Juridical-Criminal Paternalism, Autonomy and Vulnerability: Legitimation Criteria of Paternalistic Interventions on Individual Autonomy in Criminal Matters

Abstract

The following paper has as objective questioning the legitimacy of state's paternalistic interventions on individual autonomy by using institutional-criminal instruments. In this path, the paper aims to understand in which cases the State is allowed to interfere in private individual lives under the justification of being promoting a well or avoiding a harm and, as well, in which cases such interference is abusive of individuals self-determination. Into this analysis, the work will study the current concepts of paternalism, the theoretical classifications on paternalistic interventions which will be useful to demonstrate admissible and inadmissible species of paternalism and Joel Feinberg and Gerald Dworkin's anti- paternalistic theories. Following, this subject will be analyzed in association with the implications of juridical-criminal goods involved in conflicts between autonomy, human vulnerabilities and paternalism, specially regarding to the (un)availability of those goods. In the end, the work intends to define legitimation criteria for paternalistic interventions inserted in criminal laws, which superimpose themselves on the individual autonomy, in order to harmonize constitutional values of respect for autonomy, protection of vulnerable individuals and the Criminal Law functions of exclusive protection of juridical goods.