Law and morality!

Question 1

Intro- What is a the definition for Law

Answer 1

‘A body of principles recognised and applied by the state in the administration of justice’

Question 2

P 1- What is 3 views of the positivist Theory

Answer 2

• Legal rule is valid if it made by a recognised legislative power. Does NOT matter about the content of the law;Morality is irrelevant.
• Individuals are free to do whatever they want so long as no one else is harmed (RvBrown)
• Argue that there is no connection between law and morality. The validity of a law does not depend upon its moral acceptability.

Question 3

P 1- What is 3 views of the Natural Law Theory

Answer 3

• Law is valid if it is compatible with a higher, moral authority.
• Government has right to protect the moral fabric of society and influence behaviour, Law and morality are connected
• Moral standards that govern human behavoiur, come from nature of human beings and the nature of the world

Question 4

P2- What offences are both legal and moral rules?

Answer 4

Murder, rape, theft and child abuse

Question 5

P2- Give 2 differences between Legal and Moral Rules?

Answer 5

1. LR= be traced back to their origin either common law created by judges (RvR) or an act, Same sex marriage act.
   MR= Not easy to trace back to their precise origin, many MR may date back to religious teachings or the individuals upbringing/ societies views.
   2.LR= apply to everyone. consequently, everyone must always wear a seat belt
   MR= range from almost complete universal adoption to having only marginal acceptance. some moral issues divide public opinion (brexit)

Question 6

P3- Give 3 parts of the wolfenden committee that Professor Hart agreed with and 1 he did not?

Answer 6

Agreed with the wolfenden committee to:
1- Decriminalise prostitution and homosexuality
2- Individualistic point of view = a focus should be on a person doing that they want rather than society dictating
3. society should not interfere with private morality
HOWEVER:
1. Even Hart agreed that morality could be enforced in certain situations whether immoral conduct created a genuine public nuisance e.g. Riots, sex in public

Question 7

P3- Give 3 parts of the wolfenden committee that Devlin agreed with and some he didn’t?

Answer 7

Agreed
1. Believed that without morality the law destroys freedom of conscience and is the road to tyranny
2. Moral laws are justified to protect society from disintegrating
3. Even private immorality must be punished because such behaviour is harmful to society.
HOWEVER:
Devlin points out that there are limits to society interfering with the private immoral behaviour; The law should only interfere when the ordinary reasonable man would find immoral conduct intolerance and disgusting

Question 8

P4 -An example of Harts viewpoint?

Answer 8

R v Wilson= Appellant branded her husbands initials on her bum with a hot knife. skin became infected and doctor reported the matter to the police and D was charged with ABH.
Wife’s consent was valid, Hart = Society should not interfere with private morality behind closed doors

Question 9

P4- An example of Devlins Viewpoint?

Answer 9

R v Gibson= He put on a art exhibition, had a pair of earrings with freeze dried human fetuses.
Held- Charged with exhibiting public nuisance and outraging public decency
Devlin= It is not a criminal offence but a moral one. Protects public and law without this would destroy freedom of conscience

Question 10

P5- What happened in Re A

Answer 10

Conjoined twins
Dr wanted to split them but parents didn’t want to but if they didnt then the sisters would die. Drs got a court order and split the sisters against the Parents permission. Very difficult moral choice for the courts here but one life lost is better then 2.