: : Piper: Well Lark, there IS a serious relationship between the criminal law and religion- much of the moraility of the church forms the foundation of the criminal law (See Devlin, the enforcement of morals or for the contrary HLA Hart). : It's funny you should say that because someone else has recommended that I read Devlin and I'm getting some of his material from the Uni library next week, I've got a book here called 'the struggle to be human: Crime, criminology and anarchism' by L.Tift and D. Sullivan (I could get you a copy, I've got a cheap supplier, e-mail me at gerarddonaghy@Hotmail.com) the trouble is that it's a bit on the 'post-capitalism there will be no crime because on the eve of the revolution there will be a total change in the individual' side of things.
: What I really need is something that reflects the reality of the matter aswell as the importance of a libertarian perspective.
Piper:
libertarian classic: John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. Mill basically wanted to get rid of every law that did not cause 'harm' to others.
This is to be distinguished from Devlin who thought that morals formed a vital part of the foundation of the criminal law (In The enforcement of morals.
Then again we have HLA Hart (in Law, Liberty and Morality)who thought that morals may have once formed a basis of the criminal law, but do so no longer. He thinks there are other justifications for criminal laws (ie he advocates a position like Mill's).
Now the above three references are not anarchist references as such, but they do pertain to the question of exactly how much freedom should be allowed by the criminal law (these three form part of a classic debate and you should read them all with that in mind).
You might also want to check out:
Dworkin, 'Liberty and Moralism' in taking rights seriously. (For more criticism of Devlin, although he does partially restate hart)
Finnis, 'Legal enforcement of duties to onself', Columbia Law Review 87 (1987) 434. (For the view that it is right for the state to enforce religous morals, for the 'good' of the people.) You might also want to stick your nose into Rawls A theory of Justice if your going to have a look at this one.
You might also want to check out The moral limits of the Criminal Law by Joel Feinberg (in 4 vols), an excellent piece of work.
(BTW If you need to bone up on moral philosophy, you might want to try here.)
: : Piper: I hope that 'hat' is a fez or something similary eccentric (bowler hat perhaps)- I would hate to think you're roaming around in one of those perverse baseball caps.
: Well the black beret is popularly associated with IRA so I have to opt for the baseball cap, corporate logo and all, I'm tempted to get a real insane hat though for the badness and wear it towards the end of term.
: : BTW I can't believe you support eugenics...
: I view eugenics in a very, very different light from other people, especially other eugenicists, who in my opinion are either proto-nazi's or fit in a dangerously authoritarian 'social good' camp.
: I what I understand as eugenics is a program of total bio-medical health and safe natural genetics conducted in an open manner that aims at improving things for the individual primarily and benefiting the social good as a consequence.
: When I made the assertion that eugenics would benefit society in class, everyone was horrified but then I discribed that what I considered eugenics wasnt mass programs of sterilisation but rather conscious use of voluntary conraception etc. they cooled a little, that may be an indication of some kind of ingrained but unconsiouse libertarianism there, which could be only good.
Piper: This will have to wait, for i have things to do. However as an end note Lark, you might be interested to hear that I was listening to the radio this morning and there was a homosexual man who was saying that gay men are more promiscuous than heteroes (or lesbians), which i believe is something that you were saying in the 'anything else' room and being chided for. So there you have it, from the horses mouth, so to speak.
None.
