Is an illegal abortion a Malum in Se offense or a Malum Prohibitum offense? Anglo-American Common Law generally divides criminal offenses into two categories. Malum in Se offenses are inherently wrong. This includes traditional offenses such as Murder, Robbery, and Assault. Some sources define the concept as encompassing acts that would be wrong even if there was no specific law against it. Malum Prohibitum offenses, on the other hand, are not inherently wicked acts - they are just against the law for whatever reason (often public order, safety, or health). Common examples of such offenses are DUI, carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, evading an immigration checkpoint, and possessing a controlled substance. Wikipedia cites: Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905). Also see Book 4, Chapter 1 of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, in which he states (my emphasis) AS to the power of human punifhment, or the right of the temporal legiflator to inflict difcretionary penalties for crimes and mifdemefnors. It is clear, that the right of punifhing crimes agianft the law of nature, as murder and the like, is in a ftate of mere nature vefted in every individual. For it muft be vefted in fomebody ; otherwife the laws of nature would be vain and fruitlefs, if none were empowered to put them in execution : and if that power is vefted in any one, it muft alfo be vefted in all mankind ; fince all are by nature equal. Whereof the firft murderer Cain was fo fenfible, that we find him expreffing his apprehenfions, that whoever fhould find him would flay him. In a ftate of fociety this right is transferred from individuals to the fovereign power ; whereby men are prevented from being judges in their own caufes, which is one of the evils that civil government was intended to remedy. Whatever power therefore individuals had of punifhing offences aginft the law of nature, that is now vefted in the magiftrate alone ; who bears the fword of juftice by the confent of the whole community. And to this precedent natural power of individuals muft be referred that right, which fome have argued to belong to every ftate, (though, in fact, never exercifed by any) of punifhing not only their own fubjects, but alfo foreign embaffadors, even with death itfelf ; in cafe they have offended, not indeed againft the municipal laws of the country, but againft the divine laws of nature, and become liable thereby to forfeit their lives for their guilt. AS to offences merely againft the laws of fociety, which are only mala prohibita, and not mala in fe ; the temporal magiftrate is alfo empowered to infict coercive penalties for fuch tranfgreffions : and this by the confent of individuals ; who, in forming focieties, did either tacitly or expreffly inveft the fovereign power with a right making laws, and of enforcing obedience to them when made, by exercifing, upon their nonobfervance, feverities adequate to the evil. The lawfulnefs therefore of punifhing fuch criminals is founded upon this principle, that the law by which they fuffer was by their own confent ; it is part to the original contract into which they entered, when firft they engaged in fociety ; it was calculated for, and has long contributed to. their own fecurtiy. Is obtaining an abortion contrary to local law a malum in se or a malum prohibitum offense? I can think of arguments in favor of either: Illegal abortions are Malum In Se Abortion is often considered by opponents as a form of Murder, which is a traditional malum in se offense. Arguments against abortion are often couched in moralistic terms, rather than arguments based on public good. That is, activists typically claim that banning abortion is a moral or religious duty rather than claiming that banning it would improve people's health, build the economy, reduce pollution, or make elections fairer for minority candidates. Illegal abortions are Malum Prohibitum Laws on when, if, and how an abortion may be lawfully performed vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A law based on a timeless moral "truth" would be expected to be harmonious nearly everywhere. Restated, is Abortion inherently a Malum in Se act, with statutes in various places changing the rule to allow it in certain scenarios, or is abortion inherently permitted according to the Common Law view of morality, with modern anti-abortion laws being strictly statutory in nature? As Nate Eldredge mentioned, I am aware that some people may approach this from the perspective of their own religious or moral views. What I'm interested in is whether this has been analyzed from a purely legal perspective or whether a court has ruled on it.
This distinction was once important in English law, and other common-law systems derived from it, because common-law courts felt free to punish a Malum in Se even when there was no relevant statute, while a Malum Prohibitum would be punished only if it violated a specific statute. But today in the US, and to a large degree in the UK and other common-law countries, nearly all law has a statutory basis (although subject to interpretation by courts). Thus the distinction between Malum in Se and Malum Prohibitum no longer makes a significant difference, and is pretty much purely academic, except in a historical context.
