This is reflected in the issue of forced marriages. Many victims (particularly women), are pressured into marrying someone for a number of reasons, such as controlling unwanted behaviour and sexuality. This can be argued as morally wrong as a person in this day and age should not be forced into marriage against their will. As stated by the UN Committee of the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, “A woman’s right to choose a spouse and enter freely into marriage is central to her life and dignity, and equality as a human being.” These moral beliefs were assisted by legal rules in November 2008 where the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 came into force. “State parties shall ensure on a basis of equality men and woman…the same right freely to choose a spouse to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent.” This act prevents forced marriages and protects those who have already fallen victim. This portrays that the law went far to a large extent to uphold and promote moral values.
Conflicting views are portrayed between law and morals through the Hart – Devlin debate. The Wolfenden Committee produced a report in 1957 which triggered the debate in which it illustrated the similarities between law and morals. Professor Hart followed the work of Professor John Stuart Mill. He disputed that the law should not be used to uphold moral values. He stated that “Just what people happen to believe or accept is not to be equated with correct standards of morality.” He also said that “using the law to enforce moral values was unnecessary, undesirable, as morality is a matter of private judgement.” Here it is evident that Professor Hart was familiar with the significance of individual autonomy as he did not want moral beliefs and values to impact upon and symbolize legal rules. Harts view was also shared by the French sociologist Durkheim who stated that “in a modern society it is very difficult to pin point a set of moral values.” However in comparison, Lord Devlin rejected Professor Hart’s view and stated that “morality is not simply individual judgement…society must have recognised common morality.” Here it is strongly evident that Lord Devlin wanted moral values to be endorsed through law.
In addition to this there seems to be a contradiction between the relationship of law and morals. This is expressed through The Sexual Offences Act which states that homosexual and heterosexual couples have the same rights. However this understanding was not fully applied in the case of R v Brown (1993), where the defendants were held liable of homosexual sado-masochistic acts even though all participants consented. In contrast the defendant in the case of R v Wilson (1996) was not held liable after he branded his initials on his wife’s buttocks with a hot knife; even though this could have been classified as a sado-masochistic act. The Court of Appeal held that “…activity apparently requires no state authorisation, and the appellant was as free to engage in it as anyone else.” – Yet the appellants in Brown were all convicted of ABH and three were found guilty of wounding as Lord Jauncey stated that “it would not be in the public interest for the deliberate infliction of bodily harm.” This judgment follows that of Devlin’s in which the public’s ethics should be upheld before an individual.
An instance where the law does not seek to uphold and promote morality is illustrated in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1986) in which the rights of a parent were overruled. The case involved a doctor who was offering advice and willing to give contraception to a girl under the age of 16. This raised a morality issue in which the girl’s mother wanted the doctor to have consent from her before he could undergo this activity; otherwise he would be acting unlawfully as the girl was under aged. Even so the courts ruled that a doctor was able prescribe contraceptives to a girl under 16 to shun any damage to her health, even though he knew it would make it easier for a man to have unlawful sexual intercourse. This portrays that law surpassed moral values as in this occasion; a child who was under the age of 16 and had competent understanding was labelled “Gillick competent.” and were able to consent to their own medical treatment. However moral issues clearly derive from this decision: could a child under the age of 16 give full consent? Do they have adequate independence to choose what to do with their bodies?
Changing attitudes in society also reflect the way in which the law seeks to uphold and promote morality. This is seen in the case of R v R (1991) in which the defendant, who was living away from his wife; raped her in her parents’ home which he had forcibly entered. Here Lord Keith stated that "This is not the creation of a new offence, it is the removal of a common law fiction which has become anachronistic and offensive and we consider that it is our duty having reached that conclusion to act upon it.” This eliminated the ancient rule that a wife was deemed to have given her consent irrevocably once she was married. Lord Keith saw this as an example of law developing in the light of changing social and cultural advances.
In conclusion it can be said that the law does indeed uphold and promote moral values in most legislation. This can be seen as whilst morals are varying overtime, so are laws; exemplifying to us that law and morals share a powerful connection. Though in most legal rules, moral values are not upheld and this is very apparent. By and large as stated by Hart, moral values and laws share a likeness, “they share a general habit of obedience within society to which they apply.”