"Malum Prohibitum"


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

As a birthday gift, a grandfather in Belpre, Ohio, gives a 1930s vintage Savage .410 single-barrel shotgun to his 12-year-old granddaughter a few miles across the river in St. Maries, W.V. Most would call him a wonderful grandfather, but technically he has committed a federal felony.
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.


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.


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.
Do you folks really have a problem with building codes?
By way of explanation, and stuff:
Sadly, No! John McCain’s BFF Almost Puts Fantasy Into Practice

Grampa Gordon Liddy explains (listen up, kids):
I am asked frequently whether I believe in “blind obedience” to orders from legitimate authority, the code that permitted many Germans to carry out genocide. I do not. While there is a presumption of regularity that must obtain in any orders from legitimate superiors without which no government could function, I believe in individual responsibility, free will, and the rule of reason. There is a point beyond which I will not go, and that is anything my conscience tells me is malum in se (evil in and of itself) or my judgment tells me is irrational. I have no problem with doing something that is malum prohibitum (wrong only because of the existence of a law prohibiting it).
Notice that this would not be retributive but preventative. It is the same rationale by which I was willing to obey an order to kill [Journalist] Jack Anderson. But I would do so only after satisfying myself that it was: a)an order from legitimate authority; b)a question of malum prohibitum; and c)a rational response to the problem.

I thought about the damage Anderson was doing to our country’s ability to conduct foreign policy. Most of all, I thought of that U.S. agent abroad, dead or about to die after what I was sure would be interrogation by torture. If Hunt’s principal was worried, I had the answer.
“Tell him,” I said, “if necessary, I’ll do it.”
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.


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.


/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.


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: