Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
UniversityPressScholarshipOnline
OxfordScholarshipOnline
TheBordersofPunishment:Migration,Citizenship,and
SocialExclusion
KatjaFrankoAasandMaryBosworth
Printpublicationdate:2013
PrintISBN-13:9780199669394
PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:September2013
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669394.001.0001
IstheCriminalLawOnlyforCitizens?AProblemattheBordersofPunishment
LuciaZedner
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669394.003.0003
AbstractandKeywords
Thischapterexaminestheplaceofthecitizenindifferentconceptionsofthecriminallaw,
andexplorestheimplicationsforthosewhoarenotcitizens.Itlooksatdebatesincriminal
lawtheoryaboutthe‘problem’ofthenon-citizen,whichrangefromtreatingthenoncitizenasaguesttowhomhospitalityisowedtotreatinghimorherasanon-memberof
thelegalcommunity—anuntrustworthyfiguretowhomlesserobligationsareowed.It
examinesthetenetsofFeindstrafrecht—acriminallawforenemiesdistinctfrom
Bürgerstrafrecht,thecriminallawonlyforcitizens.Itisarguedthatthecentralityof
citizenshiptothecriminallawandpunishmentposesintractableproblemsforthose
whosecitizenshipstatusisabsent,indoubt,orirregular,andmakesitpossibleto
conceiveofFeindstrafrecht,withalltheadverseconsequencesthatthisentails.
Keywords:citizenship,criminallaw,non-citizens,punishment,Feindstrafrecht,enemies,Bürgerstrafrecht
Page 1 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
Itisashameandbadtastetobeanalien,anditisnousepretendingotherwise.
Thereisnowayoutofit.Acriminalmayimproveandbecomeadecentmemberof
society.Aforeignercannotimprove.Onceaforeigner,alwaysaforeigner.Thereis
nowayoutforhim.2
Introduction
Crimesofmobility,thepolicingofborders,andthecarceralinstitutionsofimmigration
detentionanddeportationareallrelativelynewobjectsofcriminologicalenquiry.A
developingconvergencebetweencriminology,migration,andrefugeestudiesrefocuses
attentionawayfromthestudyofdomesticcrimetobordersandbeyond,toexaminethe
waysinwhichunlawfulimmigrantsarepolicedlongbeforetheystepondomesticsoil.
Scholarsinterestedinthepolicingofbordersare,perhapspredictably,chieflyinterested
inwhathappensatthosebordersandintheinstitutionsofbordercontrol,wherever
theyarephysicallylocated(Aas2012).Thischaptersuggeststhatunderstandingthe
bordersofpunishmentmightprofitfromcloserattentiontointernalquestionsaboutthe
constitutionalstructuresofthecriminallaw,itsauthority,anditsscope.Weneedto
addressthequestionofborder,inotherwords,fromtheinsideout.
Competingaccountsofwhatgroundsthecriminallawandwhatjustifiespunishment
attachdifferentweighttotheimportanceofrelationsbetweenstateandcitizenandto
lateralrelationsamongcitizens—ofwhichmoreanon.Buttheyholdincommontheview
thatcitizenshipiscentralinexplainingtheobligations(p.41) thatindividualsoweunder
thecriminallawandinjustifyingthecensureandsanctionofthosewhotransgressits
norms.3Citizenshipisalsosaidtogroundtheobligationsthatthestateowestothe
accused,andithasbeendeployedveryeffectivelytoarticulateaparsimoniousaccount
ofthelimitsofjustifiedpunishment(Duff2010a).Thisisallwellandgoodifoneisacitizen
inreceiptoftheprotectionsandpartytothereciprocalobligationsthatattachtobeinga
legalresidentofone’scountry.Butthegroundingofcriminallawandpunishmentinthe
personofthecitizenleavesunansweredlargequestionsabouttheambiguousstatusof
thosewhoarenot,ornotyet,ornolonger,legalcitizens.4
Thischapterexaminestheplaceofthecitizenindifferingconceptionsofthecriminallaw,
andexplorestheimplicationsforthosewhoarenotcitizens.Itgoesontoexamine
contemporarydebatesincriminallawtheoryaboutthe‘problem’ofthenon-citizen.
Theserangebetween,atbest,treatingthenon-citizenasaguesttowhomhospitalityis
owed,to,atworst,treatinghimorherasanon-memberofthelegalcommunity,an
untrustworthyfiguretowhomlesserobligationsareowed.Thechapterwillsuggestthat
thedifficultiesentailedbytheseaccountsrevealthehazardsofpredicatingthe
obligationsofcriminallawuponcitizenship.Importanttooarechangesinthearchitecture
ofoffencesandincriminalprocedure.Thetrendtowardstatusoffencesandrecourseto
civil-criminalhybridpreventiveorders,designedtorestrainandmonitorthosedeemed
untrustworthy,alsohasadverseimplicationsforresponsestothenon-citizen.
Notwithstandingthefactthatthecriminallawisconventionallypredicatedonthefigureof
thecitizen,thecriminalizationofthenon-citizenforbreachesofimmigrationlaws
proceedsapace.Alivertireportsthatwhile70immigrationoffenceswerepassedinthe
Page 2 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
UKfrom1905to1996,84newimmigrationoffenceswerecreatedfrom1997to2010in
sixActspassedbytheLabourgovernment.TheImmigrationandAsylumAct1999alone
created35newimmigration-relatedoffences,includingdeceptionintendedtocircumvent
immigrationenforcementactions;falseordishonestrepresentationbyasylumclaimants;
failurebyasponsortomaintainclaimants;andoffencesrelatingtotheenforcementof
disciplineinsideremovalcentres.TheNationality,ImmigrationandAsylumAct2002
addedfurtheroffences,includingassistingunlawfulimmigrationtoaMemberStatebya
non-EUcitizen;helpinganasylumseekertoentertheUnitedKingdom‘knowinglyandfor
gain’;andassistingentrytotheUnitedKingdominbreachofadeportationorexclusion
order.FurtheroffenceswereaddedbytheAsylumandImmigrationAct2004(which
madefailuretoproduceapassportandfailureto(p.42) cooperatewithdeportationor
removalprocedureswithoutareasonableexcusecrimes),aswellasbytheUKBorder
AgencyAct2007andtheBorders,CitizenshipandImmigrationAct2009(Aliverti2012a;
Aliverti2012b).Thephenomenonof‘crimmigration’hasrightlyattractedscholarly
attentionandconcern.5Lessattentionhasbeenpaidtothefactthatmanyimmigration
offencesfailtosatisfybasicprinciplesofcriminallaw.Thisfailure,andouracceptanceofit,
demandsexplanation.Inseekingtoexplainthesetrends,thechapterwillexaminethe
tenetsofFeindstrafrecht—acriminallawforenemiesdistinctfromBürgerstrafrecht,the
criminallawonlyforcitizens.AccordingtoJakobs,Feindstrafrechtappliestothoseto
whomthenormalprotectionsofthecriminallawandcriminalproceduredonotand
shouldnotapply.ThischapterwillexploreheateddebatesinGermanyandelsewhere
abouttheclaimsofFeindstrafrecht.Itwillsuggestthatthepossibilityofpositinga
separate,lessfavourable‘lawforenemies’derivesdirectlyfromthefactthatthecriminal
lawispredicateduponcitizenship,sinceitisthisthatopensthewaytodifferential,less
favourabletreatmentofnon-citizens.Inshort,thischapterwillsuggestthatthecentrality
ofcitizenshiptothecriminallawandpunishmentposesintractableproblemsforthose
whosecitizenshipstatusisabsent,indoubt,orirregularandmakesitpossibleto
conceiveofFeindstrafrecht,withalltheadverseconsequencesthatthisentails.The
chapterconcludesbysuggestingsomepossiblewaysoutofthisimpasse.
