Emotion plays an increasing role in contemporary law and policy making. While it may sometimes appropriately motivate legislative action, it can also significantly interfere with justice and reasonable governance. Taking the punitive response to ‘reborn dolls’ in Brazil as a case study of a recent harmful sideway of emotion-based criminalisation, we contend that any emotion-based criminalisation must be socially understood, deconstructed and positioned against legitimate criminalisation criteria. Drawing on the scholarship on legitimate criminalisation, punitiveness, (gendered) legal moralism and the social harm perspective, such emotionalised criminalisation is, firstly, contextualised and, secondly, contrasted to the more reasonable type of governance that includes public sentiment as a relevant factor in the criminalisation process. It is further argued that similar cases of criminalisation are not only normatively illegitimate, but that they can also amount to ‘legislative harm’, which has tangible adverse consequences on the lives and human rights of many.
AlmondP (2008) Public perceptions of work-related fatality cases: reaching the outer limits of ‘populist punitiveness’. British Journal of Criminology48(4): 448–467.
AppaduraiA (2014) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ArrudaR (2025) Projeto de Lei n° 341, de 2025. Dispõe sobre a vedação da utilização de bonecos realistas (conhecidos como “reborns”) para obtenção indevida de benefícios destinados a mães de crianças naturais, 20 May. Curitiba: Assembleia Legislativa do Paraná. Available at: https://bancodeleis.unale.org.br/Arquivo/Documents/21/PLO/PLO3412025.pdf (accessed 28 December 2025).
9.
AshworthA (1999) Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
10.
AshworthM (2016) Affective governmentality: governing through disgust in Uganda. Social & Legal Studies26(2): 188–207.
BornsteinBHWienerRL (2006) Introduction to the special issue on emotion in legal judgment and decision making. Law and Human Behavior30(2): 115–118.
18.
BottomsA (1995) The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In: ClarkCMorganR (eds) The politics of sentencing reform. Oxford: Clarendon, 17–49.
19.
BoukliAKotzéJ (2018) Zemiology: Reconnecting Crime and Social Harm. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
20.
BraithwaiteJ (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
BrightDAGoodman-DelahuntyJ (2006) Gruesome evidence and emotion: anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior30(2): 183–202.
22.
BrintonA (1988) Pathos and the ‘appeal to emotion’: an aristotelian analysis. History of Philosophy Quarterly5: 207–219.
CampilongoC (2016) History and sources of Brazilian law. In: DeffentiFBarralW (eds) Introduction to Brazilian Law. 2nd ed.Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer, 1–16.
25.
CanningVTombsS (2021) From Social Harm to Zemiology: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
26.
CarvalhoHChamberlenA (2016) Punishment, justice, and emotions. In: Oxford Handbooks Editorial Board (eds) Oxford Handbook Topics in Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935383.013.138.
27.
CasseseEWeberC (2011) Emotion, attribution, and attitudes toward crime. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences2(1): 63–97.
28.
ChristieN (1986) Suitable enemies. In: BianchiHvan SwaaningenR (eds) Abolitionism. Towards a Non-Repressive Approach to Crime. Amsterdam: Free University Press, 42–54.
29.
CliquennoisGSnackenSvan Zyl SmitD (2021) Introduction: human rights, prisons and penal policies. European Journal of Criminology18(1): 3–10.
CohenS (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
32.
Council of the European Union (2009) Council Conclusions on model provisions, guiding the Council's criminal law deliberations, 2979th Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 30 November 2009.
33.
CrombyJBrownSDGrossH, et al. (2010) Constructing crime, enacting morality: emotion, crime and anti-social behaviour in an inner-city community. British Journal of Criminology50(5): 873–895.
34.
De HaanWLoaderI (2002) On the emotions of crime, punishment and social control. Theoretical Criminology6(3): 243–253.
35.
DevlinP (1965) The Enforcement of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
DoyalLGoughI (1991) A Theory of Human Need. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
37.
DubreuilB (2010) Punitive emotions and norm violations. Philosophical Explorations13(1): 35–50.
38.
DuffRA (2010) Towards a theory of criminal law?Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society84(1): 1–28.
EliasN (2000, orig. 1939) The Civilising Process. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
41.
EllerbrockDKesper-BiermannS (2015) Between passion and senses? Emotional dimensions of legal cultures. InterDisciplines2: 1–15.
42.
EnnsPK (2014) The public’s increasing punitiveness and its influence on mass incarceration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science58(4): 857–872.
43.
European Parliament (2012) European Parliament resolution of 22 May 2012 on an EU approach to criminal law, 2010/2310(INI).
GablePAPooleBDHarmon-JonesE (2015) Anger perceptually and conceptually narrows cognitive scope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology109(1): 163–174.
GarlandD (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57.
GaultBASabiniJ (2000) The roles of empathy, anger, and gender in predicting attitudes toward punitive, reparative, and preventative public policies. Cognition & Emotion14: 495–520.