In the United States, each state is free to define their own version of what is rape and what is sexual assault. Many States view rape and sexual assault to be of &quot;equal severity&quot;, but they are punishable under different laws. For example, Kentucky defines rape as any non-consensual intercourse and includes anal sex and object penetration in the definition of intercourse. Alaska does not define rape in its criminal code but all forms of unwanted sexual penetration (by object or other) under sexual assault charges. New York defines rape as sexual intercourse without consent and all other unwanted contact under sexual assault. Source: takepart.com As you can see, the definition of rape and sexual assault is either combined or broken out into separate laws. In most States though, the punishment for either rape or sexual assault is considered the &quot;same severity&quot;. Under Federal crimes, rape is not defined but is grouped under 18 US Code 2241-2248. Punishment for these crimes range from a fine through life imprisonment. So for the United States, your (1) and (2) either may be classified as &quot;rape&quot; or &quot;sexual assault&quot; but the severity of the offense and the punishment is usually equal under the eyes of the law. Taking New York for example... Sec. 130.00 defines terms Sec. 130.50 Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree Sec. 130.52 Forcible Touching Sec. 130.35 Rape 130.50 (Criminal Sexual Act, which (1) and (2) fall under) is a Class B Felony, so is 130.35 (Rape). They all fall under Sec 70.80 for sentencing, which says that a Class B Felony must be a term between 5 and not exceeding 25 years. You can look up the laws in other States, but many follow the same pattern, either they lump sexual assault and rape under the same law, or they break them apart into distinct &quot;rape&quot; and &quot;sexual assault&quot;, but use the same sentencing guidelines.
usukaustralia Yes, this can be charged as a type of negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter. The degree of culpability might be greater than negligence, since the initial act was a premeditated crime. There is no intent to kill The act is criminal and malicious The consequences are reasonably foreseeable The offense would be a type of constructive manslaughter, where a crime not intended to kill or cause bodily harm results in death. In the UK this is also known as an unlawful act manslaughter. The perpetrator of a premeditated crime is held responsible not only for the intended consequences, but also for foreseeable incidental ones, albeit at a reduced degree of culpability. This doctrine is established in both civil and common law, and will apply in broadly similar ways, with different local names, usually variations on unintended homicide, in most civil law jurisdictions as well. us Medical or fire-fighting equipment being among the stolen items is, in many jurisdictions, by itself sufficient to raise the charge to grand theft, which is a felony in common law. If Bob actually specializes in this, and a death did occur, the prosecution might charge them with second-degree felony murder, if applicable in their state. That rule is generally applied when the base offense presents danger to human life, but there have been cases that stretch it. Burglary is sufficient to apply this rule. Such a charge is less certain to stand up in court and is usually traded down in a plea bargain.
Is there something in the language of the act that makes sexual harassment a civil rather than a criminal offence? Yes. Laws that create criminal offenses have to have language to the effect of "violation of this law is punishable by up to X years of imprisonment or a fine of up to $Y", or "violation of this law is a Class Z felony." Sometimes it is not entirely clear if violation of a law can form a basis of a private civil lawsuit, or if it can only be enforced by government officials, from the language of the statute alone. When it is unclear the courts have to resolve that ambiguity. In rare instances, it may be clear that some parts of a statute have criminal penalties, but due to unclear wording and punctuation in the statute, it is hard to tell precisely which parts of the statute these criminal penalties apply to, and in those cases, courts also have to resolve that ambiguity. There is also some conduct that it is constitutional to punish with a civil penalty, but not as a crime that can result in incarceration. For example, it is unconstitutional in most states to incarcerate someone for failing to pay a debt, but there can be a civil penalty for failing to pay a debt. Courts decide if these constitutional limitations are violated. Similarly, while Congress can enact both crimes and civil penalties, there are some governmental bodies, like school districts or water boards, that have the power to enact certain civil penalties, but do not have the authority to create new crimes. Was that up to the lawmakers to decide, or is that just something that evolved out of the ways the courts and prosecutors responded to sexual harassment claims? And who decides such things in general? Generally, this is decided by lawmakers. Obviously, however, anyone can lobby legislators to