1.CriminalLawasPublicLaw
Domesticcriminallawisaninherentlyboundedentitydefinedbyreferencetothe
collectiveinterestsitserves.Itisatruismthatwhatdistinguishesthecriminallawfrom
tortactionsbetweenprivatepartiesisthepubliccharacterofcriminalwrongdoing.A
wrongisidentifiedascriminalbecauseitisdeemedapublicwrong:thatistosayitis‘a
wrongagainstthepolityasawhole,notjustagainsttheindividualvictim’(Duff2007:141).
Theideaofpublicwrongrestsontheassumptionthatwehaveobligationstoourfellow
citizensthataretransgressedbythoseformsofwrongdoingwhichgobeyondpersonal
injurytoviolateorthreatenvaluesthatunderpinthepolity.Italsorequiresthat
membersofthepublicshareasufficientcommitmenttoasetofcommonvalues
(whatevertheymaybeandevenifthereisdisagreementaboutthevaluesthemselves)
togroundacriminallawthatarticulatestheirboundaries.Whatthosevaluesareneednot
detainushere;theimportantpointisratherthatthedefinitionofcrimeasapublicwrong
reliesuponanotionofthepublicasaself-definedandfiniteentity.Duffarguesthat‘the
“public”characterofcrimeisthereforeanimplication,ratherthanaground,ofits
Page 3 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
criminalizablecharacter:thereasonsthatjustifyitscriminalisationaretheveryreasons
whyitis“public”’(Duff2007:142).Inshort,thepublicnatureofcriminal(p.43)
wrongdoingisbuiltupontheideaofapolitythatenjoysenoughcommonalitytobeableto
specifyitscollectivevaluesandtoenforcethem.
Theideaofcrimeaspublicwrongiscentralnotonlytothedefinitionofoffencesbutalso
tothe‘publicinteresttest’thatmustbesatisfiedifprosecutionistoproceed.Only
transgressionsofpublicvalues—thoseheldtobesufficientlyimportanttotheselfdefinitionofthepolitytorequirepubliccondemnationoftheirbreach—areprosecutable.
InEnglishlaw,forexample,theCodeforCrownProsecutorsrequirestheprosecutorto
considerwhetheritisinthepublicinteresttobringaprosecutionorwhether‘thereare
publicinterestfactorstendingagainstprosecutionwhichoutweighthosetendingin
favour’.6InThorburn’sview,thepublicinterestdecisionderivesfromthefactthatthe
criminallawisabranchofpubliclawandofficialsactinguponitexercisepublicpowerson
behalfofthecitizenryinthecollectiveinterest.Hearguesthatstateofficialscantherefore
‘makealegitimateclaimtobeactingonbehalfofusall’(Thorburn2011:42).However,
the‘us’in‘usall’isnotauniversal‘us’butabounded‘us’.The‘public’inboththepublic
wrongrequirementforcriminalizationandthepublicinteresttestforprosecutionand
the‘us’onbehalfofwhomthecriminallawcensureswrongdoingandsanctions
wrongdoersisarestrictedpopulationofthosewhoarecitizens.Totheextentthat
citizenshipandtheideaofthepublicunderwritethedefinitionofwhatisacrimeandwhat
isprosecutableunderdomesticlaw,thecriminallawisbordered,itsterritoryisdefined,
anditsaudiencelimitedtothosewhobelongtothatcollectivepublic,forandtowhomit
speaks.
2.State,Citizen,andtheAuthorityoftheCriminalLaw
Justasthescopeofdomesticcriminallawisbounded,sotooarethebasesofits
authority.Competingaccountsoftheauthorityofthecriminallawgototheverydefinition
ofthestate,itspowers,anditsrelationshiptocitizens.Thisisthestuffofjurisprudence
andpoliticaltheory,uponwhichsophisticatedtreatiseshavebeenelaboratedand
debated.7Whatfollowsisabriefandnecessarilysimplifiedoverviewofthetwomain
campsofthought:liberalismandcommunitarianism(onwhich,seeMulhallandSwift
1996).
Aclassicliberalconceptionoftherelationshipbetweenstateandcitizenfocusesuponthe
obligationscitizensowetothestateandthestateowestoitscitizens.Thecitizen’s
obligationtoobeythelawisexplainedvariouslybyreferencetotacitconsenttoits
authority;ideasofbenefitorgratitudetothestatefortheprotectionandservicesit
provides;reciprocityorfairplaytoothercitizens;ortheconsequentialistgroundthat,
absentobediencetolaw,chaosorreturntoaHobbesianstateofnaturewouldresult.
Eveninrespectofthosecrimesthatdonottendtowarddisorder,thegroundsfor
obligationarefoundinthedesirabilityofcoordination(p.44) andefficiency(forexample,
lawsdeterminingonwhichsideoftheroadtodrive).Itisthesecollectivevaluesthat
underpinmuchmaleprohibitacriminallaw.Thehistoricallydominantaccountofthestate
asasovereignwhoissuescommandsloyallyobeyedbyobedientsubjectshasbeen
Page 4 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
overlaidbyliberaldemocraticaccountsoftherelationshipbetweenstateandcitizenas
baseduponmutualagreementorcontract.Varianttheoriesofpoliticalauthorityshareas
acommoncoretheideathatcitizensconsenttostateauthorityinreturnforwhichthe
stateundertakes‘topreventpeoplefrommistreatingothers,andtosafeguardgood
orderandthebasicmeansbywhichcitizenscanlivegoodlives’(AshworthandZedner
2011:280).8Questionsaboutthenatureandextentofstateauthority,themeasureof
libertytobesacrificedinreturnforprotection,andthescopeofthepublicsphereare
answereddifferentlyindifferentaccountsofliberalism.Citizenshipappearsinmany
accounts,underpinningtheideathatmoralnormsderivetheirforcefromacontract
betweenstateandcitizenoramongcitizensinrespectofthestate.9
Bycontrast,andattheriskoffurtheroversimplification,communitarianismquestionsthe
atomisticaccountofindividualautonomyandthehierarchicalrelationsbetweencitizen
andstatesuggestedbyliberalism.Communitariansplacegreateremphasisuponthe
relationallinksamongcitizensandupontheirmembershipofcommunity.Theysee
obligationsunderthecriminallawasbeingvestedinthebondsofcommunity;thevalues
upheldbythecriminallawasbeingthoseheldincommon;anditsabilitytocommunicate
censureasbeingdependentonalinguisticandnormativecommonality(Duff2001:131).
Communitarianism,too,isterritoriallybounded,thoughthebordersarecontextspecific
towhatevercommunityisatissue,whetherfamilial,professional,local,ornational.Antony
Duffhasdevelopedasophisticatedcommunicativeaccountofthecriminallawand
punishmentwhichderivesfromcommunitarianthinkingandwhichaddressespeopleas
citizens(Duff2010a;Duff2011).Hedistinguishesbetweencitizensandsubjects,arguing
that‘ifpeoplearetobeboundbythelawascitizens,ratherthanmerelyassubjects,
theirlawmustbea“common”law…Itmustbeaddressedtothembythecommunity,as
membersofthatcommunity’(Duff1998b:256).TheroleofcitizenshipinDuff’saccountis
importantbecauseitisthecitizentowhomthecriminallawspeaks,itisthecommunityof
citizensbywhomthedefendantiscalledtoaccount,anditisthecommunityinanswerto
whomtheoffenderowespenanceforbreachingthecriminallaw.Authorshipofthe
criminallawderivesfromthepoliticalcommunityofcitizensinaliberaldemocracy
throughtheirelectedrepresentatives.Itsnormsarethosenormsheldincommonby
thatcommunity—itisthisthatmakes‘thecriminallaw,acommonlaw’(Duff2007:50).And
its(p.45) addresseeisthecitizenwhoismadeanswerable(or,onemightsay,
responsible)tofellowcitizensforbreachofthosenorms.
