Hart-Devlin Debate - Essay Example

Hart-Devlin Debate Analyze and resolve the “Hart-Devlin” debate. Lord Wolfenden chaired a meeting in 1957 that recommended the existence of homosexuality activities in private. The chairperson suggested that as long as their activities remained private they should not be criminalized (Cane 21). Wolfenden and the entire committee argued that; criminal law meant to protect the public from injurious activities and protects people against corruption and exploitation. However, the law is not against the private lives of people and the activities they undertake in private. Therefore, a law cannot be imposed that interferes with the private lives of people. The report by the committee sparked a reaction from Patrick Devlin. Devlin in his discussion on “the enforcement of morals” argued that criminal law is not only meant to protect individuals but the entire society. Therefore, if people are engaged in activities that are against the society norms should be criminated. He further argued that criminal law should not only protect criminal activities that directly affect people, but rather should protect society from adverse effects imposed by individuals both in public and in private (Cane 22). Herbert Hart reacted against the argument of Devlin in a radio broadcast. Hart argued with regard to the “harm principle” by J. S Mills. He argued that the only reason in which power can be correctly exercised over any individual in society against his will is, to ensure no harm imposed to others by the individual (Cane 23). An argumentative debate between the two individuals ensued, both of them believing their side of the argument to be reasonable. Devlin argued that the society supposed to be united by legal and moral conducts. Therefore, any actions that jeopardizes society’s norms should be criminated (Cane 24). The society supposed to impose its morality so that cultural values and believes can be maintained. Hart argued against this argument claiming that Devlin did not provide factual evidence of his arguments. Hart claimed that society norms are widely used; therefore, using them to deny a group of people to conduct their private activities is not respecting the morals of individuals. Some contributions made regarding the subject of law and morals of society (Cane 25). Therefore, in order to establish a valid argument of the case standards ought to be set and difference between harm and moral standards should be established. In addition, a relationship between law and morality should also be discussed in details. The debate sparked by the report established by wolfenden committee. The committee was established to put in consideration the law governing prostitution and male homosexual behavior. Nonetheless, the debate that ensued concentrated on the subject of sexual conduct and morals. The committee was discussing the issue of criminal activities with regard to homosexuality. The debate concentrated on criminal law and did not put in consideration other forms of law (Cane 26). The society plays a significant role to play with regard to ensuring the community and the country at large behave accordingly. According to Devlin, the actions of individuals can affect the outlook of the entire society. Therefore, when lawmakers are developing laws they should put into consideration a person’s liberty (Cane 27). In addition, technological advancement is changing overtime; therefore, it is reasonable enough for the society to come to terms with the changes. Devlin’s view After the committee published its report, Devlin was quick to respond to the report through a public lecture. Devlin argued that morals and laws should go hand in hand. Behavior of an individual does not only affect the individual alone but the entire society (Cane 28). Therefore, legalizing homosexuality is offensive to the society as it goes against the moral standards of the society. the society’s cultural values should be protected by the law. Devlin’s argument meant to protect the society through the imposition of laws that put the society in consideration. He contributed to debate, claimed that homosexuality is immoral, and should not be legalized by the law. Strengths of Devlin’s view Devlin intentions were to protect the morals and ethics of the society. He was against corrupting the society by new sexual behavior, and he advocated to ensure the law supported his outlook (Cane 27). He argued that the society should be guided by certain principles, to ensure people from all lifestyles remained united. He further claimed that unethical behavior will make the society fall apart; therefore, to ensure the society remained united certain laws should be imposed. Devlin’s argument was to ensure the society preserved its cultural and moral beliefs so that the future society can benefit. He argued that if every person was allowed to behave as he or she pleases in private then what can of society could we have. Homosexuality is a controversial subject it was not accepted in the past, therefore, either the individuals involved are allowed to conduct their behavior in private it was still a crime (Cane 28). Legalizing the activity will promote a number of criminal activities, for instance, sodomy among other evil acts. The young generation would not be able to protect itself from the homosexual behavior-taking place in private. Devlin advocated to ensure proper laws established to protect the moral activities of people. The society should; therefore, come up with laws that protect the cultural and moral conduct of people. Devlin’s argument was based on religious views. According to religion, both Christianity and Islam condemned homosexual behavior (Cane 29). Devlin wanted the society norms were respected, and the religious values were also not interfered. Devlin purpose was to ensure the people of the society were not corrupt in any way, if the law passes a law that