Regulating Preventive Justice: Principle, Policy and Paradox
 |
| Anteprima |
Like
medicine, law is replete with axioms of prevention. ‘Prevention is
better than cure’ has a long pedigree in both fields. 17th century
jurist Sir Edward Coke observed that ‘preventing justice excelleth
punishing justice’. A century later, Sir William Blackstone similarly
stated that ‘preventive justice is ...preferable in all respects to
punishing justice’. This book evaluates the feasibility and legitimacy
of state attempts to regulate prevention. Though prevention may be
desirable as a matter of policy, questions are inevitably raised as to
its limits and legitimacy, specifically, how society reconciles the
desirability of averting risks of future harm with respect for the rule
of law, procedural fairness and human rights.
While
these are not new questions for legal scholars, they have been brought
into sharper relief in policy and academic circles in the wake of the
September 11 terrorist attacks. Over the past 15 years, a body of legal
scholarship has tracked the intensified preventive focus of
anti-terrorism law and policy, observing how this focus has impacted
negatively upon traditional legal frameworks. However, preventive law
and policy in other contexts, such as environmental protection, mental
health, immigration and corruption has not received sustained focus.
This book extends that body of scholarship, through use of case studies
from these diverse regulatory settings, in order to examine and critique
the principles, policies and paradoxes of preventive justice.
"Whereas
earlier scholars looked upon preventive justice as a source and means
of regulation, the powerfully argued contributions to this volume
provide forceful reasons to consider whether we would do better talk
about regulating preventive justice."