SoimportantisthiscommunitarianidealtoDuff’sthinkingthatheisledtoconcludethat‘if
wedonotliveinwhatcancountaspoliticalcommunities,thelegitimacyofcriminallawis
radicallyundermined,asismuchelseaboutthestate’(Duff2011:141).Criminallawfor
communitarianslikeDuffis,therefore,acivicenterprise:itisbaseduponprior
associativeobligations,breachesofwhicharesubjecttocriminalization.Theseassociative
obligationsareowednotoutofgratitudeorconsenttotheauthorityofthestatebutby
virtueof‘oursharedmembershipofthepolity’(Duff2011:140).Membershipofa
communityandcommonbondsunderpinmutualobligationsandpositahorizontalbasis
fortheauthorityofthecriminallawthatisdistinct(thoughhowdistinctmightbedebated)
fromahierarchicalmodelofstatesovereignty.Thereis,however,alatentstinginthe
Page 5 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
communitariantail:namelyitstreatmentofthosewhodonotbelong;whoasthestranger,
thealien,ortheexcluded,standoutsidethebondsofmembershipandcommonality.10
Noristhereanyguaranteethatallthosewhoenjoycitizenshipwillenjoyfairandequal
treatment.Duffrecognizesthat‘communitiescanbe,andalltoooftenare,oppressive,
illiberal,andunjust.Theycanalso…beinvariouswaysexclusionary:theycanexclude
fromfullmembershiporparticipationgroupsorindividualswhomthey(mis)perceiveas
alien,inferior,or“other”’(Duff1998b:257;Zedner2010).
3.TheTerritoryoftheCriminalLawandtheProblemoftheOutsider
Sparseandinadequateasthesesketchesofliberalandcommunitarianaccountsof
citizenshipare,theysufficetoestablishthatinsofarasthecriminallawispredicated
uponcitizenshipthissetssharpboundstoitsremit.AsGibneyhasobserved,‘citizenship
isinherentlyexclusive.Todefineastate’scitizenryissimultaneouslytodefinewhoisnot
acitizen’(Gibney2006:2).Although‘byfarthemostcommonwayfornon-citizenship(or
alienage)tobegeneratedisthroughboundarycrossing:movingoutofastateinwhich
oneholdsformalmembership(nationality)intoanothersovereignstate’(Gibney2006:3),
citizenshipmayalsoberevoked,withdrawn,orlostthroughfundamentalchangesinthe
natureofthestate(forexamplecivilwar,revolution,ortheintroductionofdiscriminatory
citizenship-strippingregimessuchasNazism).Gibney(2006)observesthatmembersof
othergroups,thoughtheyareformallycitizens,maynonethelessbetreatedassecondclassor‘stunted’citizensasaresultofgender,ethnic,religious,oreconomic
discrimination.Itfollowsthatattachingtheprotectionsofthecriminallawtofullcitizenship
andlegalstandinghastheeffectoflimitingitsscopeandavailabilitytothosewhodonot
belongorwhosemembershipisindoubt.Ihaveaddressedtheproblemofthebounded
natureofthecriminallawelsewhere,arguingthat:
(p.46) insistencethatallthosesubjecttothecriminallawmustbecitizensinthe
senseofbeingfullmembersofthepoliticalcommunitydoesnotacknowledgethat
eventospeakofcommunityis,ofnecessity,toacknowledgeitsboundaries.A
modelofthecriminallawpredicatedupontheideaofcommunitypresumesa
boundedcivicentitytowhichmostwillbelongbutfromwhich,ifcommunityisto
meananything,somemustbydefinitionbeexcluded.(Zedner2010:400)
Inwhatfollows,Iexplorefurtherhowthecriminallawshouldaddressthosewhoasnoncitizensstandbeyonditsborders,aswellasthosedeemedsecond-classorstunted
citizenswhoseenjoymentofitslegalprotectionsislimitedbytheirsubordinatestanding.
Theproblemofboundariesandexclusionisnotconfinedtocommunitarianaccountsof
thecriminallaw.Theproblemisnolesspressingunderliberalism,asBlakeobserves:
Liberalismhasdifficultywiththefactofstateborders.Liberalsare,ontheone
hand,committedtomoralequality,sothatthesimplefactofhumanityissufficientto
motivateademandforequalconcernandrespect.Liberalprinciples,ontheother
hand,aretraditionallyappliedonlywithinthecontextoftheterritorialstate,which
seemstoplaceanarbitrarylimitontherangewithinwhichliberalguaranteeswill
apply.(Blake2001:257)
Page 6 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
Inbothclassicalaccountsofthepowerofthesovereigncommandoveritssubjectsand
incontractarianaccountsofrelationsbetweenstateandcitizens,thescopeofdomestic
criminallawisalsoclearlybounded.Itextendsonlytothebordersofthesovereign
realmorthelimitsofthenationstate—theso-called‘principleofterritoriality’(Duff2007:
44;Aas2011:135).11 Theterritorialaspectofdomesticcriminallawdrawsitsauthority
notfromitsgeographicallimitsbutfromthenormativesignificanceoftherelations
(sovereign/subject,contractarian,communitarian)thatbindthosewithinitsborders.And
itisthisthatcreatestheparticularproblemoftheoutsider.
Duffisalivetotheterritorialityofthedomesticcriminallawandtheproblemofthenoncitizen.Headvancesanappealing,butnotunproblematic,responsetotheproblemby
suggestingthatweshouldthinkofnon-citizensastemporaryresidents,asvisitors,or,
betterstill,asourguests.Topositnon-citizensasguestspresupposesthatweassume
theroleofhostsand,withit,alltheobligationsofhospitality.Itfollowsthatnotonlyshould
wetreatourguestsdecently,with‘respectandconcern’,but,saysDuff,weshould
affordthemnolessprotectionandsupportthanweoffertofullmembersofour
community(Duff2011:141).Inturn,thisethicofhospitalityimposesreciprocal
obligationsuponthosewhocomeasgueststoabidebyourrules,iffornootherreason
than‘respectforthelocalvaluesandattitudes’(Duff2011:142).Wheretheconductof
visitorsiswrongful,whetheror(p.47) notitwouldbeawrongelsewhere,itbecomes
ourbusinessbyvirtueofthefactthatitiscommittedonourterritoryandtherightful
object,therefore,ofourattentionasapolity.
Duff’saccountoffersamoredecent,civilizedapproachtotheproblemoftheoutsider
andrespondstoimportantquestions,whichmightotherwiseappeartobewithout
answer,abouthowthecriminallawshouldspeaktonon-citizens.Butitismoresanguine
abouttheroleofrespectandconcerninacivilizedpolitythanseemsconsistentwithwhat
mightrealisticallybeexpectedofmodernstatesinaneraofmassmigrationthatissaidto
testhospitalitytoitslimits.Itpresupposesthatthepolityisindeedcivilizedoratleast
capableofcivility,thatwearewillingtotreatallwhovisitasourguestsandextendto
themourhospitalityashosts.Theideaofhospitalitymightplausiblyapplytothosewho
comeastourists,visitors,ortemporaryresidents,butinpracticeitisstrainedinthe
caseofthosewhoenteraslong-termeconomicmigrants,asylumseekers,orrefugees.
