Chris, thanks for raising this issue. It reminded me of a Criminal Law course in which the Professor introduced us to two Latin terms describing the basis for even having criminal laws.
Mala en se….it is wrong, or to be prohibited, because it is bad/evil/harmful “in and of itself.”
The other basis:
Mala en prohibita…it is wrong, or to be prohibited, because we say it is.
Examples for the first would be low dose level, lethal substances, not produced or sold through lawful channels and Physician’s prescriptions.
Example for the second would be prohibition and its repeal…society spoke twice on a substance that has a known lethal dose level.
More to say, but thought these approaches to creating criminal laws are important.
We are endowed by our creator with certain un-alianable rights. Un-alienable means no one can take them away. You can't even separate yourself from them.
Chris, thanks for raising this issue. It reminded me of a Criminal Law course in which the Professor introduced us to two Latin terms describing the basis for even having criminal laws.
Mala en se….it is wrong, or to be prohibited, because it is bad/evil/harmful “in and of itself.”
The other basis:
Mala en prohibita…it is wrong, or to be prohibited, because we say it is.
Examples for the first would be low dose level, lethal substances, not produced or sold through lawful channels and Physician’s prescriptions.
Example for the second would be prohibition and its repeal…society spoke twice on a substance that has a known lethal dose level.
More to say, but thought these approaches to creating criminal laws are important.
This is why I don’t like the metric system.
Top-down.
We are endowed by our creator with certain un-alianable rights. Un-alienable means no one can take them away. You can't even separate yourself from them.
Do we still hold these truths?