To what extent is crime based on morality?

[KALKI]

To what extent is crime based on morality?

Lord Justice Denning wrote that

"Ever since the time of Henry I, in order that an act should be punishable, it must be morally blameworthy. It must be a sin."

The definition of a sin is a comparatively clear one, and since St Thomas Aquinas, has been regarded as any act against Gods law, and because of the very close association between political structures and religious doctrines, law and morals have had a close relationship. But this is not the end of the argument. How germane is the relationship between crime and our oldest and most orthodox source of morality?

We hold property to be very important in our society, not only the acquisition of it, but also the keeping of it once acquired. But in the book of Mathew chapter 19 verse 24, we are tolled that it is "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

So putting judgements aside for a moment, what sort of rules are criminal rules. Some rules require that we do something, others that we do not do a particular thing. Criminal laws are predominantly the 'do not´ type. Negative rules in that they prohibit certain activities because they offend certain dominant values within a group, or because they are simply an affront to basic social existence. But how 'dominant´ must the value be, before it is 'wrong´ to go against it. With so many conflicting moralities in our various cultures, which of them when transgressed leads to sanctions. Rape is bad and is a crime, but adultery is also bad, and in the eyes of certain religious groups a worse transgression, but it is not a crime. Society´s attitudes to specific areas of crime demonstrate that we are a collective morality, more diverging than converging to any conclusion.

The laws on abortion are a fine example, there is a moral component, a medical component and a 'citizens´ component. Each group has in their eyes a valid case to hammer home, but as Pym said, 'The loudest voice gets the best hearing´. Perhaps this is a poor example of a crime, and its link to morality as society´s attitudes have changed over the last fifteen years on the issue of 'a right to choose´.

But what of society´s moral opinion of Euthanasia or the great Cannabis debate. Does the crime always meet the public judgement of crime? The complex laws of obscenity and pornography are a further example. If there is a close alliance between crime and moral sentiment, and if we acknowledge that the association is a healthy one, it only seems clear cut in acts that are a menace to the system we support and the rules are set to serve. Murder, and Rape and theft for instance.

But societies based on communal ownership, would find our reverence of property rather puzzling, and were does theft stand on the moral scale if a man steals milk to feed his starving infant. The sanction taken against him should reflect the mitigation, but the crime is still theft. A man may perjure him self to protect his family, but the crime is still perjury.

So how do we define a crime. It is difficult, but it should, if defined properly, be recognised as one by some formula, and therefore acts that are not crimes may be recognised also. So a crime is;

"An action or behaviour that offends or is an affront to certain dominant
Values held collectively by a group, or threatens the liberty or safety of the
Group or members of it"

But what of morality. The outrages of Hitler´s Germany were all perpetrated within the law determined by the collective values of those in the system. The Nuremberg Trails after World War II were set on a moral platform. Clearly stating that a crime is described as more than our formula above and is wider than the 'Group´ that it conforms to but that a crime can be against some 'Natural Law´, some moral standard recognised as part of our humanity or morality.

What of suicide? To take your own life on 1st Aug 1961 was a crime, but not a crime two days later. The powers of the Suicide Act took away the legal stigma. Sex between gay men was a crime on 27th July 1967, but not the next day.

The morality or immorality of the acts did not change over night, but their legal nature did. This is not to say that the views of the agencies set to enact the law changes with the law. Judges and Police Services are notoriously slow in recognising the change in a countries moral climate, and are often dilatory.

The way in which criminal charges are brought, also suggests a greater consideration than a single individual asking for redress to a wrong. If A steals a video recorder from B, B can prosecute A for theft, but so can E or H or C. Once the prosecution has started, A cannot just have a change of heart. There is a general principle at stake, that if left unchallenged would place us all in jeopardy. There is a greater wrong being punished than the loss of a video recorder. To steal is morally wrong.

But society´s sanction against crime is its self only moral if the crimes are committed with free choice. This makes the sanction just.

So laws are not rooted in some common morality, or indeed in any common political or religious foundation, but against a constantly moving social and economic set of conditions.

So the test of a crime against immorality may be a helpful one. Some crimes are 'wrong´ as in murder or rape and theft, but lying, it may be immoral, but it is not a crime. Many summary offences are crimes, but are they immoral. When we compare adultery to putting your vehicle licence disk on the wrong side of the windscreen the test of morality becomes less helpful.

[w ά ŧ έ υ έ я]

i shuda stole that for my exam..law & morals ha lol