Module #4. 2013.
Criminal Law Division
Zinaida M. Pogosova
Senior Lecturer
Ph.D. in Law
zpogosova@hse.ru
pogoskina@gmail.com
mob.8 926 539 20 70
Redesigned Course Proposal
Course Title
Topical Issues of Criminal Law-making
The course is designed specifically for 4-th year students specializing in
criminal law at the law department (to receive a specialist’s degree,
students complete five years of study). The course is mandatory, not
optional. It includes 10 contact hours, 34 self-study hours, and is taught in
Context
of the fourth module (from April to June). The group of students includes
your course
about 20 members. Students who pursue the criminal law specialization
have prior knowledge in all major fields of law, such as constitutional law,
criminology, civil law, and entrepreneurial law. After graduation, many of
them are going to work in law-enforcement agencies, and some of them
want to be judges or advocates. So, after studying the course they expect
to be able to operationalize in real-life situations with practical skills and
knowledge.
The course introduces students to how the limits of criminal law are
determined, teaches them how to amend the criminal code and to
Aims
understand the initial nature of criminal law. The goal is to prepare
students to succeed in the logical application of criminal norms and in the
labelling process, regardless of whether they serve as prosecutors or
defenders.
On successful completion of the course, students will be able to:
Intended
Learning
Outcomes
Assessments
1. recognise a “minimalist” conception to flexibly avoid irrationalities
of criminal law;
2. conclude and justify what behaviour constitutes criminal conduct;
3. criticise constructively the criteria to be taken into account when
modeling crime;
4. evaluate existing principles and ideas informing decisions to
criminalise and apply them creatively;
5. present an argument confidently in front of an audience;
6. produce a joint/integrated written assignment through
professional communication and cooperative work with
colleagues as part of a team towards a common goal.
The course includes small group sessions and final oral exam (in a form of
the project presentation).
Assessment activities are as follows:
Formative assessment focuses on the following skills: producing a critical
review of the application of geological mapping to the theory of crime
and of criminalization; participating in class activities, such as analyzing
contemporary processes of criminalization, principles and ideas
informing decisions to criminalize, engaging in peer reviews and group
work, presenting oral reports, and taking part in class discussion;
producing PowerPoint slides; producing a first draft of the rationale of
decision to criminalise/decriminalise any conduct; producing a final draft
of the rational in light of instructor’s and peers’ feedback.
Students receive instructor’s feedback on all of the above activities. The
verbal feedback is provided to each student after completion of their
current tasks during scheduled meetings/office hours. The feedback to a
critical review, a classification/systematization, a rational draft is
provided in the written form.
Students are expected to create the final project in each of the 4 groups,
with about 5 team members per group. The result of students’ research
must be in the written rationale of the decision to criminalise or
decriminalise any human behaviour accompanied by a PowerPoint
presentation. Students are expected to defend their project verbally. Both
rationale and oral presentation should be in English.
Percentages for these kinds of activities are as follows:
 Critical review: 5%
 Classification/systematisation: 5%
 Small group sessions (reports, discussions, and simulation exercises):
40%
 Final exam (results of group work): integrated rational: 40%
oral project presentation: 10%
The curriculum is organized in ways that allow to distinguish unwanted
from legitimate behavior and crimes from torts.
1. Crime and Criminal Law Reform: A Theory of The Legislative
Response.
2. Can Criminal Law Be Controlled?
3. Decisions to Criminalise.
Curriculum
4. Codification of the Criminal Law: An Attainable Ideal?
5. Irrationalities Of American Criminal Codes.
6. Abolishing Some Absolete Common Law Crimes.
7. Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique
of Criminal Law Theory.
8. The Communicative-content Theory of Criminal Law. The
Language of Criminal-law Acts.
9. Projection of Criminal Law Function
10. Mobbing; Sexual Harassment; Molestation; Criminal Liability of
Legal Entity.
Contact TLAs (coursework)
Home task (preparation)
Topic
Teaching and sessions
learning
Week 1 Introductory lecture Produce a critical review of 1
activities
on
crime
and the application of geological
criminal law reform
mapping to the theory of
crime and of criminalization
(500 words), e-mail it to
instructor 2 days before the
next contact session
Week 2
Introductory lecture
on limits of criminal
law; peer review and
discussion of the
critical
reviews;
feedback
received
from instructor and
peers
Lecture-discussion:
decisions
to
criminalise
(contemporary
processes
of
criminalization,
principles and ideas
informing decisions
to criminalize); and
discussion of the
PowerPoint
presentations;
feedback
received
from
peers
and
instructor
Define unwanted behaviour 2
which must be criminalized,
produce 3 PowerPoint slides
where you explain why you
decided this conduct to be
prohibited by criminal law
Week 4
Lecture-discussion:
codification of the
criminal
law
(common law/civil
law
dichotomy;
comparative study);
peer
review
of
summaries; feedback
received from peers
Find essential reasons of 4
failed
attempts
at
codification and list the
terms of attainable criminal
codification
Week 5
Lecture-discussion:
irrationalities
of
American
criminal
codes; peer review
and discussion of the
relevance of found
reasons for failed
attempts
at
codification;
feedback
received
from instructor and
peers
Produce a classification/ 5
systematization of variety of
kinds
of
logical
irrationalities and internal
inconsistencies
of
any
American criminal code (due
in two weeks), e-mail it to
instructor
Week 3
Summarise main principles 3
and
ideas
informing
decisions to criminalize
using the reading list
sources
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week
10
Resources
Lecture-discussion:
abolishing
some
absolete common law
crimes
Find arguments for the 6
abolition of failure by a
common
innkeeper
to
provide board and lodging;
contempt of the sovereign;
embracery; and refusal to
serve in public office.
Lecture-discussion:
Summarise main pieces of 7
competing theories evidence
and
counterof blackmail
arguments
for
the
competing
theories
of
blackmail;
complete
a
summary in pairs
Lecture-discussion:
Complete
a
full 8
the
language
of systematization considering
criminal-law
acts; received feedback
peer review of three
systematizations;
individual
conferences followed
by
feedback;
feedback
received
from
instructor
during office hours
Lecture-discussion:
Draft an integrated rationale 9
projection of criminal of
decision
to
law function
criminalise/decriminalise
any conduct (700 words)
and prepare a 3-minute oral
report; e-mail drafts to
instructor 2 days before the
next contact session
Lecture-discussion:
Considering
received 10
mobbing;
sexual feedback on rationale and
harassment;
presentation, revise it and
molestation; criminal prepare group presentation
liability
of
legal and rational (due in two
entity; oral reports of weeks)
rationale; feedback
received
from
instructor and peers;
feedback provided by
instructor
on
integrated rationale
Core reading
1. Graham McBain. Abolishing Some Absolete Common Law Crimes.
King's Law Journal. 2009, 20, 89-114.
2. Paul H. Robinson, Michael T. Cahill & Daniel M. Bartels. Competing
Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal
Law Theory. Texas Law Review. 2010, 89:291, 291-352.
3. Darryl K. Brown. Can Criminal Law Be Controlled? Michigan Law
Review. 2010. 108:971. 971-992.
4. Jenny Lavery. Codification of the Criminal Law: An Attainable
Ideal? The Journal of Criminal Law. 2010, 74, 557–578.
5. Rosemary Cairns Way. Constructing Crime: Contemporary
Processes of Criminalization (Edited by Janet Mosher and Joan
Brockman. Toronto and Vancouver: UBC Press. 2010). Canadian
Journal of Women & the Law. 2011, 23, 365-374.
6. Shlomit Wallerstein. Criminalising Remote Harm and The Case of
Anti-Democratic Activity. Cardozo Law Review. 2007, 28:6, 26972738.
7. Paul H. Robinson, et al. Irrationalities of Americal Criminal Codes.
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. 2010, 100, 710-764.
8. Stuart P. Green. Is There Too Much Criminal Law? Ohio State
Journal Of Criminal Law. 2009, 6:737, 737-749.
9. D. A. Andrews. The impact of nonprogrammatic factors on
criminal-justice interventions. Legal and Criminological
Psychology. 2011, 16, 1–23.
10. Ekow N. Yankah. A Paradox of Overcriminalization. New Criminal
law review. 2011, 14-1, 1-34.
11. Roger A. Shiner. Crime and criminal law reform: a theory of the
legislative response. Critical Review of International Social and
Political Philosophy. 2009, 12-1, 63–84.
Further reading
 Baker, D.J. The Moral Limits of Consent as a Defense in the
Criminal Law. (2009) New Criminal Law Review. 2009, 12-1, 93–
12.
 Ferguson, P., McDiarmid, C., Scots Criminal Law: A Critical
Analysis. Dundee: DUP, Chapters 1–4. 2009.
 Husak, D., Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law.
Oxford: OUP (2008).
 Marshall, S.E., Duff, R.A. Criminalization and Sharing Wrongs.
1998. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence. 11-7.
 Stewart, H. The Limits of the Harm Principle. Criminal Law and
Philosophy. 2009.
Course review Formative evaluation: brief 2 minute papers with students’ comments
and
and suggestions; students’ attendance; natural feedback received from
evaluation
students; assessment of written and oral students’ assignments.
Summative evaluation: the rating system of our university to obtain
students’ feedback and comments after completion of the course.