Deleted user
posted 3 years ago
"Herring. Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (8 edn, 2018). p. 728 last para.
By contrast with the House of Lords, the view taken here is that a conviction for astigmatic
the offense is a sanction in its own right and that sanctions should be confined to the blameworthy.
The non-conviction of the blameless should be a pervasive principle of substantive
criminal law limited only by the need to theorize and practice criminal law as a system of rules
and by the exigencies of forensic practicability. Those limitations entail that many ‘normal’ life
narratives cannot afford grounds of excuse, however exculpatory the force of the narrative
may be. But other accounts, not currently represented in standard defenses, can be brought
within the framework of substantive criminal law. If it can be done it should be done in order
to diminish the incidence of unnecessary criminal convictions.
What does “forensic practicability” mean?