58.
GreenDA (2009) Feeding wolves: punitiveness and culture. European Journal of Criminology6(6): 517–536.
59.
GreenspanP (2004) Practical reasoning and emotion. In: MeleARRawlingP (eds) The Oxford handbook of rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 206–221.
60.
HarcourtBE (1999) The collapse of the harm principle. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology90(1): 109–194.
61.
Harmon-JonesEGablePAPriceTF (2013) Does negative affect always narrow and positive affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of motivational intensity on cognitive scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science22(4): 301–307.
62.
HartHLA (1963) Law, Liberty, and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63.
HaslamN (2016) Concept creep: psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychological Inquiry27(1): 1–17.
HillyardPTombsS (2007) From ‘crime’ to social harm? Crime. Law and Social Change48(1–2): 9–25.
67.
HimmaKE (n.d.) Philosophy of Law. In: Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/law-phil/#SSH2a.i (accessed 20 September 2025).
68.
HoltugN (2002) The harm principle. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice5(4): 357–389.
69.
HorowitzIAKerrNLParkES, et al. (2006) Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: emotional bias and juror nullification. Law and Human Behavior30(2): 163–181.
70.
JenningsWFarrallSGrayE, et al. (2017) Penal populism and the public thermostat: crime, public punitiveness, and public policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions30(3): 463–481.
71.
KahanDMNussbaumM (1996) Two conceptions of emotion in criminal law. Columbia Law Review96(2): 269–374.
72.
KaplanRLVan DammeILevineLJ, et al. (2016) Emotion and false memory. Emotion Review8(1): 8–13.
73.
KarstedtS (2002) Emotions and criminal justice. Theoretical Criminology6(3): 299–317.
74.
KarstedtSLoaderIStrangH (2011) Emotions, Crime and Justice. Oxford: Hart.
75.
KuryHFerdinandT (1999) Public opinion and punitivity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry22(3-4): 373–392.
L’HoiryX (2024) ‘Empathy pouring out of your bones’: Emotions and emotional labour in courts – The case of young magistrates in England and Wales. Criminology & Criminal Justice (Online First) https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958241298492.
79.
ManjooF (2008) True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
80.
MaroneyTA (2006) Law and emotion: a proposed taxonomy of an emerging field. Law and Human Behavior30(2): 119–142.
81.
Martín-GarcíaACorregidor-SánchezAIFernández-MorenoV, et al. (2022) Effect of doll therapy in behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review. Healthcare10(3): 421–434.
82.
MaslenH (2015) Remorse, Penal Theory and Sentencing. Oxford: Bloomsbury.
83.
MaslowAH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review50(4): 370–396.
84.
MaslowAH (1970) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
McKillopDHelmesE (2003) Public opinion and criminal justice: emotion, morality and consensus. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law30: 210–220.
87.
MihaiM (2011) Emotions and the criminal law. Philosophy Compass6(9): 599–610.
88.
MillJS (1991, orig. 1859) On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
89.
MindusP (2021) When is lack of emotion a problem for justice? Four views on legal decision makers’ emotive life. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy26(1): 88–103.
90.
NussbaumM (1999) Secret sewers of vice’: disgust, bodies, and the law. In: BandesS (ed) The passions of law. New York: New York University Press, 19–62.
91.
NussbaumMC (2013) Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Peršak N (2007) Criminalising Harmful Conduct: The Harm Principle, Its Limits and Continental Counterparts. New York, London: Springer.
98.
Peršak N (2014a) Using ‘quality of life’ to legitimate criminal law intervention: Gauging gravity, defining disorder. In: SimesterAPNeumannUdu Bois-PedainA (eds) Liberal Criminal Theory: Essays for Andreas von Hirsch. Oxford: Hart, 225–245.
99.
Peršak N (2014b) The framing of prostitution as victimhood and violence for criminalisation purposes. In: PeršakNVermeulenG (eds) Reframing Prostitution: From Discourse to Description, from Moralisation to Normalisation?Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Maklu, 199–221.
100.
Peršak N (2018) EU criminal law and its legitimation: In search for a substantive principle of criminalisation. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice26(1): 20–39.
101.
Peršak N (2019) Beyond public punitiveness: The role of emotions in criminal law policy. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice57: 47–58.
102.
Peršak N (2020a) Pathways to the criminalisation of emotional distress: An offence- and harm-based typology. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice63(2020): 100416.
103.
Peršak N (2020b) Positive obligations in view of the principle of criminal law as a last resort. In: LavrysenLMavronicolaN (eds) Coercive Human Rights: Positive Duties to Mobilise the Criminal Law under the ECHR. Oxford: Hart, 141–159.
104.
Peršak N (2022) Principles of EU criminalisation and their varied normative strength: Harm and effectiveness. European Law Journal: Review of European Law in Context27(4–6): 463–476.
