(2011) Israel Law Review, Vol. 44:91, pp. 91-113
23 Pages Posted: 9 Jan 2013
Date Written: 2011
This comment argues that courts should focus on the negative liberty interests of the accused and the proportionality of state-imposed limits on those interests, as opposed to the human dignity of either the accused or the victim, when determining the constitutionality of criminal laws. The first part of the comment examines the Canadian experience with regard to the constitutional control of the criminal law. Canadian courts have focused on the liberty of the accused but have been unwilling to consider how the liberty interests of the accused can be subject to proportionate limitations. The next part suggests that human dignity has a dual character that can both support and oppose many controversial parts of the criminal law and as such is not particularly helpful for courts in assessing the constitutionality of criminal laws. The third part critically examines the presumptions of constitutionality proposed by Gur-Arye and Weigend and suggests that human dignity has little work to do in these presumptions. The last part suggests that a focus on the negative liberty of the accused and the proportionality of the state’s limits on those rights provides the best foundation for constitutional control of the criminal law.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Roach, Kent, The Primacy of Liberty and Proportionality, Not Human Dignity, When Subjecting Criminal Law to Constitutional Control (2011). (2011) Israel Law Review, Vol. 44:91, pp. 91-113. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2198553