protect people, because they are not conducting their activities in public. A number of criminal activities will then ensue in private. Devlin’s arguments meant to ensure the morals and principles of the society are maintained. Every individual would like to associated with a society that has an outstanding reputation. Therefore, advocating to ensure the society cultural values and morals respected proper laws should be established. The laws should not only target individuals but the entire society (Cane 30). Weaknesses of Devlin’s view Devlin’s argument that an individual, private behavior should be criminated is not correct. Establishment of moral laws will lead to so many moral offenses and a half of the society will be prosecuted. Moral behavior that are considered by a section of the society, to be wrong should not be taken to mean that it is a criminal offense. A person’s private behavior should be regarded as a crime if the entire society is affected in one way or another (Cane 31). The conduct of an individual should be regarded as a crime if it causes harm and pain to the society. Every individual in society has rights and freedoms that ensure exploitation prevented. Therefore, considering a person’s private behavior as crime is wrong and jeopardizes the rights of an individual. Hart’s views Hart’s argument against Devlin also meant to protect the society that Devlin was protecting. According to Hart, views of Devlin wanted to interfere with the rights of individuals. If the moral laws established, then the private behavior of most individuals will be at stake. He claimed that the behavior of individuals should be criminated if they cause harm to society. He argued that the behavior of homosexuals in private did not affect the society in any way. In addition, technological advancement expected to bring more changes in future, and before long, the behavior of homosexuals will be acceptable to the society. Hart advocated protecting the rights of an individual from exploitation by moral values (Cane 32). Strengths of Hart’s view Hart’s argument advocates protecting individual rights and choices. An individual should be held liable for any behavior seen to cause harm to the entire society. Harm defined as injurious activity affecting a group of people or the entire society. Causing pain to feelings of an individual or a group of people is not injurious in any way and should not be considered as a criminal offense. He further argued if moral behavior was jeopardized that should not constitute a criminal offense. Therefore, an individual’s behavior that causes pleasure s and pain to a group of people should not be considered as harmful. In addition, the behavior should also not be termed as a criminal offense (Cane 34). Every person has a right to behavior in accordance to choice, and if the behavior considered morally wrong law should not criminate the behavior. Weaknesses of Hart’s view Hart’s view that a criminal offense should be defined by the harm the individual imposes in society is wrong. If his view is taken into consideration, a number of criminal activities will take place in private. In addition, people would claim that they have the right to behave as they please. Hart’s argument was only putting into consideration physical harm forgetting that mental and emotional harm also amount to criminal activity. People’s behavior in private can amount to harm to the general society especially the neighbors (Cane 35). Therefore, mental and emotional harm should be put into consideration when establishing laws meant to protect individuals and the entire society. In addition, a new generation expected to exist in the future. Therefore, if the young people are allowed to see the actions of their elders in private then what the children are likely to practice more damaging activities when they become adults. Values and morals of the society will be non-existence, and a corrupt society will be enhanced. Morals and ethics known to ensure people behave accordingly and criminal activities prevented. If the law existed without social support, then a number of people could have been prosecuted, as a result. Therefore, it is essential to ensure the society supports the laws set by the government and this norm should be vice versa. Therefore, when creating laws to protect the people society’s morals and beliefs should be put into consideration (Cane 36). Explain why Devlin had the better of the debate. When Devlin’s and Hart’s debate are put under scrutiny, Devlin can be considered to have a better argument. This is because Devlin supported his argument on the basis that moral values and conduct should be respected and adhered. Therefore, when the government embarks on establishing new laws the opinions of the society should be put in consideration. This is because the lawmakers and the entire government are in governance as a result of the opinions of the society (Cane 37). Democracy was established to ensure the opinions of the people are respected and adhered. Therefore, it is significant to respect public laws and norms to ensure the individual’s behavior conforms to the laws of the society. In addition, Devlin also based his argument on religious believes. This made his debate and consideration better than Hart’s. Religion ensured people behave accordingly and respect moral values of the society. Therefore, enacting laws that supported uncouth behavior not supported by the religion is wrong. People will start doubting religious values because of the existence of laws that support immoral conduct. Homosexuality is not accepted by the diverse religious believes. Therefore, establishing a law that legalized their activities goes against religious and societal norms. Devlin’s argument can be considered better because he advocated to ensure people behaved accordingly. In addition, maintaining a god reputation of the society should be the dream of every