Theantagonistic,oftenexclusionary,andattimesxenophobictenorofcontemporary
immigrationpoliticsstandsindirectiontensionwiththeideaofhospitality(Feketeand
Webber2009).Itisfurtherunderminedbythefactthatgovernmentsincreasingly
imposepenaltiesuponhostssuchastransportationcompanies,employers,andlandlords
forfailingtoupholdimmigrationlaws.12Theresultisthatfarfromactingashosts,these
groupsareco-optedintotheroleoflawenforcementagents,obligedtoreport
undocumentedentrantstotheauthoritiesiftheyaretoavoidpenaltiesthemselves(see
PickeringandWeber,Chapter5inthisvolume).
Politicalrealismaside,theconceptofhospitalitymightbethoughttosetupadependent
relationshipbetweenhostandguest.Ifhospitality,concern,orprotectionisnottobea
matteroflargesseonwhichthewelfareoftheguestdepends,thenweneedamore
Page 7 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
developednormativeconceptionofwhathospitalityentailsandwhatdutiesitplacesupon
thehost.Moreproblematicaretheobligationsplaceduponnon-citizensasguests,which
seemtoocloselyakintotheobligationsowedbysubjectstothesovereigntofitwellwith
modernliberaldemocraticaccountsofthecriminallaw.
Sincenon-citizensarebydefinitionnotcitizens,itmaybearguedthatthereisnothing
wrongorinconsistentwiththembeingtreatedassuch.Butinsofaraswehave
independentconcernsabouttreatingpeoplewhoareboundbylawassubjects,thento
regardnon-citizensassubjecttolawisproblematic.Todosobringsallthedangersof
addressingnon-citizendefendantsnotasmembersofanormativecommunitybutas
subjectsuponwhomlegalobligationsareimposeddespitethefactthat,asnon-citizens,
theyhavenorighttoshareintheauthorshiporamendmentofourcommonnormsand
theyenjoyreducedprotectionsunderourlaws.Inasmuchasthecriminallawis
predicateduponthereciprocityofcitizenship,acriminallawthatisaddressedtononcitizensasguestsalsoraisesquestionsaboutourstanding,ashosts,tocallnon-citizens
toaccount.Duffobservesthat‘unlessa(p.48) personisaddressed…bythelawofa
communityofwhichheisamember,hecannotbeboundbythatlawasacitizen’(Duff
1998b:257),yetthisleavesopenthequestionofhowanduponwhatbasisthenoncitizenisthenbound.
Inatimeofmassmigration,refugees,asylumseekers,andillegalimmigrantsaremore
oftenperceived,atbest,asuninvitedguests,atworstasthreateningintruders.The
public’swillingnesstotrustthosewhoseprovenanceisunknownorwhosevaluesand
worldviewmaydifferradicallyfromtheirownmakestheextensionofhospitalityappear
tomanyasanactofaltruismtoofar.AsWaldronobservesinrespectofforeignnationals
suspectedofinvolvementinterrorism,alltoooften‘“theindividual”inquestionisnot
reallythoughtofasamemberofthecommunityatall:heisanalien,aforeigner’(Waldron
2010:35).
4.SomeHazardsofCriminalLawattheBorder
Allthisbeginstoexplainwhywehavedifficultyinaddressingthenon-citizenasafull
memberofourcommunityandwhy,inpractice,wemayfinditproblematictoextendthe
hospitalityowedtoaguest.Itdoesnotfollow,however,thatthenon-citizenshouldbe
treatedwithhostility.Sotheincreasingtrendtowardexclusionandexpulsion,made
manifestinthegrowthofimmigrationoffences,theextraordinaryincreaseinforeign
nationalprisoners,andindeportationofnon-citizens,requiresexplanation(Bosworth
2008;Bosworth2011;BosworthandKaufman2011).Theboundednatureofdomestic
criminallawismadetoxicbyanexclusionaryturnincontemporarypenalpoliticsthatis
pronetoidentify‘monstersandaliens’,notonlyonourbordersbutalsoinourmidst
(Hudson2006:237).Theantisocialyouth,thesexoffender,andthewould-beterrorist,
throughtheirproclivitiesorconduct,areseentohavebreachedcivictrustand,inso
doing,tohaveplacedthemselvesoutsidecivilsociety.Assuch,theyaredeemedtobe
legitimateobjectsofmonitoring,restraint,orevenexile(Zedner2010:389).Noncitizens,asoutsidersparexcellence,areobjectsofsuspiciontobestopped,searched,
andinterrogatedevenbeforetheyreachtheborder.Thosewhoseethnicity,appearance,
Page 8 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
ordocumentationfailstoprovidecountervailingreassuranceareliabletobeturned
back,detained,orcriminalized.
Thetendencytosocialexclusion,whichdrawsbrightlinesbetween‘them’and‘us’,isa
topicmuchdiscussedincriminologicalliterature13butitsfocushas,untilrecently,been
principallyuponthedrivers,practices,andconsequencesofexclusionwithinsociety.The
implicationsofthesetrendsforthewaysinwhichwethinkaboutthosewhowerenever
membersofoursociety,andforwhomreintegrationisnotapossibility,meritfurther
attention(thoughseeHudson2006:237–241).Theyraisequestionsabouthowfarthe
valorizationofcommunityandthetendencytowardsocialexclusionbleedsintoour
treatmentofthenon-citizen.AsHudsonobserves,‘Theotherfigureatthebordersof
communityisthealien.(p.49) Unlikemonsters,thealienisafigurewehavenotyet
judged…Thealienisnot-yet-classified,theundecidedwhohasyettopersuadethatsheis
friendnotfoe’(Hudson2006:239).
Theroleoftrustisparticularlyrelevanthere.Ramsayhasidentified,asanimportant
characteristicofcontemporarypenalpolitics,theemphasisplaceduponthevulnerability
ofcitizens,theconsequentpopulardemandforreassurance,andtheintoleranceofthose
whobyvirtueoftheirconductfailtoreassure(Ramsay2009;Ramsay2010:724).
Ramsay’schiefobjectofinquiryistheantisocialoffender,buthisanalysisextendsnoless
plausibly(onemightsayevenmoreplausibly)totheserialsexoffender,tothewould-be
terrorist,orpersistentoffenderwhoseconductplacestheirfidelitytothecriminallawin
question.Ohanainvitesustoconsidertheroleoftrustanddistrustinourconstructionof
offenderswho,bybreachingthenormsofthecriminallaw,aredeemedtofailinfulfilment
oftheirdutiesasloyalcitizensandwho,insodoing,disappoint‘theexpectationsoffellow
membersofthepolity’(Ohana2010:724).Whereastheseoffendershave,throughtheir
conduct,providedpositivegroundsfordistrust,theoutsiderhasyettoprovehisorher
trustworthiness.Whiletrustcanbeestablishedrelativelyeasilybythoseinreceiptofthe
requisitepapers,bankbalance,andbonafidetravelplans,undocumentedorirregular
aliensarequicklycategorizedasobjectsofdistrustbythestate,allthemoreprofound
because,asoutsiders,theyowenoloyaltytothepolity.14
Thesequestionsoftrustanddistrustlieattheheartofaheatedcontemporarydebatein
Europeanlegalscholarship15promptedbytheworkoftheGermancriminallawscholar
GüntherJakobs,whoinfamouslydevelopedtheconceptofFeindstrafrecht(enemy
criminallaw)(Jakobs1985).FeindstrafrechtisadvocatedbyJakobsasadistinctbranchof
criminallawdistinguishablefromthenormsofcriminallawforcitizens(Bürgerstrafrecht)
soastopreservetheintegrityofthatlawbyprovidinggroundsfordepartingfromits
fundamentalpreceptsandprincipledconstraints.Feindstrafrechtisdirectedprincipallyat
thedisloyalcitizenwhobydintofpersistentandunrepentantoffendingisdeemedto
foreclosethepossibilityofhisorherreintegrationintosocietyandrestorationtofull
citizenship.Itthuspromisessecurityforloyalcitizensagainstthosedeemeddangerous
orirredeemablydefiant.Trenchantcriticismshavebeenmountedattheassumptions
underpinningJakobs’account:namelythatitleverstheclaimsofpublicsecuritytojustify
overlyextensivepreventivemeasures;thatitstrait-jacketsthebordersofthecitizens’
Page 9 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
criminallawbyconfiningitsaudiencetosupposedly‘loyal’citizens;andthat,by
privilegingcommunitarianvaluesandgroupidentity,itexacerbatestheexclusionaryturn
ofcontemporarypenalpolitics(Ohana2010:729–730).AsOhanaobserves,‘thelogicof
Feindstrafrecht…marksactorswhocannotbetrustedtoabidebythelawontheirown
andsubjectsthemtospecialrestrictionsforthesakeofprotectingthe(p.50) public’
(Ohana2010:741).ThisimplicationhasnotbeenoverlookedbytheFarRightinGermany
whoseizeduponJakobs’ideastoarguethatforeigners,whowereinfactnon-citizens,
shouldbetreateddifferentlytoGermancitizens‘onthegroundsthattheirlackof
affiliationtothenationposedagravethreattoGermanyandjustifiedtheirclassificationas
“criminalenemies”’(FeketeandWebber2009:5).
