R. A. Duff has revived the tradition of “answerability” for crime. In this philosophical and jurisprudential tradition, a person is answerable to the criminal law of a state and the process of that state’s courts only if there is some appropriate relationship between the state and the person. Duff’s great contribution has been to develop the idea of accountability of persons to a state or other polity as a philosophical notion which, he argues, underlies all just implementations of criminal law. (...) Duff has centered his views around the relationship between the citizen and the polity (in today’s world, the state) to which the citizen belongs. His focus has been on insiders, rather than outsiders.This article argues that, in the current world, the relationship among cocitizens, outsiders, and the state is based in part on the moral idea that the state exists to protect citizens from evil acts, specifically those that we call public and criminal wrongs, wherever the acts originate. Outsiders understand this, and understand that states other than their own use criminal law to protect their citizens.Duff’s writings contain an idea which turns out to be very useful in cases of outside acts, even though he does not apply it directly to them. Some states or other entities may have only an incomplete relationship with an accused person (compared with the relationship of citizen and state), but nonetheless may have the moral and political authority to try her for crime. This paper extends this notion to show that such incomplete relationships exist in a great many common cases of outsiders (noncitizens who act outside the territory of a state) who commit crime. These relationships support criminal prosecution of outsiders, so long as we admit that protection of persons from crime is a legitimate goal of the criminal law. (shrink)