We will be closed from 5pm BST on Friday 23rd May for the May bank holiday, re-opening at 8.30am BST on Tuesday 26th May. Any orders placed during this period will be processed when we re-open.
The eBooks we sell are sold as a single-user licence and are intended for the end user only.
The sale of some eBooks are restricted to certain countries. To alert you to such restrictions, please select the country of the billing address of your credit or debit card you wish to use for payment.
For further information see https://www.wildy.com/ebook-formats
Once the order is confirmed an e-mail will be sent to you to allow you to download the eBook. For UK purchases this will be automatic. For purchases outside the UK a member of staff will need to confirm the sale. (Staff are available to do this during normal business hours, Mon-Fri 8:30-17:00 UK time)
All eBooks are supplied firm sale and cannot be returned. If you believe there is a fault with your eBook then contact us on ebooks@wildy.com and we will help in resolving the issue. This does not affect your statutory rights.
What sort of conduct may the state legitimately make criminal?" This book compares the civil and common law approach to analyze this question. Siting the study within the Australian and German context, the book contrasts the Australian system with the German model based on "Rechtsgutstheorie".
Supported by interviews with Australian criminal law experts, the work contrasts the largely descriptive, criminology-based Australian approach with the more sophisticated German model which is driven by legal theory which in turn has influenced the development of the criminal law. The hypothesis is framed that, as a result, the Australian approach suffers from a "normative flaw", which is illustrated by comparing the different approaches to the offences of incest, bestiality and possession of illicit drugs.
It is ultimately contended that, while there is strength in the Common law approach of describing the possible reasons for criminalising certain conduct, the approach could be significantly improved by scrutinizing the legitimacy of those reasons. The author argues that this could in turn develop into a normative concept to identify the "good reasons" for criminalisation.