ForallthecriticismfairlylevelledatJakobs’theoryasanormativeaccountofthecriminal
law,thereremainsexplanatoryvalueinhisidentificationofthepreceptsandattributesof
Feindstrafrechttoilluminatekeyattributesofcontemporarypenalpolitics.Itsexplanatory
valueextendsbeyondourtreatmentofthosewhocanbedeemedtohavedemonstrated
theirdisloyaltybydintoftheirconduct(andthusrenderedthemselvesoutsidersor
enemies),toourresponsestothosewhoaredeemeduntrustworthybyvirtueoftheir
statusasoutsiders.Furthermore,attributes,positivelycondonedbyJakobsascentral
preceptsofFeindstrafrecht,correspondtoparalleltrendsinthecontemporary
overextensionofcriminalizationtoimmigration.Bothseektopunishpre-emptivelyto
preventharmsbeforetheyoccur;bothlicensetheimpositionofdisproportionate
sanctions,indefinitedetention,orevenexileinthenameofsecurity;andbothlicense
departurefromthefundamentalproceduralprotectionsofthecriminallawonthe
groundsthatthoseoutsidecitizenshipdonotdeservesuchprotection.Thesetrendscan
beobservedinthecriminalizationofimmigration.Criminalliabilityisextendedbackin
timetoencompassinchoateandevenpre-inchoateliability,forexamplecriminalizingat
thepointofdepartureorbeforetheborderisevenattained(Aas2012).Newlaws
expandparticipatoryliabilityforcrimesofassociation,forexampleinrespectofillegal
immigrationandtrafficking.Andcriminalliabilityisattachedtowhatwereonceregulatory
requirementsofimmigrationlawbutwhicharenowrecastascriminaloffences.16
5.TheCriminalizationofImmigrationandtheLimitsoftheCriminalLaw
Thisleadstoourfinalobservationsonthestatusofimmigrationoffencewithincriminallaw
andsomeworryingaspectsofthoseoffencesthattransgressthelegitimatelimitsof
criminalliability.Muchhasbeenwrittenonthetrendtowardcriminalizingbreachesof
immigrationlaw(egStumpf2007;Chacon2009).Lesshasbeensaidaboutthewaysin
whichthattrendresultsinthecreationofoffencesthatbreachfundamentalprinciplesof
thecriminallaw(thoughseeStumpf,Chapter3inthisvolume).Afulltreatmentofthis
questionisbeyondthescope(p.51) ofthischapter,17yetitcanbearguedthatcore
principlesofthecriminallawareimperilledbymanyimmigrationoffences.
First,abasicrequirementofthecriminallawisfairwarning.Althoughignoranceofthelaw
isnodefenceandvisitorstoacountryareboundbythelawsofland,itcouldbesaidthat
thecreationofimmigrationoffencesrisksbreachingtherequirementoffairwarning,that
peopleshouldbegivenadequatenoticeofanylegalrequirement,sothattheycan
Page 10 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
reasonablyadjusttheirconducttoaccordwithit.Noticesnowproliferateinthecrowded
arrivalshallsofmajorairportswhich,inlengthy,minutescript,enumeratejustsomeof
themanyimmigrationoffences.Whetherthissufficestosatisfytherequirementsoffair
warningmeritsfurtherconsideration,especiallygiventhedifficulty,towhichanytraveller
willattest,ofensuringthatoneaccordswiththeminutiaeoflocalimmigration
requirements.
Asecondobjectionisthatmanyimmigrationoffenceslackasufficientculpability
requirementorareoffencesofstrictliability.Indeed,oneoftheclassiccasesofstrict
liabilityistheimmigrationcaseofLarsonneur(1933)inwhichaFrenchwomanwasfound
guiltyofnomorethanbeing‘analien’illegallylanded,throughnofaultofherown,on
Englishsoil.18Manymodernimmigrationoffencesrenderwould-beimmigrantsor
refugeesliableforseriousoffencesinrespectofwhichliabilityissatisfiedbylimited
knowledgerequirementsorbystrictliabilityalone.Forexample,oneofthemost
commonlyprosecutedofimmigrationoffencesissection2oftheAsylumandImmigration
Act2004,thestrictliabilityoffenceoffailuretoproduceapassport(Aliverti2012a:103).
Thethirdandperhapsmostimportantobjectionisthatitisquestionablewhether
immigrationoffencessatisfythebasicrequirementsofJSMill’sharmprinciple,namely
that‘thattheonlypurposeforwhichpowercanrightfullybeexercisedoveranymember
ofacivilisedcommunity,againsthiswill,istopreventharmtoothers’(Mill1859/1979:
68).Anecessaryconditionofcriminalizationisthatsomenon-trivialharmisriskedor
causedbytheoffender(SimesterandvonHirsch2011:Ch3;AshworthandZedner
2012).Yetinrespectofmanyimmigrationoffencesitisunclearwhattheharm,or
putativeharm,is.Giventhatmostimmigrationoffencesarecrimesofstrictliability,
neithercanitbesaidthattheyimposeawrongfulnesscriterion.Takentogetherthese
lapsesraiseprofoundquestionsaboutthejustifiabilityofcriminalizingillegalitiesby
immigrantswherethesedonotmeetthebasicpreceptsofcriminalization.
Thequestionremainswhywearesowillingtodepartfromadherencetoordinary
principlesofcriminalizationinrespectofimmigration.Enoughhasbeensaidaboutthe
centralityofcitizenshiptosuggestthatourunderstandingofthecriminallawderivesits
authorityfromandaddressesitselftocitizens.Thisprovidesalicenceforthestandards
appliedtonon-citizenstobereduced,compromised,ordispensedwithaltogether.In
theory,ifnotalwaysinpractice,citizensinademocraticpolitysharetheprivilegesofa
fundamentalrighttobepresumed(p.52) freefromharmfulintentions;theyenjoy
commonauthorship,throughanelectedlegislature,ofthecriminallaw;andtheybenefit
fromthesecurityofdueprocessprotectionsfromunwarrantedstateinterferencein
theirlives.Bycontrastthenon-citizenismoreoftenafigureofmistrustand,inmany
respects,offeredlesserprotections.Insofarascriminalizationrestsontheideathat
citizensareresponsibleagentsresponsivetoreasonsandthatthosereasonsareones
theindividualcanfairlybeexpectedtounderstandbydintofhisorhershared
membershipoflaw’scommunity,theverybasisforcriminalresponsibilityisattenuatedin
thecaseofthenon-citizen.Perhapsweshouldnotbesurprised,therefore,bythe
apparentreadinesstoerodeordinarystandardsinrespectofthosetowhomnosuch
Page 11 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
civictrustisowedandwhoseverymembershipofthepolityisdeniedorindoubt.
