The Issues of the Moral Code in the Criminal Law - Admission/Application Essay Example

The Issues of the Moral Code in the Criminal Law In “Morals and the Criminal Law," Lord Patrick Devlin writes: "nothing should be punished by the law that does not lie beyond the limits of tolerance…. i do not think one can ignore disgust. It is deeply felt and not manufactured. Its presence is a good indication that the bounds of toleration are being reached. Not everything is to be tolerated. No society can do without intolerance, indication, and disgust; they are the forces behind the moral law, and indeed it can be argued that if they or something like them are not present, the feelings of society cannot be weighty enough to deprive the individual of freedom of choice." (16-17) what exactly is Devlin saying here and how does it relate to the argument(s) of the essay? Do you find his views persuasive? How do you think he would have dealt with some of the problems associated with illegal immigration? For instance, would he have endorsed the efforts of some states to permit state law enforcement officials (police, Sheriffs, etc.) to require proof of identify and immigration status upon request? What do you think? Lord Devlin’s statements serve to explicate his views that a society is partly constituted by its morality; thus, it has a right to protect itself from any attack on that morality. In this regard, Devlin meant that the society had a right to decide on what is wrong and what is right. Therefore, not all responsibilities were to be left on the hands of the state. He believed that tolerance, indication and disgust were three important facets driving moral law in the society. In these statements, Devlin argues that the existence of any society is determined by the sustenance of shared moral and political values. Lack of respect of the shared morality slackens one of the bonds holding the society together; thus, threatening its disintegration. In this regard, the criminal law may be invoked to protect the shared morality in the same manner it is used against sedition and treason. Any breach of the shared morality does not harm other individuals in the same way assault or murder does; however, they harm the society by extremely deflating its moral structure. The society has a right to quash acts that can threaten its existence. There are ‘elastic’ ideologies which decide the time a society the society should implement this right. In this regard, Devlin’s sentiments explicate the conditions influencing when criminal law should be used to counter immoralities. In as much as Devlin is concerned, individual liberty should be tolerated. His statements suggests that the law should be fast in enforcing moral standards, and in case the intense feelings against a certain form of conduct deprives or subsides the law of its backing, then the law should be extremely effective (Devlin 14). In all these, privacy should be esteemed at all costs. Devlin’s ‘elastic’ principles demonstrate that he has a respect for individual freedom and tolerance. However, he also rejects Mill’s way of defending freedom since he believes that Mill is operating from an extremely idealistic view of human beings. Devlin assert that Mill envisions people conscientiously and intently doing what they consider right even though some people disapprove their conduct (Devlin 16). However, this is rarely true of those people who go against the society’s shared morality. Devlin believes that most people are aware of the inequality of their behavior, but they still at the same way because of their desire for money and lust. To an extent, I find Devlin’s argument persuasive. This is because he believes that the views of an ordinary person in a society should be considered when determining the contents of the shared morality. He asserts that it is the views of the man in the Clapham omnibus or the juryman that one should ask for (Devlin 23). Additionally, his notion that maximum individual freedom toleration should be consistent with the society’s integrity when enforcing criminal law makes some sense. This is because it reiterates the fact that an individual’s freedom as well as the society’s integrity should be considered when imposing criminal law (Devlin 17). This is important since it ensures there is coherence between criminal law and the societal demands. He also adds that society’s limit of toleration are not arrived at just because several people do not like a practice. However, when the majority’s view regarding a conduct reaches a certain level of indignation, intolerance and disgust; then, something must be done. For instance, if the society genuinely believes that homosexuality is an abominable vice and its mere occurrence is an offence; therefore, the society maybe compelled to eradicate it. On the contrary, Lord Devlin’s account inadmissibly denotes that an immoral and corrupt society has equal rights with a decent society so long as they are able to integrate the society. His assertions also highlight the possibility of another legal moralism account that does not make errors, but sees morality as reason-based. In this case, his account does not give a clear route; however, his challenge to those people supporting the harm principle or similar principles is aimed at showing the adequate basis for protecting various morality domains from the state in its law passing. In regards to problems associated with illegal migration, I think Lord Patrick Devlin would have endorsed efforts of some states to permit state law enforcement officials (police, Sheriffs, etc.) to require proof of identify and immigration status upon request. This is attributed to the several problems illegal immigration has caused to the citizens of Americans. These problems have adversely affected the society to the point that their toleration and disgust have been stretched to the maximum limit. Some of the teething problems caused by illegal immigration and illegal immigrants include; lost jobs, stolen taxpayer resources, depreciated wages, as well as the rise in crime rates and domestic terrorism. All these problems affect the American society in several ways; thus, the need to design existing American immigration and border laws to protect American citizens would have been endorsed by Patrick Devlin. There are several people who have lost their jobs as well as their homes as a result of foreclosure rising from illegal immigration. In addition, the less desirable jobs that natives can take up in order to provide for their households are either taken by the immigrants or flooded by immigrants leading to depreciation in wages. This makes it extremely hard for the natives to make ends meet while working in such jobs. These problems caused by illegal immigration and immigrants are a threat to the morality of the society. For instance, lack of jobs and increase in crime rates has adverse effects on the society. Therefore, legal intervention is inevitable to ensure both collective and individual survival, as well as to avert social disintegration as a result of social cohesion loss. Being a person who believes in the well-being of the society, Lord Patrick Devlin would be part of the team of legal experts to endorse stringent measures to prevent illegal immigration and immigrants if the good was aimed at making the society better. In conclusion, Lord Patrick Devlin assertions played an integral role in ensuring that certain morality domains of the society are protected from the state when it is passing its laws. The three facets of morality; tolerance, indication and disgust ensures that there is cohesion in the society and the rule of law is upheld (Devlin 17). Works Cited Devlin, Patrick. The Enforcement of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Print. Read More