general part.” This is because of his highly regarded book of 1953, Criminal Law: The General Part, reissued in its even better known second edition in 1961. Williams was in truth the originator of neither the idea nor the label. In 1947, Jerome Hall had earlier explored the idea of there being “the ‘general part’ of the criminal law,” tracing the origins of the idea and the label to Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, published in 1682. Hall also mentions James Stephen, who (in Stephen’s own words) sought to give a systematic treatment of the “general doctrines pervading the whole subject” of criminal law, doctrines “which enter more or less into the definition of all offenses.” Still, it was Williams’ book that placed the general part of the criminal law squarely in the forefront of the agendas of both academics writing about criminal law, and drafters seeking to systematically codify the criminal law. Despite occasional dissents, it is the agenda that we all carry on today. Williams himself appeared to regard the distinction (between the general and special parts of the criminal law) to be unproblematic. The general part was. well, general. As he said in his preface to Criminal Law: The General Part, the general part consisted of those “general rules of the criminal law, i.e., those applying to more than one crime.” In its reliance on generality to mark the distinction, this was similar to Jerome Hall’s conception of the distinction. Hall wrote in 1947 that the general part consisted of “certain generalizations [that] apply to all prescriptions of particular offenses,” whereas the rules containing such prescriptions constituted the special part.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923424631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923424631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781139104159.005

DO - 10.1017/CBO9781139104159.005

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84923424631

SN - 9781107020474

SP - 69

EP - 105

BT - The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -