‘Sins and Crimes’

Abstract

In 'Sins and Crimes',1 A. R. Louch argues that the dispute between H. L. A. Hart2 and Lord Devlin,3 which is generally thought to revolve around the legal enforcement of morals, is in reality a dispute about the morality of the acts Devlin and other 'legal moralists' believe to be fit objects of criminal legislation. Since he finds 'something compelling about the move from the charge of gross immorality to punishment' (p. 39), Louch contends that 'the libertarian view depends . . . on taking a moral position counter to that advanced by the legal moralist' (p. 47). I shall examine the reasoning which leads Louch to view the law-morals controversy in this way and try to show that: (i) his interpretation of Hlart is mistaken and (2) he fails to establish that the libertarian must deny the immorality of the acts outlawed by 'morals legislation' in order to show that such laws ought not to exist.