Debate about the status of the intoxication excuse as a legal defence is rooted in lay theories, or common sense assumptions, about the effects of alcohol on rationality and intentionality. There has been less concern to clarify the controversial use of information about defendants' intoxication or alcoholism as a mitigating factor in sentencing. A literature review leads to the conclusion that academic theories of alcohol-related crime are deterministic to an extent unsupported by the empirical research. Alcohol expectancy theory is identified as a perspective which may illuminate the alcohol-crime relationship without denying intentionality in offending behaviour. It is suggested that the alcohol expectancies comprise a set of lay theories about the effects of alcohol on mood and behaviour; that these may provide the bases for techniques of neutralisation and rationalisation which facilitate offending; and that such techniques may be adapted in courtroom mitigation. An empirical study of a magistrates' court examines the use of information about defendants' intoxication or alcoholism in sentencing decision making. Such information is found to facilitate rapid information processing and provide rationales for sentencing decisions by appealing to lay theories about alcohol's effects on mood and behaviour, and its role in crime causation. However, mitigation invoking intoxication or alcoholism are constrained by factors concerning types of offence and offender, and the availability of alternative explanations of crime. The study compares theories of crime and criminal justice held by magistrates and probation officers. Discrepancies are identified between these lay and professional perspectives which obstruct the sentencing decision making process. It is concluded that mitigations invoking intoxication or alcoholism are uniquely flexible in constructing judgements of criminal responsibility. The general applicability of the analysis of sentencing decision making may be constrained by factors specific to the court studied.

This thesis examines the prohibition of incest in England and Wales and is written within a New Legal Realist paradigm. The selection of the paradigm has freed the approach from a traditional black letter method and allowed for the use of multiple methodologies that are appropriate to the data being investigated. The thesis begins by exploring the legislative action taken against incest in England and Wales from the Anglo-Saxon period through to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act. It finds that there has been little consistency in the regulation of incestuous activity across differing historical periods. The investigation identifies the reasons why action was taken against incest and what changes to the nature of the offence, including prohibited kin and sexual acts, were made over time. Empirical analysis of the Report entitled Setting the Boundaries, which was the cornerstone of the incumbent legislation, was undertaken using Rhetorical Political Analysis. This allowed the discovery of stories and narratives which have supported the recommendations of the Report. These recommendations have ultimately become the incumbent legislation regulating incestuous sexual activity. The thesis also identifies a dissonance between the reasoning used when producing the recommendations, and that used to justify the recommendations during the parliamentary process. Data concerning the sentencing of individuals prosecuted for commission of actions infringing the 2003 Act is analysed and compared to the previous legislation, and concerns over the compatibility of the ‘incest’ provisions in the 2003 Act with rules governing sentencing are raised. The compatibility of the provisions and the need to register on the Violent and Sex Offender Register is also investigated, as are previous legal challenges concerning registration and the impact of registration upon the offender and their position within society. Finally, the position of the incumbent provisions is understood in light of current European Convention on Human Rights norms. Rather than using case precedent to argue for or against the compatibility of the domestic provisions, the cases are used as ‘data’ to investigate the provisions. An attempt to ascertain a European consensus on incest is also made. The investigation reveals that the reframed ‘incest’ provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 may breach Articles 8 and, 8 + 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

What is the state's duty to penalize serious interpersonal exploitation using the criminal law? Does the state discharge this duty appropriately? These are large questions and this thesis sets out to reassess one part of the puzzle of exploitation. The focus is upon interpersonal exploitation and property offences in England and Wales. Criminal law commentators frequently state that several property offences are justified on the basis that they penalize exploitation. For example, the tendency has been to assume that section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 performs this function, together with its accompanying sentencing guidelines. One of the objectives of this thesis is to expose the precarious foundations of relying upon existing property offences to censure exploitation. For example, it is not clear what the scope of the wrong of exploitation under discussion actually is. This thesis argues that analysis of the relationship between wrongful interpersonal exploitation and property offences has been woefully superficial in English law and is ripe for reappraisal. The second objective is to identify and to elucidate a hitherto neglected wrong of acquisitive exploitation. An analytical account of the wrong is presented which will be of interest to criminal law theorists. Acquisitive exploitation represents a distinctive method of using vulnerable persons, under the cover of dishonesty. With a careful account of wrongful acquisitive exploitation in hand, the third objective is to raise questions about criminal liability for acquisitive exploitation. Ought the criminal law to penalize acquisitive exploitation, and, if so, how? Are there grounds for penalizing acquisitive exploitation more consistently and with improved labelling? These questions must be thoroughly debated. A credible opening bid is presented in relation to them - first, by considering whether acquisitive exploitation might be used to more fairly label property offences; and second, by assessing justifications for a substantive acquisitive exploitation offence.