fandomhigh | Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #5, Feb 2]

"This week," Alex said, as she leaned against her desk, "we're changing the syllabus up a little, and jumping ahead to victimless crimes. It seemed like a better fit here. We'll get to civil liberties later on in the term."

With that, she scooped up a piece of chalk and began writing, continuing her lecture as she did so. "John Stuart Mill wrote an essay called On Liberty. It was his philosophical principles on which he felt government should be formed. In it, he lays out something which has come to be known as the Harm Principle. And that is ..."

She stopped and underlined the sentence she had been writing, then stepped away so the students could read it.

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

"Very simple," she said. "Laws should only protect against harm. Mill felt that the government should not have the right to restrict any behavior that wasn't directly tied to harm. Mill was therefore against something we know as the Offense Principle: the idea that certain rules should be made to protect citizens from themselves, or for the good of society as a whole. Detractors of the Offense Principle call these charges 'victimless crimes.'

"To give you a clearer example, let's talk about drug abuse. Some believe that any citizen should have the right to place any substance in his own body; he has consented, so it is no longer the government's concern in any way. Others say an addict is no longer able to freely consent, and that the government should intervene on his behalf. And some will argue that the cost is too large to society as a whole: that drug addicts are unlikely to be functioning members of society, and in some cases, are more likely to be violent when seeking a fix.

Alex lifted her shoulders and set the chalk down again. "I specified 'addiction' and 'abuse' because it's easier to see the harm. It would be difficult to say that recreational drug use is acceptable, but addiction is against the law. How does society determine addiction? There's no clear test. And today's recreational user could easily be tomorrow's addict. The line blurs."

"Should drug use be legal? What about prostitution, or gambling? Does the government have the right to enforce laws not predicated on direct harm?"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"Well, sometimes people get hurt indirectly?" Kurt mused out loud. "...And... some things are morally wrong, but not actually illegal, and maybe they should be? And how do you define 'harm', anyway? If it's only someone's feelings that get hurt, does that count?"

"Legislating morality is a tricky situation," Karla said grimly. "My morality and your morality probably don't agree in a lot of cases. Saying one is right and the other is wrong--so long as the issue at hand doesn't involve victimizing someone else--is really hard. Lots of people in this world think sex before marriage is immoral or that same-sex marriage is, too."

Personally, Karla wanted to know why the governments spent so much time worrying about what adults got up to in the bedroom.

"Well, it doesn't SEEM like there's anything wrong with it," Kurt acknowledged, "but there has to be SOME reason God says it's a sin, even if it doesn't make any sense, ja? Ach, ineffability makes my head hurt. It doesn't matter. Either way, it's not something you should make ILLEGAL."

"You're God," Karla pointed out. "My Priestesses back home don't give a damn. But the point stands, when it comes to legislating morality, whose morality do you legislate?"

Kurt frowned. "I don't know... I guess you have to find things most people can agree on?"

"It might," Alex said. "They dress it up nicer and call it damage to someone's reputation. Slander and libel rules argue that a great deal. As your classmate said, legislating morality is one of the messiest issues in law. Do you have the right to say that anything you find to be immoral should also be illegal, for everyone else?"

"Of course I have the right to SAY it," Kurt answered with a grin wide enough to be clearly seen under the cloak's hood. "That's free speech. I just don't have the right to make a law about it. 'Render unto Caesar something something something', ja?"

"My apologies," Alex said, grinning at the dig. "By 'say' I meant 'determine into law,' but my wording was unclear. Free speech we'll get into later, because there are limits on it, as well."

Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #5, Feb 2]

Re: Discussion - Offense Principle - JST05

Re: Discussion - Offense Principle - JST05

Re: Discussion - Offense Principle - JST05

Re: Discussion - Offense Principle - JST05

Re: Discussion - Offense Principle - JST05

Re: Discussion - Offense Principle - JST05

Re: Discussion - Offense Principle - JST05

Re: Discussion - Offense Principle - JST05