The Constitutional Conundrum of the Limits to Preventive Detention
The Constitutional Conundrum of the Limits to Preventive Detention
The chapter examines the rising criticisms of the individualization principle in the European legal culture between the 1920s and 1930s due to the risks of administrative discretion. It explores the rise of the authoritarian paradigm of criminal law in Nazi Germany (with Dahm’s theory) and Fascist Italy (with Rocco’s codification), its opposition by liberal scholars (Radzinowicz, Drost), its relationship with criminological theories, and the role and use of preventive detention in authoritarian penal regimes. After analysing the arguments of Jerome Hall, who claimed for a return to the nulla poena sine lege principle, warning against the political and social dangers of an unlimited individualization, the chapter provides some considerations on the historical interpretation of the contribution of criminology to the formation of totalitarian penal ideologies, its legacy, exploitation, and betrayal.
Keywords: preventive detention, Jerome Hall, penal authoritarianism, Georg Dahm, Arturo Rocco, nulla poena sine lege, Nazi criminal law, totalitarian penal law, Leon Radzinowicz, Heinrich Drost
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
