Research On Joel Feinberg's Theory Of Criminal Law Moral Limits

The boundaries of criminal law have always been a core issue explored in the field of criminal law.Feinberg raised a question from the perspective of philosophy and criminal law: "What kind of behavior should the country criminalize?" As a model for liberals Berg first limited the scope of application of the Mill's damage principle,and believed that the principle of damage should be the most basic principle of criminalization of criminal law.Second,is the principle of damage the only one? Feinberg discusses the offensive principle,legal moralism and legal paternalism.According to the offensive principle,Feinberg regards it as minor damage,but does not reach the scope of harm.In response to legal paternalism,Feinberg takes voluntary as the main test standard,and against others' true and voluntary meaning,the law should not prohibit it,and everyone has the freedom to control themselves and even life and death.In view of the principle of legal moralism,Feinberg believes that there are two ways to classify,one is that the behavior does not constitute an act that should be prohibited by criminal law at all,and the other can be coordinated through the principle of harm and offense.Feinberg's summary and interpretation of the four principles have constructed a complete principle of legitimacy in criminal law for us.Feinberger mainly takes the principle of harm as the principle of legitimacy,and the offense principle is a supplement to the principle of harm.Therefore,Feinberger agreed with the principle of harm and the principle of supplemental offense as the criterion of criminalization of criminal law.At the same time,many scholars refuted Feinberg's theory.First,according to the principles of legal moralism,some scholars have put forward the concept of common good to maintain the viewpoint of legal moralism.Second,with regard to the offensive principle,some scholars have suggested that the offense of the senses and emotions is not an objective thing that can be judged,it is difficult to measure and define,and the offense and damage have not proposed a clear boundary to distinguish.