"Malum Prohibitum"

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Nov 16, 2008.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Malum Prohibitum" is a legal term meaning that there is nothing intrinsically criminal about a law, other than the fact that government has outlawed it. Basically something like digging up your own property and putting water lines down without a permit. This is considered illegal, but there is nothing criminal about putting water lines down as you're not hurting anyone.

    Another example the NRA give is this

    Now “malum in se" is the term used for a crime that is universally bad. I.e. Murder, rape, robbery, burglary etc... these are criminal as they have a victim and/or are hurting someone.

    What do you think about victimless laws? Where should the line be drawn? We can all agree there are a lot of laws on the books that are enforced that punish otherwise law abiding non-"malum in se" kind of people.

  2. MAgnum9987

    MAgnum9987 Do What Thou Wilt

    the government only make those laws so they can be certain people are obeying them. IF they can call a kind grandfather a felon, they can call abyone a felon.
  3. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    A little controlling and despotic tho, don't you think?
  4. MAgnum9987

    MAgnum9987 Do What Thou Wilt

    Its not despotic unless their is a tyrant. Despotic states are tyrannical and absolute, the US is not despotic in the lease. All it does is assert that the gov't meant is in control.
  5. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Do you folks really have a problem with building codes?
  6. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    By way of explanation, and stuff:
    Sadly, No! John McCain’s BFF Almost Puts Fantasy Into Practice

    Grampa Gordon Liddy explains (listen up, kids):
    Aren't you all happy these people have had a free run with your country's foreign policy for the last eight years? And that from now on, they're going to be spiteful and vengeful as well? Yihah. Or something.
  7. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    I draw the line where malum prohibitum is universally irrelevant; that is, where no victimization could reasonably be expected to arise directly from the crime in question. Marijuana laws would be an example of this. Interstate gun trafficking, however, does not meet this test, and Liddy, he's just cowshit crazy.

    At the end of the debate a law is a law, whether we find it practical or not, and applies equally to everyone in its jurisdiction. Ignorance is no excuse and we can't claim that one shouldn't apply to us personally merely because we foresaw no harm in breaking it. If it were so, I might have argued numerous speeding tickets on the grounds that I'm an extremely skillful and careful driver. Of course, in real life I would have been laughed out of court. I've had no recourse but to accept judgment and pay my due fines, speed-related and weed-related both.

    In all cases, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. That's the way it is.
  8. ysabel

    ysabel /ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5

    I wonder if some laws that make an act a malum prohibitum crime were not necessary to be written as law and should have been left to common sense.
  9. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    The dichotomy seems a little vague to me. If all these acts were considered crimes, which would fall into which category:

    1. Firing a gun blindly around you with a single other person nearby.
    2. Blocking a fire exit.
    3. Setting land mines in a secluded location.
    4. Littering.
    5. Inaugurating a 5-year old as the President of the United States of America.


    Also, I think Pro's description of the dichotomy is misleading, since he makes it out to apply to laws, but a given law could cover acts of both varieties.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2008
  10. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    Mm. Laws passed without good process.

Share This Page