Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since Milsom’s famous dismissal of the “miserable history of crime in England,” criminal law has undergone a revolution in constitutional significance. The rise of rights constitutionalism as the heart of the modern liberal rule of law has given criminal law a new life in which it is subject to substantial justice-based innovation through appeal to the internal and basic norms of the legal system itself. Far from the marginal and exceptional status once ascribed to it by Milsom, this chapter argues that criminal law is now best understood and approached as a species of constitutional reflection. Substantive criminal law has become a laboratory for the constitutional, focussing and advancing classic questions of constitutional concern, while at the same time traditional questions of criminal law theory have themselves begun to translate into a constitutional register. Thematically, this chapter considers the way in which substantive criminal law has become a site for reflection on sovereignty and state violence; the anthropology of the legal subject; the rule of proportionality; and the relationship between judgment, discretion, and mercy. The chapter then turns to the constitutionalization of questions of the limits of the criminal law, fault, criminal defences, and standards for punishment. Juridical exploration of the relationship between substantive criminal law and constitutional principles has been uneven across national traditions; accordingly, this chapter draws significantly from the Canadian jurisprudence, which has been at the vanguard of this process. Ultimately, the chapter identifies a challenging irony: that despite a profound change in the imaginative relationship between criminal law and the larger legal structure, more of Milsom’s assessment remains apposite than we might have hoped – the contemporary history of criminal law is still invested with its share of misery and much criminal justice is still left to be done in spite of the law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".