independently of the law (Gardner 2011, 1921). 24 The judge will have the same choices as the prosecutor. Imagine (D) robs (V). But as the failure is a private matterto be resolved by the friends themselvesthere is no reason for law-makers to criminalize the wrong (Duff 2014b; Husak 2014, 215216). Two questions are worth asking here. It is a good reason to think that it sometimes is permissible to punish the morally innocent. It might look as though punishing wrongdoers for these protective reasons amounts to treating them as mere means. We can imagine a world in which we could flick a switch, sending an electronic signal to (D)s brain, the only effect of which would be that (D) would not act wrongly. Those of, solon and, draco.

The Fundamental Laws of Chemistry, Grapes of wrath - search for happiness,

That a relationship has such value is a reason to do what will bring it into existence. This account of criminal responsibilitycall it the answerability account relies on a distinction between offence and defence to which we will return. Official control can help vulnerable individualslike those described aboveto get what they are owed. Plausibly enough, it is morally wrongful to (phi) only if there is decisive reason not to (phi). We incur duties of the latter kind by breaching duties of the former. It is merely to say that criminal law is to be justified in punitive terms. On both the views sketched above, criminal laws value is grounded in a relationship in which all stand. If there is strong evidence that (D) killed in self-defence, D should not be prosecuted. But it does not seem morally wrongful to do so (Tadros 2016, 1146). Some legal systems do make space for private prosecutions. To see the first point, consider the use of drugs. A synonym, typically used in civil law actions, is mulct.