Abstract

Multiple viewpoints have been expressed regarding the principle nulla poena sine lege. Some scholars advocate the inviolability of this maxim because it safeguards personal freedom—an opportunity to do everything not prohibited by law. However, its critics assert that rigid adherence to the principle nulla poena sine lege may do more harm than good. They argue that the maxim, while prohibiting judges from punishing non-criminal acts, makes it impossible for courts to deter them in a timely manner, which, in certain cases, may have a detrimental effect on society. To determine the correct approach to nulla poena sine lege, the paper considers its history in continental criminal law and then analyses the principle theoretically. The examination reveals that two contradictory interests—the need to safeguard personal freedom and the need to combat lawful, yet socially harmful, acts through judicial punishment—cannot be completely ignored in practice. Therefore, the findings suggest a balancing between these interests and propose a way to achieve this compromise.