Question details

asked in:
24342
army101st
army101st (Rank: Novice)

What are the contrasts of the concepts of natural crime and legal crime?

supporters so far (last 10):

[Close window]
0

helpful

credits: 50
Asked in criminal Justice asked on: 04/23/2007 02:00am
closed on: 04/24/2007 02:00am

1 Answer

21590
u-know-me

u-know-me

Rank: Bachelor (948) | criminal justice (17)

9 hours after the question was opened (04/23/2007 10:55am)

1

The consistent theoretical problem has been to justify the State's use of force to coerce compliance with its laws. One of the earliest justifications was the theory of natural law. This posits that the standards of morality are derived from or constructed by the nature of the world or of human beings. Thomas Aquinas said: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I), i.e. since people are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, to be valid, any law must conform to natural law and coercing people to conform to that law is morally acceptable. William Blackstone (1979: 41) describes the thesis:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
But John Austin, an early positivist, applied utilitarianism in accepting the calculating nature of human beings and the existence of an objective morality, but denied that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality, i.e. a moral code can objectively determine what people ought to do, the law can embody whatever norms the legislature decrees to achieve social utility, but every individual is free to choose what he or she will do. Similarly, Hart (1961) saw the law as an aspect of sovereignty with lawmakers able to adopt any law as a means to a moral end. Thus, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of a proposition of law were simply that the law was internally logical and consistent, and that State power was being used with responsibility. Dworkin (2005) rejects Hart's theory and argues that fundamental among political rights is the right of each individual to the equal respect and concern of those who govern him. He offers a theory of compliance overlaid by a theory of deference (the citizen's duty to obey the law) and a theory of enforcement, which identifies the legitimate goals of enforcement and punishment. Legislation must conform to a theory of legitimacy, which describes the circumstances under which a particular person or group is entitled to make law, and a theory of legislative justice, which describes the law they are entitled or obliged to make.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime copy

Rating:

helpful

Rated as good answer by:

supporters so far (last 10):

[Close window]
0

Rate as good answer

Number of comments:

0

Add your opinion

This question has already been closed. You can write a different opinion to an answer or a comment to this thread.

  • Comments