6.ConcludingThoughts
Thischapterhasexploredthecontentionthatwecannotunderstandthebordersof
punishment,stilllesswhatishappeningatthebordersofstates,unlessweattendfirstto
internalquestionsaboutthescope,authority,andterritoryofdomesticcriminallaw.It
hasexaminedthecentralityofthecitizenasthesubjecttowhomthecriminallawspeaks,
andhasexaminedtheimportanceoflaw’scommunityinconstitutingthenormative
authoritybywhomthecitizeniscalledtoaccount.Insodoingithassuggestedthatthe
non-citizen,asanoutsider,posesparticularproblemsforthecriminallawandespecially
forpolicingofimmigration.Thechapterhasidentifiedimportantlapsesinadherenceto
basicprinciplesofcriminalizationinrespectofimmigrationoffencesandhassuggested
thatfailuretoobservetheseprinciplesderivesinnosmallpartfromthesubordinate
standingaccordedtonon-citizens.
Allthisleavesunansweredquestionsaboutthegroundsuponwhichtheprotectionsof
criminaljusticemightbeextendedtothosewhoarenotcitizens.Thischapterhasraised
somedoubtsabouttheethicsofhospitalityandhasprobedtheplausibilityoftheideathat
non-citizensbetreatedasourguests.Ithasquestionedtheideaofbasingourpenal
practicesuponourcapacityforempathy,ourabilitytoembracedifference,orour
acceptanceofthestrangeratourgate.Ashasbeenmadeclear,presentpractice
suggestsaworryingtendencytoregardnon-citizensasuntrustworthyandunworthy,
therefore,ofthefullprotectionsordinarilyaccordedbythecriminallawtocitizens.
Whetherworkingtowardsacosmopolitanconceptionofcommunitygroundedinour
commonhumanitywouldhaveanygreaterchanceofchangingattitudesinthemedium
termremainsopentoquestion.
Theplightofthenon-citizenisnotamatterofeasyresolution.Whatfollowsarenomore
thantentativeavenuesofenquirythatseektoaddresstheproblemsidentifiedinthis
chapter.Oneapproachmightbetoquestionwhetherweshouldallowcitizenshiptodoso
muchworkinourthinkingaboutresponsibleagencyandtheroleofthecriminallaw.
Giventheevidenthazardsentailedinpredicatingourcriminallawuponcitizenship,might
wedobettertoexplorehowfarideasofautonomyandofresponsibilitythatunderpinthe
waysinwhichweaddressand(p.53) respondtocitizenscanbeextendedtononcitizens?19Anotherpossiblewayofovercomingthecitizen/non-citizenbinaryistheidea
of‘denizenship’(Hammar1990).Denizenshiprecognizesthehybridstatusofthosewith
long-standingorpermanentresidencewhopossessmanylegalandsocialrightsbutlack
fullpoliticalcitizenship.Alsoimportantistheargumentthatcitizenshipshouldnotbea
predicateforbasicrightsandthatinaliberaldemocracytheprotectionsofthecriminal
law,criminalprocessandjustpunishmentapplytoallirrespectiveofcitizenship.AsCole
insists,‘basicprotectionsofliberty…arenot,andshouldnotbe,deemedprivilegesor
rightsofcitizenship’(Cole2003;Cole2007;seealsodiscussioninZedner2010:392–
393).Animportantfeatureofhumanrightslawisthatitprovidessafeguardsforpersons
byvirtueoftheirstatusashumansandoutofrespectforhumanity,regardlessof
whetherornottheyarecitizens.Article6ECHRrightstoafairtrial,forexample,apply
Page 12 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
equallytotheforeignerandtothestatelesspersonandArticle3shieldsimmigrantsfrom
beingdeportedtocountrieswheretheyfacetorture,orinhumanordegrading
treatment.
Thedangersposedbytheevidentwillingnessofgovernmentstoresorttocriminalization
attheborderraisesfurtherquestionsabouthowbesttodelimitthephenomenonof
‘crimmigration’.Afirststepmightbetorequirethatimmigrationoffencessatisfybasic
principlesofcriminalizationand,wheretheydonot,tomarkthoseoffencesassuitable
candidatesfordecriminalization.Onlybycomprehensivereviewofexistingoffencesand
carefulpre-legislativescrutinyofproposedoffencesmighttheover-readinessto
criminalizebreachesofimmigrationlawbeforestalled.Sodoingwouldservetocheckthe
exerciseofthepolicepowerovernon-citizensbylimitingimmigrationoffencestothose
thatarefairlylabelled,clearlywrongful,andentailharmsofasufficientgravitytomerit
criminalization.Asecondstepwouldbetoscrutinizemorecloselythecoerciveand
otherwiseburdensomequalitiesofimmigrationmeasuresandpracticesoutsidethe
criminallaw.Proceedingsincivilorhybridcivil-criminalchannelsareanincreasingly
commonfeatureofcontemporarycrimecontrol,attractivetotheauthoritiesbecause
theysidesteptherequirementsofthecriminalprocess(Zedner2007;Stumpf,Chapter3
inthisvolume).Yet,wherecivilproceduresimposeburdensakintopunishment,theyare
clearlydetrimentalpreciselybecausetheydenycriminalprocessprotectionstothose
whoaresubjecttothem(AshworthandZedner2010).Whereproceedingsand
measuresresultinburdensofaseveritycomparabletopunishment—immigration
detentionspringstomindasanobviousexample—theprocessprotectionsandstandard
ofproofshouldsurelybeakintothoseappliedincriminalproceedings(Ashworthand
Zedner2010:75).
Thislatterstepmayovercomethedilutionofproceduralprotectionsinherentinmany
aspectsofborderpolicingandimmigration,notleastintheworkingsoftheUKSpecial
ImmigrationAppealsCommission(SIAC),anappealcourtinwhich(p.54) the
controversialofficeofthespecialadvocatewasfirstintroduced.20Theuseofthespecial
advocateismuchcriticizedbecauseitfloutstherightoftheindividualtoknowthecase
againsthimorher—abasicprinciplethatappliesincriminalbutnolonger,itwouldseem,
incivilhearings.21 Insimilarvein,Bosworth’sdetailedempiricalstudiesofimmigration
detentionsuggestthatthebiggerproblemisnotsomuchthatdetentioncentreslooklike
prisonsbutthattheydonot.Theabsenceofrights,adequatelegalprotections,andlegal
representationareallsalientfeaturesofadismalregimethatleavesdetaineesinalegal
limbothatcanlastformonthsorevenyears(Bosworth2012).Lookingbeyondcriminal
orcivillawlabelstofocusonthepotentialseverityoftheconsequencesofproceedingsis
anestablishedwayofimportingappropriatedueprocessprotectionssuchasan
adequatestandardofproof.22Itmightbeextendedtoensureaccesstolegaladvice,
guaranteesoflegalrepresentation,andfairandopenhearingsincivilproceedingsjustas
incriminalones.Inplaceofprofiling,oftenondubiousreligiousandracialgrounds,and
theadoptionoftargetedanddiscriminatorypracticesbyimmigrationofficials,wemight
insistupontheuniformapplicationofthelawandonfairandequaltreatment.Inplaceof
protracteddetentionintheno-man’s-landoftheimmigrationdetentionordeportation
Page 13 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
centre,wemightseektoensurethatdetentionistime-limitedandthat,asaminimum,
conditionsapproximatetothestandardslaiddownininternationalprisonrules.Perhaps
thisimportationofstandardsandprotectionsreliesuponanidealizedaccountofthe
criminallawandprocess,butitdoessuggestsomepowerfulreasonswhyweshouldbe
slowtoconcludethatthecriminallawisonlyforcitizens.
