Talk:Malum in se

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

==

Because what is malum in se depends heavily on ideology, and many philosophies reject totally the concept of malum in se, it seems to be an NPOV violation to list crimes that are malum in se. Twin Bird 04:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

agree with this - I have removed some of the more culture-dependent examples. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 22:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Should recreational drug use really be included in a list of Malum in se crimes? Some recreational drug use is not even illegal in most countries, for example recreational alcohol taking.

OK, most of what I have found seems to agree with my comment above, I have reverted the article to remove recreational drug use. - Chris

Even with certain crimes removed from the examples of acts that are "generally agreed" (according to somebody anyway...) to be malum in se, Twin Bird's point still stands. I have added "^{[weasel words]}" to the article.

216.23.105.25 22:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

When Malum in se and Malum prohibitum both spend a lot of space talking about the other, perhaps it is time to merge them. Manney 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Would doubtlessly merge "in se" w/ "prohibitum". Each adds meaning and context to the other since they are almost always used in concert to discuss legality of actions. It is also essential to mention that prohibitum actions are not necessarily in se, and vice versa. It would be hard to think of examples of in se that would not be prohibitum. If a legal system is to be virtuous, then in se actions should always be prohibitum.