1. See Sanford H Kadish, 'Foreword: The Criminal Law and the Luck of the Draw' (1994) 84 J Crim Law & Criminology 679 [Kadish, 'Foreword']
2. Stephen J Schulhofer, 'Harm and Punishment: A Critique of Emphasis on the Results of Conduct in the Criminal Law' (1974) 122 U Penn L Rev 1497 [Schulhofer, 'Harm and Punishment']
3. Guyora Binder, 'Victims and Significance of Causing Harm' (2008) 28 Pace L Rev 713 at 714-16 [Binder, 'Victims'].
4. For a discussion of theprima facieirreconcilability of deterrence theory and the harm doctrine (by which harm matters to criminal liability) and its potential resolution, see e.g. Schulhofer, ‘Harm and Punishment,’ supra note 1 at 1499. See also HLA Hart, Punishment and Responsibility (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) at 131. A central consequentialist justification proposed for distinguishing between cases that do and do not cause harm appeals to the need to incentivize wrongdoers to desist or prevent harm when they have attempted to commit a crime. See Ibid.
5. For a discussion of varieties of retributivism, including harm-based retributivism, according to which this would not be the case, see subpartii.a.