Are paternalistic crimes justified in todays society
Introduction: New Zealand has many laws that are justified on the basis of “protecting individuals from self-inflicted harm, or in its extreme version, to guide them, whether they like it or not, toward their own good. ... Various pieces of paternalistic legislation are adequately justified, for example, traffic regulations governing the wearing of seatbelts and safety helmets. However, legislation governing assisted suicide and recreational drugs are examples that are paternalistic, but subject to debate and controversy. Criminal theorists have developed arguments both supporting and in opposition to various paternalistic laws, and developed theories to justify their arguments. These arguments and examples of paternalistic legislation on euthanasia, recreational drugs, and their comparisons to traffic regulations are analysed to consider whether paternalism is justified. Ultimately, it appears that much paternalistic legislation is not based on morality, rather protecting people from self inflicted harm, which leaves its justification open to continuing debate. Paternalistic Theories: “The harm principle allows for the prohibition of conduct causing harm to others.” Paternalistic law can be justified by the harm principle because it is protecting an individual from self-inflicted harm. However, if morality is used to justify paternalistic interventions, then justification becomes more difficult because morals are merely concerned with rights, wrongs and ethics of human behaviour. ... ” The justification of paternalism is limited, and when analysing a paternalistic argument care must be taken, because often morals are concealed. ... However, the benefits of enforcement for both individual and society have been doubted. ... ” Mill suggests in On Liberty , that no one is justified in interfering with an individual’s liberty. ... There are many criminal theorists who disagree with the paternalistic doctrine. ... The maxim, Volenti non fit injuria (to one who consents no harm is done) contradicts the paternalistic doctrine. Feinberg developed two theories of paternalism: weak paternalism, where a person is protected from non-voluntary choices, and strong paternalism, where the state is justified in protecting a person against his will, from the harmful consequences of that person’s fully voluntary choices and undertaking even if they are fully voluntary. Dworkin also illustrates the lack of justification of some paternalistic laws, but points out how wide-spread paternalistic interventions are, and how drastic their total elimination would be. Opponents to paternalistic laws justify their arguments by the use of morality. ... ” It is argued that paternalism has not developed society because it is often based on immoral principles and can be misconceived, which is why it is often subject to criticism. ... With the exception of the legalisation of homosexual acts and attempted suicide there have been no major to changes in strong paternalistic legislation in New Zealand in last 20 years. ... The Crimes Act 1961 is the current law in New Zealand governing assisted suicide offences. ... This is a largely paternalistic section. ... This is why paternalistic laws were developed to protect people from causing harm to themselves. ... Those in favour of drug control argue that drugs are a public health hazard, with consequential costs to society, most notably the loss of productivity among workers. Those who violate the laws become criminals and are more likely to commit other crimes. Offenders of drug laws associate with criminals making it easier for them to commit other crimes such as theft and people who are under the influence of drugs have reduced inhibitions against committing other crimes.