Law and Morality Essay Example for Free

righteousness and Morality EssayJ. M. FINNIS Rules made, in accordance with regulative legal rules, by a determinate and effective authority (itself identified and standard constituted as an institution by legal rules) for a complete community, and buttressed by sanctions in accordance with the rule-guided stipulations of adjudicatory institutions. 1 NATURALISTS ST. THOMAS AQUINAS A rational ordering of things which concern the common good, promulgated by whoever is charged with the care of the community. 2SOCIOLOGISTS ROSCOE POUND Law is more than a set of abstract norms, it is also a butt against of balancing conflicting interests and securing the satisfaction of the level best wants with the minimum of friction. 3 WHAT IS MORALITY? No single definition flush toilet be offered to describe what faith is, but in general morality can be mute as a rule prescribing between what is do by and what is wrong. It could also mean a value of the refreshing and unacceptable norm of a given society.Some reserve terms moral and immoral single for the realm of sexuality and use the words ethical and unethical instead of the word moral when discussing how the job and professional communities should behave towards their members or toward the public. 4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY 1. The existence of unjust truths proves that morality and law are not identical and do not coincide. 2. The existence of laws that serve to defend prefatory values, law and morality can work together.3. Laws can state what overt offenses count as wrong and punishable. 4. Laws govern conduct at least partly through cultism of punishment. 5. Morality can mildew the law in the sense that it can provide the reason for making whole groups of immoral elections illegal. 6. Law can be a public expression of morality which codifies in a public commission the basic principles of conduct which a society accepts. 5 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v MOHD ROMZAN BIN RAMLI6 BRIEF translation ON TH E CASEMohd Romzan bin Ramli was charged under the offence of incest under the provision of theatrical role 376A of the penal Code- a someone is said to commit incest if he or she has sexual intercourse with another person whose relationship to him or her is such that he or she is prohibited, under the law, religion, custom or usage relevant to him or her, to marry that person and was sentenced to six years of gyves and one stroke of rotan under section 376B(1)- punish with imprisonment between 6 to 20 years and whipping of the same Code.The impeach had pull the crime in between early January 2006 to 26th May 2006 in a room at his house in Kulai, Johor Bharu, Johor. To an 11-year old girl, Nurul Atikah bte Abdul Kadir, which is also his stepdaughter. In 2006, the girl was forced to undress by the accused and was disturbed sexually by him. He had done the disturbance to her several times. In addition, he be her not to tell anyone and had beaten her. Father of the dupe, lodged a police report after he had find changes in his daughter after he had picked her from his ex-wifes home.After medical check-ups were done by the doctor, the victim suffered from injuries in her private part and was treated by a psychologist. The accused pleaded guilty in forward of the judge,Zawawi Salleh in the High Court of Johor Bharu, prosecuted by the Deputy Public Prosecutor, Husmin Hussin (Johor, State Legal Advisor Office). However, his sentences was changed to football team years of imprisonment and three strokes of rotan, after the case was appealed to the High Court Of Johor Bharu from the Sessions Court Johor Bharu.The sentences were changed as it was dirty to the victim by taking her trauma and injuries into account and the public views about this case. OPINION/CONCLUSION In my opinion, the action of appealing the judgement made by the Sessions Court of Johor Bharu was a just and fair decision. vi years of imprisonment with one stroke of rattan palm is too little compared to the crime. According to John Austin, he defines law as a command given by a sovereign who may be a King, council or parliament. Such a command in his view is backed by obsession so that any person who violates the law, suffer the pain provided by law.7 The accused needs to be penalise for what he had done to the victim. The victim was just a little, innocent girl compared to him whose already old teeming to think about right and wrong. Secondly, punishments for committed crimes are not only to punish the criminals, it is also as a deterrence to the public to not commit the same crime as they will be punished in accordance with the law too. Six years imprisonment and one stroke of rattan are not sufficient enough to deter the crime. As John Austin stated on why do we have to obey the law?It is because of the fear of sanction. Austin view is the fear by which the law, by its coercive power, strikes in the heart of the people is what makes people obey the law. If we remo ve the element of fear from the law, it would not be obeyed as there would be no deterrence. In other words, if a law is made without sanction, it would be disobeyed. 8 Lastly, after the High Court Judge of Johor Bharu sentenced the accused to eleven years of imprisonment and three strokes of rattan, only then, the justice can be seen.Bentham refers justice as maximum happiness of maximum number of people. 9 The publics views on the case are also need to be considered. marginal sentences given could cause an uproar in the society. Even Hart mentioned that justice is a shared excogitation everybody wants justice seen and done. This is also supported by the aim of having law is to maintain peace and harmony. 1 M. D. A Freeman, Lloyds Introduction to Jurisprudence, page 178. 2 M. D. A Freeman, Lloyds Introduction to Jurisprudence, page 143.3 Hari Chand, Modern Jurisprudence, 1994, International Law phonograph recording Services, Kuala Lumpur, page 205. 4 Jacques T. Ethics Theory an d Practice, (5th ed. ). New Jersey Prentice Hall, (1995) 3. 5 Basic Observations on Law and Morality. 10 September 2001. Web. 13 August 2012. 6 Public Prosecutor v Mohd Romzan bin Ramli. Malayan Law Journal, twenty-second January 2012. Web. 13th August 2012. . 7 Hari Chand, Modern Jurisprudence, page 72,80,81. 8 Hari Chand, Modern Jurisprudence, page 74. 9 Jeremy Bentham. N. p. Web. 14th August 2012. .