What is the difference between acts that are considered mala prohibita and mala in se? Give examples of both.
What will be an ideal response?
Acts that are defined as mala prohibita refer to those that are “bad because they have been prohibited.” That is, such acts are not viewed as bad in themselves but are violations because the law defines them as such. Traffic violations, gambling, and infractions of various municipal ordinances might serve as examples. Such laws are viewed as assisting human groups in making life more predictable and orderly, but disobedience carries little stigma other than (usually) fines. The criminalization of such acts might be viewed as institutionalization of folkways. On the other hand, acts mala in se are “acts bad in themselves,” forbidden behaviors for which there is a wide-scale consensus on the mores for prohibition. The universality of laws against murder, rape, assault, and the like, irrespective of political or economic systems, bears witness to the lack of societal conflict in institutionalizing such laws. One can note that not all deviant acts are criminal, nor are all criminal acts necessarily deviant, assuming that laws against many acts mala prohibita are commonly violated.
You might also like to view...
The crime control model focuses on which of the following?
a. efficiency b. rehabilitation c. reform d. effectiveness
The Fourteenth Amendment:
A) protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure B) protects citizens from unreasonable use of force by police C) spreads power between the executive and legislative branches D) requires states to observe federal due process standards E) provides counsel for indigent defendants
Legal departments can use the ________ in determining the validity of—or defending against—lawsuits and _______________ filed by customers
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word
Which absorption spectrum is equivalent to a "fingerprint" of a substance and can be used for identification purposes?
a. Visible b. IR c. UV d. X-ray