The objection advanced by Harel and Teichman (HT) to governments’ reliance on “policy recommendations prescribed by behavioral theorists”—intended to induce compliance with penal rules and thereby prevent crime—can be read as raising twin concerns about the ethical permissibility and practical usefulness of what I call “criminal‑nudging policies.” This paper does not aim to provide an exhaustive definition of that type of public policy or to defend its legitimacy. Rather, it identifies the challenges these measures pose to traditional theories of criminal law—the framework on which HT’s critique rests—and, given the ubiquity of nudging, recognizes behaviorally informed choice architecture as a non‑optional parameter for criminal governance; the issue, then, is implementation rather than adoption: namely, how to use it effectively within legal and ethical constraints.