take one position or another. Also, the fact that something has a civil penalty does not necessarily mean that prosecutors aren't the people who enforce the law. Sometimes violations of the law prosecuted by prosecutors have civil rather than criminal penalties. For example, many tax law violations are prosecuted by government lawyers with civil penalties, but only a small minority of tax law violations are prosecuted criminally. Further, it isn't uncommon for a type of offense, like securities fraud, to have both civil penalties and criminal charges available as remedies that can be enforced by prosecutors. And, when that happens, prosecutors get to decide which tool to use. For example, even if exactly the same conduct could be prosecuted with either a civil penalty or a criminal charge, prosecutors might prefer a civil penalty because the burden of proof is much lower, the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not apply (you can refuse to testify but that fact can be used against you in a civil penalty case), and a defendant in a civil penalty case doesn't have a right to a lawyer at government expense. Also, enforcing a civil penalty generates net revenue for the government most of the time, while criminal punishments normally cost the government more money to carry out than any revenue the government may receive from the person found guilty for fines and court costs. On the other hand, trying to enforce a significant enough civil penalty to discourage misconduct against someone who has no money or property may be a futile effort, while criminal sanctions could discourage misconduct from other similarly situated people in the future.
In Texas, sex offenses are defined in Texas Penal Code § 21.01, et seq., and rape and kindred offenses are defined as sexual assault § 22.011 and aggravated sexual assault § 22.021. None of those laws prohibit the conduct described (assuming adults who are not in a teacher-student relationship with full mental capacity), nor do they prohibit the video as long as there is no intent or threat to disclose it. Of course, not recognizing that it is the same person both times in an in person meeting when they have sex is highly implausible.
This answer assumes Europe as jurisdiction, not the United States. This will vary wildly across jurisdictions, but given that this question is unanswered for two weeks now, I will provide an answer for Europe, specifically the Czech Republic. It will be somewhat different in other states. First, the list of criminal offenses a corporation can commit is specified in the law. It is exactly that, a list. Of the 300 crimes an individual can commit here, about 100 of them can also be done by a corporation. It is hard to discover why these hundred crimes were chosen specifically. Logic used to make this list eludes me. For example, a corporation can commit Rape, but not Murder. It can commit a Terrorist attack but not Terror. It can commit Threatening a public official but not Oppression. I looked through the explanatory notes for the law and I discoved the reason: Strictly only those crimes were created for corporations that were required by higher european law, which only moves the question higher up. I did not look up what the European Parliament had to say about this. There is one crime that was added specifically, later on, to the list, and that is Usury. In principle, all crimes committed by an individual can be done by a corporation, because a crime is considered to be committed by a corporation if the action is done by an employee in the name of the corporation.
Illegal activity is activity that contravenes the law. Criminal activity is illegal activity that is also a crime. What constitutes a crime is usually detailed in a criminal code in each jurisdiction but can derive from common law crimes like murder, arson, rape etc. A crime is an offense against society and is generally prosecuted by the state. For example (may vary by jurisdiction): Breaking a contract - illegal Stopping in a No Stopping zone - illegal Negligently polluting the environment - illegal Breaking someone's arm - crime Deliberately ramming someone with your car - crime Recklessly polluting the environment - crime
Why would he not have been charged with &quot;housebreaking&quot;? In england-and-wales neither &quot;house breaking&quot; nor &quot;breaking and entering&quot; are legal terms: the offence is called burglary contrary to s.9 of the Theft Act 1968 which in 1983 was: (1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm or raping any woman therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein. There is no difference between nightime and daytime entry, and there is no requirement for a forced entry. All that's needed is to go in without permission intending or attempting to do one of the relevant offences. I can only surmise that the reason(s) theft, rather than burglary, was charged was a (pre CPS) prosecutorial decision based on the admissible evidence, Fagan's mental state and what was in the public interest because the quoted text seems to meet the criteria for burglary. (ETA subject to the actual circumstances surrounding the alleged theft of the wine, which are not clear from the quoted text.)