Talk:Malum in se

?

Because what is malum in se depends heavily on ideology, and many philosophies reject totally the concept of malum in se, it seems to be an NPOV violation to list crimes that are malum in se. Twin Bird 04:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

agree with this - I have removed some of the more culture-dependent examples. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 22:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Should recreational drug use really be included in a list of Malum in se crimes? Some recreational drug use is not even illegal in most countries, for example recreational alcohol taking.

OK, most of what I have found seems to agree with my comment above, I have reverted the article to remove recreational drug use. - Chris

Even with certain crimes removed from the examples of acts that are "generally agreed" (according to somebody anyway...) to be malum in se, Twin Bird's point still stands. I have added "" to the article.

216.23.105.25 22:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, theft is also recorced here as Malum in se. I know for a fact this isn't a universally held viewpoint, even if it is just me alone breaking ranks. More relevant to wikipedia anyway, it isn't cited and is clearly contentious...so I'm removing it from the article. I'd rather not remove murder and rape as they do seem to ring as inherent evils regardless of interpretation, but some evidently don't feel so as they are comitted regardless, so without citation that will have to go to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.3.228 (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC) "

There is a subtlety here that I think is being missed. I don't think that whether a crime is "malum in se" or "malum prohibitum" is determined by whether it actually is bad or not, it is a question of whether the lawmakers considered it bad. For example there was a time when it was illegal to assist a slave in escaping from his owner. Such a crime was "malum in se" because it was considered to be like assisting in theft of property. Though we now consider assisting the escape of a slave to be a liberation rather than a theft, under the old law, the crime was, is now, and always will be "malum in se", because that was the intent of those who enacted that old law.

It isn't necessary for there to be universal agreement that an act is bad for it to be a "malum in se" offense. In fact slavery was never even close to universally accepted anywhere. Yet assisting the escape of a slave was still "malum in se" because at least the majority thought it was. In fact it isn't even necessary for the majority to consider an offense evil for it to be "malum in se". For example, a dictator might make a law that it is illegal to insult the dictator. From the point of view of the law maker then, the offense of insulting the dictator would in fact be "malum in se".

Id also like to come up with a better example of malum prohibitum than driving on the wrong side of the road. In the US for example, the crime is not so much driving on the left side of the road as it is driving on the wrong side of the road. And driving on the wrong side of the road has a very high risk of directly causing serious damage. I've thought of two better examples of malum prohibitum. One is the prohibition on the possession of certain bird feathers, even if found on the ground, in order to discourage the killing of the birds for their feathers. Another is the prohibition on possession of medicines in containers other than the original pharmacy labeled container, in order to make it easier to prosecute illegal drug possession. Still another is the prohibition on the possession of property where the serial number has been removed, altered, or covered, even though there is nothing inherently unethical about, say, putting a sticker over the serial number of something you legitimately own. Mindbuilder (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the distinction have any legal effect (eg are there different outcomes depending on the classification) or does it assist in any way? I'd be interested to know because its not one that is _now_ made at all in any English criminal court. Indeed its not one that is made as part of the taxonomy of offences taught to undergraduates either. Nor, may I say, is it one I even understand. Its all very well to give a distinction as in "really bad" and "merely conventionally forbidden" but I'm not sure how you make the distinction in practice. How can I tell which is which? If it mattered at all, then it might help to know how it mattered. Francis Davey (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If rape or murder cannot be unquestionably "malum in se", the phrase may as well not exist. The point in "malum in se" is not the intention of the lawmaker but rather the perspective of the user of the word. For example, a religious-based law would consider everything to be "malum in se", even if said law was incredibly unfair and oppressive, as 'evil' in that case would be defined by their religious text. No, the meaning of "malum in se" is how the majority of people in the entire world see it, regardless of law. If it were legal to murder in a country, it would still be evil - from our perspective. Perhaps not in the perspective of those under said law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.194.242 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

When Malum in se and Malum prohibitum both spend a lot of space talking about the other, perhaps it is time to merge them. Manney 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Would doubtlessly merge "in se" w/ "prohibitum". Each adds meaning and context to the other since they are almost always used in concert to discuss legality of actions. It is also essential to mention that prohibitum actions are not necessarily in se, and vice versa. It would be hard to think of examples of in se that would not be prohibitum. If a legal system is to be virtuous, then in se actions should always be prohibitum.

I'd say for sure that the only one is regicide ;-). 86.219.177.34 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Laguna; btw i agree on the merging

I also strongly agree that this article should be merged. The article on Malum prohibitum seems a little better so maybe we could do little more than just replace this one with that one. I don't have time now but I'd say the next person who reads this should merge it if there are no objections made in the near future, since there haven't been any objections made to merging in the last three years. Mindbuilder (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor Examples

An example given of Malum Prohibitum is driving on the left or right. While it's true that in the UK and most (all?) commonwealth countries people drive on the left, that is a matter of tradition, not of law, at least in the UK. The road markings, driving instruction and so on are all set up for driving on the left, but there is no absolute requirement to do so... nor is driving on the right prohibited. I can't give a legal reference to back this up (I don't believe one exists, we don't have a list of things there's no law about), but if you take a look at The Highway Code you'll see things listed as "must", "must not", "should" and "should not". Those written as "must" and "must not" have a legal basis and cite legislation to back them up. Those marked "should" and "should not" are advisory only. Driving on the left is, strangely, a "should" item. I don't believe this is a good example of Malum Prohibitum as strictly it's neither Malum nor Prohibitum. Seatbelt, helmet or recreational drug use laws would be MUCH more appropriate examples. I've removed the section about driving laws for the time being as I couldn't see a straightforward way of making it factually accurate and I certainly don't have the time to dig around for information on where driving on one side or the other, seatbelt use or helmets are either mandatory or advisory. Jack of Many (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Malum in se.

Rape, murder, are malum prohibitum, and not malum in se. You are mistaking moral conduct with law, there not being any inherent wrong/evil in murder nor rape, except that what comes in context of the circumstances. Statistically, most humans live in cities, populated areas, under peacefull circumstances with more than sufficient resources that those issues do not prop up in terms of survival, therefore considered to be malum per se.

Mallum per se, is for example, continuous torture, due that not being an inherent natural event in any form nor manner (not even for food or survival).

The standard example, used in the animal kingdom, are animals, whom play with their prey, killing them, but then leaving them alone without a second thought. This too is somewhat virtual, being it that for many animals, it is solely an exercise of a behavioral mode. (Witches cats, for example, where in olden days considered evil, for that same form of reasoning, and by and through indirection, the old lady librarian, now considered hag) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.217.235 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)