References
Bibliographyreferences:
Aas,K.F.(2012)‘(In)security-at-a-distance:RescalingJustice,RiskandWarfareina
TransnationalAge’,GlobalCrime13(4)235.
Aas,K.F.(2011)‘ABorderlessWorld?Cosmopolitanism,BordersandFrontiers’,inC.
BaillietandK.F.Aas(eds),CosmopolitanJusticeanditsDiscontents.London:Routledge.
Aliverti,A.(2012a)‘MakingHomeSafe?TheRoleofCriminalLawandPunishmentin
BritishImmigrationControls’.OxfordDPhilThesis.
Aliverti,A.(2012b)‘MakingPeopleCriminal.TheRoleoftheCriminalLawinImmigration’,
TheoreticalCriminology16(4):417.
Ashworth,A.andRedmayne,M.(2010)TheCriminalProcess.(4thedn)Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Ashworth,A.andZedner,L.(2012)‘PreventionandCriminalization:Justificationsand
Limits’,NewCriminalLawReview15(4)542.
Ashworth,A.andZedner,L.(2011)‘JustPreventionandtheLimitsoftheCriminalLaw’,
inR.A.DuffandS.P.Green(eds),PhilosophicalFoundationsoftheCriminalLaw.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Ashworth,A.andZedner,L.(2010)‘PreventiveOrders:AProblemofUndercriminalization?’,inR.A.Duffetal(eds),TheBoundariesoftheCriminalLaw.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Blake,M.(2001)‘DistributiveJustice,StateCoercion,andAutonomy’,Philosophyand
PublicAffairs30(3):257.
Bosworth,M.(2012)‘DeportationandImmigrationDetention:GlobalisingtheSociologyof
Punishment’,TheoreticalCriminology16(2)123.
Bosworth,M.(2011)‘DeportingForeignNationalPrisonersinEnglandandWales’,
CitizenshipStudies15:583.
Bosworth,M.(2008)‘BorderControlandtheLimitsoftheSovereignState’,Socialand
LegalStudies17(2):199.
Page 14 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
Bosworth,M.andKaufman,E.(2011)‘ForeignersinaCarceralAge:Immigrationand
ImprisonmentintheU.S.’,StanfordLawandPolicyReview22:101.
CabinetOffice(2011)JusticeandSecurityGreenPaperCm8194.London:HMSO.
Chacon,J.M.(2009)‘ManagingMigrationthroughCrime’,ColumbiaLawReview109:
135.
Cole,D.(2007)‘AgainstCitizenshipasaPredicateforBasicRights’,FordhamLawReview
75:2541.
Cole,D.(2003)EnemyAliens:DoubleStandardsandConstitutionalFreedomsintheWar
onTerrorism.NewYork:TheNewPress.
CrownProsecutionService(CPS)(2010)CodeforCrownProsecutors.
Duff,R.A.(2011)‘Responsibility,CitizenshipandCriminalLaw’,inR.A.DuffandS.P.Green
(eds),ThePhilosophicalFoundationsoftheCriminalLaw.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Duff,R.A.(2010a)‘ACriminalLawforCitizens’,TheoreticalCriminology14(3):293.
Duff,R.A.(2010b)‘AuthorityandResponsibilityinInternationalCriminalLaw’,inS.
BessonandJ.Tasioulas(eds),PhilosophyofInternationalLaw.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Duff,R.A.(2007)AnsweringforCrime:ResponsibilityandLiabilityintheCriminalLaw.
Oxford:HartPublishing.
Duff,R.A.(1998a)‘DangerousnessandCitizenship’,inA.AshworthandM.Wasik(eds),
FundamentalsofSentencingTheory.Oxford:Clarendon.
Duff,R.A.(1998b)‘InclusionandExclusion:Citizens,SubjectsandOutlaws’,Current
LegalProblems51:241.
Fekete,L.andWebber,F.(2009)‘ForeignNationals,EnemyPenologyandtheCriminal
JusticeSystem’,EuropeanRaceBulletin69:2.
Garland,D.(2001)TheCultureofControl:CrimeandSocialOrderinContemporary
Society.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Gibney,M.J.(2006)WhoShouldbeIncluded?Non-citizens,ConflictandtheConstitution
oftheCitizenryCRISEWorkingPaperNo.17.Oxford:CRISE,QueenElizabethHouse.
Gomez-JaraDiez,C.(2008)‘EnemyCombatantsversusEnemyCriminalLaw’,New
CriminalLawReview11(4):529.
Hammarberg,T.(1990)DemocracyandtheNationState:Aliens,DenizensandCitizens
Page 15 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
inaWorldofInternationalMigration.Avebury:Aldershot.
Heinrich,B.(2009)‘DieGrenzendesStrafrechtsbeiderGefahrprävention’,Zeitschrift
fürdiegesamteStrafrechtswissenshaft121(1):96.
Hudson,B.(2006)‘PunishingMonsters,JudgingAliens:JusticeattheBordersof
Community’,AustralianandNewZealandJournalofCriminology39(2):232.
Jakobs,G.(1985)‘KriminalisierungimVorfeldeinerRechtsgutsverletzung’,Zeitschrift
fürdieGesamteStrafrechtswissenschaft97(4):751.
Kavanagh,A.(2010)‘SpecialAdvocates,ControlOrdersandtheRighttoaFairTrial’,
ModernLawReview63(5):836.
Knowles,D.(2011)PoliticalObligation:ACriticalIntroduction.Abingdon:Routledge.
Lee,A.(2011)‘Co-nationalandCosmopolitanObligationstowardsForeigners’,Politics
31(3):159.
Legomsky,S.H.(2007)‘TheNewPathofImmigrationLaw:AsymmetricIncorporationof
CriminalJusticeNorms’,WashingtonandLeeLawReview64:469.
Marshall,T.H.(1950)CitizenshipandSocialClassandOtherEssays.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Mikes,G.(1946)HowtobeanAlien.London:Wingate.
Mill,J.S.(1859/1979)OnLiberty.Harmondsworth,Middlesex:Penguin.
Mulhall,S.andSwift,A.(1996)LiberalsandCommunitarians.Oxford:Blackwell.
Norrie,A.(2009)‘Citizenship,AuthoritarianismandtheChangingShapeoftheCriminal
Law’,inB.McSherry,A.Norrie,andS.Bronitt(eds),RegulatingDeviance:The
RedirectionofCriminalisationandtheFuturesofCriminalLaw.Oxford:HartPublishing.
Ohana,D.(2010)‘Trust,DistrustandReassurance:DiversionandPreventiveOrders
throughthePrismofFeindstrafrecht’,ModernLawReview73(5):721.
Ramsay,P.(2010)‘OvercriminalizationasVulnerableCitizenship’,NewCriminalLaw
Review13(2):262.
Ramsay,P.(2009)‘TheTheoryofVulnerableAutonomyandtheLegitimacyofCivil
PreventativeOrders’,inB.McSherry,A.Norrie,andS.Bronitt(eds),Regulating
Deviance:TheRedirectionofCriminalisationandtheFuturesofCriminalLaw.Oxford:
HartPublishing.
Simester,A.andVonHirsch,A.(2011)Crimes,HarmsandWrongs:OnthePrinciplesof
Criminalization.Oxford:HartPublishing.
Page 16 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
Simon,J.(1998)‘ManagingtheMonstrous.SexOffendersandtheNewPenology’,
Psychology,PublicPolicyandLaw3:452.
Stumpf,J.(2008)‘StatesofConfusion:TheRiseofStateandLocalPowerover
Immigration’,NewCriminalLawReview86:1557.
Stumpf,J.(2007)‘TheCrimmigrationCrisis:Immigrants,CrimeandSovereignPower’,
Lewis&ClarkLawSchoolLegalResearchPaperSeriesPaperNo2007–2:1.
Swift,A.(2006)PoliticalPhilosophy:ABeginner’sGuideforStudentsandPoliticians.
London:PolityPress.
Thorburn,M.(2011)‘CriminalLawasPublicLaw’,inR.A.DuffandS.P.Green(eds),
PhilosophicalFoundationsofCriminalLaw.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Tomkins,A.(2011)‘NationalSecurityandtheDueProcessofLaw’,CurrentLegal
Problems64(1):215.
Waldron,J.(2010)Torture,TerrorandTrade-Offs:PhilosophyfortheWhiteHouse.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Young,J.(1999)TheExclusiveSociety:SocialExclusion,CrimeandDifferenceinLate
Modernity.London:Sage.
Zedner,L.(2010)‘Security,theStateandtheCitizen:TheChangingArchitectureof
CrimeControl’,NewCriminalLawReview13(2):379.
Zedner,L.(2007)‘SeekingSecuritybyErodingRights:TheSide-SteppingofDue
Process’,inB.GooldandL.Lazarus(eds),SecurityandHumanRights.Oxford:Hart
Publishing.
Notes:
(1 )IamgratefultoAmbroseLeeforhisresearchassistance;toKatjaFrankoAas,
AndrewAshworth,AntonyDuff,RajeevGundur,andMalcolmThorburnforcommenting
onearlierdrafts;andtotheAHRCforsupportingthe‘PreventiveJustice’project(ID:
AH/H015655/1),outofwhichthischapterarises.
(2)Mikes1946:8.Thisgemofabookwasgiventomyfather,aKindertransportchild,on
theoccasionofhisnaturalization—ofwhichprocessMikeswrylyobserves,‘beforeyou
areadmittedtoBritishcitizenshipyouarenotevenconsideredanaturalhumanbeing’
(Mikes1946:82).
(3)Beyondthescopeofthischapteristhequestionofhowfarthisconceptionofthe
criminallawischallengedbythedevelopmentofinternationalpolicingandarrest
provisions,internationalextradition,andinternationalcriminallaw.Theestablishmentof
theInternationalCriminalCourtraisesfurtherquestionsaboutthenormativecommunity
towhichinternationalcriminallawisaddressedandwhatgroundsitsauthority.
Page 17 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
(4)Tospeakoflegalcitizensleavesopenafurtherambiguityaboutthestanding,duties
of,andobligationsowedtothosewhoaredefactocitizensbutwhodonotenjoythat
legalstatus—butthatisbeyondthescopeofthischapter.SeefurtherNorrie2009.An
extendedanalysisofthevarietiesofcitizenshipistobefoundintheclassicworkof
Marshall1950.
(5)Stumpf2007;Stumpf2008:1587–1600;Legomsky2007.Foramorehistorically
groundedaccount,seeAliverti2012a.
(6)CPS2010:10at〈http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code2010english.pdf〉.
SeediscussioninAshworthandRedmayne2010:204–206.
(7)Forhelpfulintroductions,seeKnowles2010;Swift2006.
(8)Forfurtherdiscussion,see‘Contractarianism’and‘Contractualism’intheStanford
EncylopediaofPhilosophyat〈http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/〉and
〈http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractualism/〉.
(9)Foranoverviewofthisliterature,see‘Citizenship’at
〈http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/citizenship/〉.
Foranalternateview,groundedinideasofautonomy,whichdoesnotdistinguish
betweencitizenandforeignerinthesameway,seeBlake2001.Alsoimportantisthe
substantialliteratureonliberalcosmopolitanism.
(10)TobeclearthisisanissuetowhichDuffattendsdirectlyanduponwhichhehas
muchofinteresttosay,notleastinDuff1998a;Duff1998b;Duff2011:141–148.
(11 )Duffacknowledgesthatinthecaseofseriousandwide-reachingwrongsthe
demandsofjusticerequirethatdomesticcourtsrecognizethestandingofthecourtsof
otherjurisdictionsandofaninternationalcourt,liketheInternationalCriminalCourt,
whoseauthorityderivesnotfromthenexusofcommunitybutwhichactsinthenameof
humanity,asamoral(thoughnotapolitical)community(Duff2010b:596).Humanrights
lawandinternationalcriminallawareincreasinglyimportantinthisregard.
(12)So,forexample,theImmigration,AsylumandNationalityAct2006introduced
financialpenaltiesforknowinglyemployingadultswhoaresubjecttoimmigrationcontrol
(Aliverti2012a:90–93).
(13)See,forexample,Simon1998;Young1999;Garland2001:131–137.
(14)Althoughofcourseemployersandtheeconomyasawholerelyheavilyon
undocumentedworkers.Indeed,economistsarguethatmodernlabourmarketscreatea
structuraldemandforunskilledimmigrantlabourtodolow-paid,undesirablejobsthat
citizenswillnotfill.
Page 18 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
(15)See,forexample,thediscussioninGomez-JaraDiez2008;Heinrich2009:96;Ohana
2010:727–730.
(16)AlthoughthecriminalizationofimmigrationinBritaincanbetracedbacktotheearly
nineteenthcentury,itwasexpandedconsiderablyundertheLabourgovernment.See
discussioninAliverti2012a:85,102,103;Aliverti2012b.
(17)SuchatreatmentisproposedbymyItaliancolleagueAlessandroSpena,University
ofPalermo(personalcommunication).
(18)RvLarsonneur(1933)24CrAppR74.
(19)See,forexample,thediscussionsinLee2011andAas2011.Analternateaccountof
an‘impartialliberalism’mightallowthatresponsibleagencyisgroundedinthe
‘autonomousagencyofusall’andsoisequallyapplicabletonon-citizens(Blake2001:
259).
(20)See〈http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/special-immigration-appeals-commission〉and
〈http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm81/8194/8194.pdf〉.
Forcriticalcommentary,seeKavanagh2010;Tomkins2011.Specialadvocatesare
lawyerswithsecurityclearancetoviewsecretorcloseddocumentsfromtheintelligence
servicesbutwhoarenotpermittedtospeaktosuspectsoncetheyhaveseenthis
material.
(21 )TheproposalintheJusticeandSecurityBill(2013)toextendtheroleofspecial
advocatestowidercivilproceedingsishugelycontroversial,whichonlyhighlightsthefact
thatitwasnotseentobesimilarlyproblematicwhenintroducedinrespectofimmigration
appealsbynon-citizens.SeeCabinetOffice2011at〈http://www.officialdocuments.gov.uk/document/cm81/8194/8194.pdf〉.
(22)EngelvNetherlands(1976)1EHRR647;ClinghamvRoyalBoroughofKensington
andChelsea;R(onbehalfofMcCann)vCrownCourtofManchester[2003]1AC787.
Accessbroughttoyouby: EuropeanUniversityInstitute
Library
Page 19 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015
Is the Criminal Law Only for Citizens?A Problem at the Borders of Punishment
Page 20 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.
All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: European
University Institute Library; date: 23 January 2015