105.
Peršak N (2023) Legitimando a criminalização: Princípios, harm e argumentação normativa (transl.: João Paolo Orsini Martinelli). In: Queiroz Telles De Camargo AranhaAJCouto De BritoAMoraesJ (eds) Cidadania e Ciência Penal: Livro em homenagem ao Prof. Adalberto José Queiroz Telles de Camargo Aranha. São Paolo, Madrid: Tirant lo Blanch, 576–586.
106.
Peršak N and Di Ronco A (2026) Security governance, harms and resistance: Recalibrating security and redefining incivility through legitimacy concerns. Criminology & Criminal Justice26(2): 549–566 (Online First 2024).
107.
PrattJ (2007) Penal Populism. London: Routledge.
108.
Ravelli CabriniDVisintiniAPSaldaña-TejedaA (2025) Reborn motherhood in Latin America: race, care and neoliberal subjectivities. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society8(1). DOI: 10.1080/25729861.2025.2577517.
109.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Roach AnleuSMackK (2021) Emotion work as judicial work. In: ApplebyGLynchA (eds) The judge, the judiciary and the court individual, collegial and institutional judicial dynamics in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 143–162.
112.
RobertsonAF (2004) Life Like Dolls: The Collector Doll Phenomenon and the Lives of the Women Who Love Them. New York, London: Routledge.
RoseMRNadlerJClarkJ (2006) Appropriately upset? Emotion norms and perceptions of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior30(2): 203–219.
115.
RowbothamJMuravyevaMNashD (2013) Shame, blame and culpability: Crime and violence in the modern state. London, New York: Routledge.
116.
Sampsell-JonesT (2003) Culture and contempt: the limitations of expressive criminal law. Seattle University Law Review27(1): 133–190.
117.
Sanchez do AmaralAS (2024) Gender-based sexual crimes in the Brazilian criminal code of 1940: from moralism to paternalism? In: VermeulenGPeršakNDe CoenselS (eds) Researching the boundaries of sexual integrity, gender violence and image-based abuse. Antwerp: Maklu, 197–228.
118.
SchererKR (2011) On the rationality of emotions: or, when are emotions rational?Social Science Information50: 330–350.
SozzoM (2021) Inequality, welfare and punishment. Comparative notes between the global north and south. European Journal of Criminology19(3): 368–393.
125.
SparksR (2003) State of insecurity: punishment, populism and contemporary political culture. In: McConvilleS (ed) The use of punishment. London: Routledge, 149–174.
SunsteinCR (1996) On the expressive function of law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review144(5): 2021–2053.
130.
TaslitzAE (2009) Why did tinkerbell get off so easy? The roles of imagination and social norms in excusing human weakness. Texas Tech Law Review42: 419–480.
131.
ThamH (2012) The arrogance of power – a Swedish example. Criminology in Europe (ESC Newsletter)13(1): 2–3.
132.
The Lancet Global Health (2025) Harm reduction must replace punitive drug policies (editorial). The Lancet Global Health13(1): E1.
TonryM (1999) Rethinking unthinkable punishment policies in America. UCLA Law Review46(6): 1751–1791.
135.
ToscanoV (2005) Misguided retribution: criminalization of pregnant women who take drugs. Social & Legal Studies14(3): 359–386.
136.
TurnerJI (2012) The expressive dimension of EU criminal law. American Journal of Comparative Law60: 555–583.
137.
TylerTRBoeckmannRJ (1997) Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law & Society Review31: 237–265.
UnneverJDCullenFT (2009) Empathetic identification and punitiveness: a middle-range theory of individual differences. Theoretical Criminology13(3): 283–312.
140.
Van StokkomB (2002) Moral emotions in restorative justice conferences: managing shame, designing empathy. Theoretical Criminology6(3): 339–360.
141.
von HirschA (2003) Das rechtsguts begriff und das ‘harm principle’. In: HefendehlRvon HirschAWohlersW (eds) Die rechtsgutstheorie – legitimationsbasis des strafrechts oder dogmatisches glasperlenspiel?Baden Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 13–25.
142.
von HirschAJareborgN (2005) Gauging crime seriousness: a ‘living standard’ conception of criminal harm. In: von HirschAAshworthA (eds) Proportionate sentencing: exploring the principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 187–219.
143.
WeinerRLBornsteinBHVossA (2006) Emotion and the law: a framework for inquiry. Law and Human Behavior30(2): 231–248.
144.
WeismanR (2014) Showing Remorse: Law and the Social Control of Emotion. Farnham: Ashgate.
145.
WieczorekI (2020) The Legitimacy of EU Criminal Law. Oxford: Hart.
146.
WoodWR (2014) Punitive populism. In: Mitchell MillerJ (ed) The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology. Chichester: Wiley, 678–682.