individual and Devlin’s argument expected to ensure societal norms are respected and adhered. Religious leaders agreed with Devlin because he did not want the future generation to be made up of only homosexuals, which is against religious believes (Cane 38). Reject both positions and argue for what is a better approach. The positions of both Devlin and Hart are not convincing. The committee was created to put into consideration criminal law with regard to certain sexual wrongs. However, Devlin and Hart established their own argument based on criminal law in general and the wrongs related to homosexuality. The committee did not intend to narrow down the issue of sexual offenses to homosexuality only. Therefore, the arguments of both Devlin and Hart are unacceptable. A better approach to the committee report would be to consider the impact of the report to liberty and moral standards. Instead of disagreeing with the report, adjustments could be made to the argument in hand. The committee wanted to protect sexual behavior of homosexuals and prevent prostitution; therefore, by legalizing homosexuality uncouth behavior could have been prevented (Cane 40). Therefore, instead of arguing for or against the report, Devlin and Hart could have approached the issue in a different way. For instance, the two could have suggested for some adjustment, to report on a factual basis. In addition, the report advocated covering more than homosexuality and moral values. In addition, criminal activities involve more than liberty and moral behavior; therefore, rejecting the report or supporting the report on the mere basis will not be entirely helpful to individuals and society. In addition, criminal activities involve more than moral conduct and a person’s rights. Negligence, injurious offenses and reckless behavior are considered to be a criminal wrong. Therefore, when approaching the committee report liberty, moral behavior among other issues should be put into consideration when addressing the report. Devlin and Hart failed to raise a number of issues in their argument. The two failed to put into consideration how criminal offenses are tackled. If homosexuality was considered a criminal activity, the individuals involved would suffer from stigma from the entire society. Therefore, Devlin suggestion could be harmful to the individuals involved and their rights could be interfered. On the other hand, Hart’s argument did not consider the moral behavior as a result of allowing people behaving the way they want. The report was meant to cover more than homosexuality, and both Hart and Devlin did not put that into consideration. In their arguments, Hart and Devlin argued for the sake of the society. They wanted to protect people’s liberty and societal morals. They wanted the law to protect the people instead of exploiting them. However, the law established to guard the public and ensure the rights of the people protected and respected. A common ground is what both Hart and Devlin could have tried to achieve. The rights of individuals and the moral conduct of the entire society could have been put into consideration, to ensure the law does not favor a certain group of people. After the committee had submitted their report to the public, public opinion and suggestion should have been put into consideration for any adjustments to the report. This will ensure the opinions of everyone with regard to the report put into consideration. The civil society should also be asked for their opinion, to ensure the society not torn in the discussion. Law and morality in the case taken to be some sought of competition. Morality considered to ensure the law is respected. Morality involves reasoning and not arguments and conflicts. Therefore, people should concentrate on ensuring laws are enacted that protect the public interest and individuals. Conclusion Laws established to ensure individuals and the entire society are protected. Hart and Devlin intends to ensure the individuals and the public are protected against any exploitation laws. Therefore, in accordance to debate it is necessary to ensure when a law is suggested the public should be involved in offering their opinions rather than dividing people into two argumentative groups. The law is enacted to protect the rights of individuals, in addition; the society morals and norms are also to be respected. Therefore, before any law is passed these two points should be taken into account. To prevent public debates with regard to enacting of laws proper definition of terms should be provided. For instance, in the Hart-Delvin debate, the word “harm” should be well defined and the laws with regard to morals of the society should also be well stated. Reputation is indispensable in any particular state; therefore, laws should be established to ensure the societal norms are respected. The issue of sexual behavior should be taken seriously, and proper laws should be enacted to protect people involved. The laws should not discriminate the individuals. In addition, public opinion should be taken into consideration before a law is enacted. However, when a report is provided to the public about a certain law the public should air their opinion without resulting to argumentative debates. Law and morality go hand in hand; laws exist to ensure moral conduct is respected and maintained. Through laws, individuals behave accordingly, and societal norms are maintained. People are directed in the right direction, and criminal activities are controlled through set laws. In addition, morals also influence the behavior of an individual. If a person is brought up in a morally upright society, the individual is unlikely going to become a criminal. Therefore, in any argument people should put into consideration laws and moral conducts. Work cited Cane, Peter. Taking Law Seriously: Starting Points of the Hart/Devlin Debate. Journal of Ethics, 10 (2), 21-51.2006. Read More