In liberal democratic societies, the criminal law allows for the direct involvement of the State. As a result of the State’s collusion with the criminal law, the State has the force, power, and authority to investigate crimes, prosecute, and punish offenders whereas private citizens do not have an alternate choice but to cooperate with the State. This disproportion of power gives rise to the State’s ability to use the criminal law in an unwarranted, illegitimate, and tyrannical way in which its citizens are oppressed and their liberty is constrained. Given this possibility, John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle aims to restrict the scope of the criminal law and government restrictions on personal liberty.
In John Stuart Mill’s essay, On Liberty, …show more content…
For example, Mill’s distinction fails to address psychological harm (i.e. bullying) – in which he claims that the psychological harm being caused must be explicitly shown by the person causing the psychological harm. Thus, Mill’s version of the Harm Principle is need of a little modification wherein Joel Feinberg put forth his formulation of the principle. Feinberg’s version of the Harm Principle focuses on what exactly harm is in which he defined harm as a setback to a person’s interests, so the State can criminalize any setback beyond a threshold of seriousness. Feinberg put an emphasis on the major defect of Mill’s version of the Harm Principle and claims the ‘harm’ in the Harm Principle does not necessarily only mean physical harm. Psychological harm can also be included within the Harm Principle as “harm” that the State is legitimately entitled to criminalize. Similarly, harming and offending are sorts of things that cause setbacks in which harm can cause more serious setbacks than that of an offense. All and all, much of Joel Feinberg’s formulation is the same as that of JS Mill. Still the “setbacks” Feinberg mentions in his version of the Harm Principle need clarification, and accordingly, Nils Jareborg and Andrew von Hirsch follow from Feinberg’s formulation. Jareborg and von Hirsch claim that if an action seriously diminishes someone else’s …show more content…
According to a strict reading of JS Mill’s Harm Principle, the State does not have the authority to criminalize Latimer for the murder of his disabled daughter because anything that has consent is perfectly legal and cannot be criminalized such as euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. While in Latimer’s case, the Harm Principle illustrates the murder of Tracy Latimer as a mercy killing, it places too much importance on individual liberties as means of maximizing happiness. Mill’s formulation fails to take into the different kinds of harm that can be done to others. Due to lack of a definition of ‘harm’, the Harm Principle does not take into account the possibility of individuals exercising their autonomy which result in the infringement of harm done to others. Mill wanted to keep a check on popular opinion so that individual remains liable because the majority’s opinion can be incorrect, but in this way, the exact opposite is achieved. This principle only further strengthens majority rules because the “interference” Mills talks about must be of general interest, meaning majority interests still
In John Stuart Mill’s essay, On Liberty, …show more content…
For example, Mill’s distinction fails to address psychological harm (i.e. bullying) – in which he claims that the psychological harm being caused must be explicitly shown by the person causing the psychological harm. Thus, Mill’s version of the Harm Principle is need of a little modification wherein Joel Feinberg put forth his formulation of the principle. Feinberg’s version of the Harm Principle focuses on what exactly harm is in which he defined harm as a setback to a person’s interests, so the State can criminalize any setback beyond a threshold of seriousness. Feinberg put an emphasis on the major defect of Mill’s version of the Harm Principle and claims the ‘harm’ in the Harm Principle does not necessarily only mean physical harm. Psychological harm can also be included within the Harm Principle as “harm” that the State is legitimately entitled to criminalize. Similarly, harming and offending are sorts of things that cause setbacks in which harm can cause more serious setbacks than that of an offense. All and all, much of Joel Feinberg’s formulation is the same as that of JS Mill. Still the “setbacks” Feinberg mentions in his version of the Harm Principle need clarification, and accordingly, Nils Jareborg and Andrew von Hirsch follow from Feinberg’s formulation. Jareborg and von Hirsch claim that if an action seriously diminishes someone else’s …show more content…
According to a strict reading of JS Mill’s Harm Principle, the State does not have the authority to criminalize Latimer for the murder of his disabled daughter because anything that has consent is perfectly legal and cannot be criminalized such as euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. While in Latimer’s case, the Harm Principle illustrates the murder of Tracy Latimer as a mercy killing, it places too much importance on individual liberties as means of maximizing happiness. Mill’s formulation fails to take into the different kinds of harm that can be done to others. Due to lack of a definition of ‘harm’, the Harm Principle does not take into account the possibility of individuals exercising their autonomy which result in the infringement of harm done to others. Mill wanted to keep a check on popular opinion so that individual remains liable because the majority’s opinion can be incorrect, but in this way, the exact opposite is achieved. This principle only further strengthens majority rules because the “interference” Mills talks about must be of general interest, meaning majority interests still