HARM PRINCIPLE GUIDES TO CRIMINALIZATION

Should harm principle guide to criminalization of behaviour



Should harm principle guide to criminalization of behaviour

As the harm principle began to dominate the legal philosophic debate, the principle also began to dominate criminal law scholarship and legal rhetoric. Most of the leading criminal law scholars either adopted the harm principle or incorporated it in their writings. Herbert Packer, in his famous book published in 1968, entitled The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, included the harm principle in his list of limiting criteria that justified the criminal sanction. Although Packer did not focus primarily on the harm principle--focusing instead on the effectiveness and social consequences of policing certain activities--he did incorporate it into his work and argued that "[t]he harm to others formula seems to me to have... uses that justify its inclusion in a list of limiting criteria for invocation of the criminal sanction."

John Mills believed that every individual had the right to be free to do as they pleased but only when it did not effect or harm others. I agree with his argument although it is open to criticism today by all different individuals. For example, Abortion is open to debates: does harming an unborn child count as harming another person, and from what point? The fact Abortion is legal up until 24 weeks in pregnancy suggests that the law sees this as the moment at which the foetus becomes another.

Up until 1967 it was illegal to have an abortion. When the Abortion Act 1967 came in to place it aloud women to have an abortion but only for certain reason. For Example risk to your life, risk of injury to your mental and physical health, risk of injury to the mental and physical health of your existing children or substantial risk that the child would be born severally mentally or physically handicapped.

The Abortion Act 1967 was then Amended in 1990 by section 37 of the Fertilisation and Embryology Act#. This main change is that there is now an upper time limit of 24 weeks for legal Abortions.

This showed that the bodies involved in changing this law existing law used the premise. Everybody has there own moral views on this law being Amended some are for it and some are against it but this is the case with everything. Everybody has there own views and opinion on everything.

Homosexuality was illegal until 1967 homosexuality Acts. In 1967 the Sexual Offences Acts was passed, which stated that Homosexual acts between consending adult males in private were no longer a criminal offence. Once again this shows that the bodies involved in changing this law used the premise. By being Homosexual it does not harm others to any extent, only those that morals disagree with Homosexuality will be against the decision of those who changed the law. Everybody has the right to be free to do what they want if they don't do any harm to others so it is only fair that gay men get to live ...