Morals are beliefs, values and principles that are set by society or part of a society, determining what is right and wrong. Unlike legal rules, compliance with moral rules is voluntary, that are often informally enforced through social or domestic pressure. Law and morals are both �normative�: They specify what must/ought to be done and mark the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable conduct. Morals, are not usually backed by legal sanctions, but are often reinforced by social pressures; such as family and friends. They can have powerful influences on people�s behaviour, and develop over 1000�s of years; often heavily embedded in religious and social history. (Mainly Christianity) while Laws can be introduced almost immediately by Parliament or the Courts. There is an overlap between law and morals. I will discuss different areas of the law within which morals views will be taken into consideration as well as the legal views.
The most famous advocate of the Natural Law Theory was the Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas developed Aristotle's ideas and argued that the natural 'purpose' of the world is found in God. Humans are free beings and are capable of choosing to follow the 'natural law' of God which is understood through reason. He believed the 'human purpose' was, 'to reproduce, to learn, to live harmoniously in society and to worship God'. Thus Natural law describes not only how things are but how things ought to be and this happens when things are fulfilling their natural purpose, and are unnatural when they are not. Moral laws are also grounded in Natural law. Aquinas believed human beings were created by God and that each one of us has a particular purpose that we are potentially capable of achieving. He also taught that morality is not primarily based on commands from God but on reason, which could be called philosophical investigation, which by its application can raise people to an awareness of morality. Devlin had a similar view in the Hart/Devlin Debate which followed the publication of the Wolfenden report in 1957. Devlin was strongly opposed to the report, on what might be cited as a natural law approach. He felt that society had a certain moral standard, which the law had a duty to support, as society would disintegrate without a common morality. His theory is based on objective morality, a common morality shared by all in society. The oldest morals form Law. Natural law is formed from the bible for example, Thou shall not kill would be classed as murder. It is obvious that it would not be morally and legally acceptable to murder someone. However, a moral judgment is not simply a matter of personal opinion. Some people see moral ascertains as inferentially true or false and say morals may change from time to time or place to place- �general consensus within society�. One side of the argument is correct, one side of the argument is wrong. For example the Nazi's believed that what they did is right yet we judge them. They were dictated into believing that what they were doing is right on the basis that the whole nation was in a moral agreement. When the whole of your society is doing something should you be pressured into doing the same thing?
Legal positivism is a view of law as it is set rather than it ought to be. It implies that legal rules are valid not because they are rooted in moral or natural law, but because they are enacted legitimate authority and are accepted by the society as such. Another theory refined by John Stuart Mill is utilitarianism, which proposed that the moral action was the one that produced good for the many, even if it was at the expense of the one (i.e. �the greatest good for the greatest number). Mill�s refinement of the idea argues that whilst this idea is true, the individual should not have to follow society�s morals, and should be free to act as they wish, provided their acts do not harm others. Hart, who was influenced by the theories of Mill, stated that legal enforcement of a moral code was unnecessary and morally unacceptable, as it interferes with individual liberty.The Wolfendon Report supported Professor Hart�s view that law and morality should be separate, however, various cases decided since the report show that judges are imposing their moral views in their judgements, such as in the case of R v Brown (1994), the defendants had willingly consented to sado-masochistic practices, and none of them had complained to the police. Nevertheless, they were prosecuted, and convictions were upheld based on public policy to defend the morality of society. The law is therefore seen to attempt to uphold what it considers to be public morality, even if some may dispute the correctness of that moral code.This is a contrast to the case of R v Wilson (1996), At her request D branded his initials on his wife�s buttocks with a hot knife. The scars led to him being charged with ABH and held his conduct amounted to �tattooing� and that it was not in the public interest to impose a criminal sanction, still showing that the public and their moral views still influence our law. The differing approaches in these cases clearly show that judges are letting their own moral values affect their judgements.The courts often find themselves at the centre of hugely difficult moral decisions involving life and death. They are often forced to decide between individual rights and moral codes.
In the case of Shaw v DPP [1962] Shaw published a 'ladies directory' which listed contact details of prostitutes, the services they offered and nude pictures. Which he was then going to sell to the public for a fee. He was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, living on the earnings of prostitution and an offence under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The appellant appealed on the grounds that no such offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals existed. The appeal was dismissed. The House of Lords in effect created a new crime. Lord Reid said "Even if there is still a vestigial power of this kind it ought not, in my view, to be used unless there appears to be general agreement that the offence to which it is applied ought to be criminal if committed by an individual. Notoriously there are wide differences of opinion today as to how far the law ought to punish immoral acts which are not done in the face of the public. Some think that the law already goes too far, some that it does not go far enough. Parliament is the proper place, and I am firmly of opinion the only proper place, to settle that. When there is sufficient support from public opinion, Parliament does not hesitate to intervene. Where Parliament fears to tread it is not for the courts to rush in." However Viscount Simonds stated that"In the sphere of criminal law I entertain no doubt that there remains in the Courts of Law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the State, and that it is their duty to guard it against attacks which may be the more insidious because they are novel and unprepared for. That is the broad head (call it public policy if you wish) within which the present indictment falls. It matters little what label is given to the offending act. To one of your Lordships it may appear an affront to public decency, to another considering that it may succeed in its obvious intention of provoking libidinous desires, it will seem a corruption of public morals. Yet others may deem it aptly described as the creation of a public mischief or the undermining of moral conduct. The same act will not in all ages be regarded in the same way. The law must be related to the changing standards of life, not yielding to every shifting impulse of the popular will but having regard to fundamental assessments of human values and the purposes of society."
There was a similar scenario in the Knuller v DPP [1973] case where the defendant published a progressive magazine. In this magazine advertisements were placed by homosexuals seeking to meet other like minded individuals to engage in sexual practices. They were charged with conspiracy to corrupt public morals as established in Shaw v DPP. The House of Lords doubted the correctness of the decision in Shaw but declined to depart from it. Lord Reid: "I dissented in Shaw�s case ([1961] 2 All ER at 446, [1962] AC 220). On reconsideration I still think that the decision was wrong and I see no reason to alter anything which I said in my speech. But it does not follow that I should now support a motion to reconsider the decision. I have said more than once in recent cases that our change of practice in no longer regarding previous decisions of this House as absolutely binding does not mean that whenever we think that a previous decision was wrong we should reverse it. In the general interest of certainty in the law we must be sure that there is some very good reason before we so act." The offence that the defendents were charged for in the two seperate cases is now seen everywhere from the online websites such as craigslist to the local news papers. In this day and age with the internet and being able to set up various websites from different locations exposes how weak this judgement is. However it may be the fact that society has now accepted these things and the law has to also slowly adapt to it.
In the case of Diane Pretty (2001): she had contracted motor neuron disease and was confined to a wheel chair. She required no treatment to keep her alive, but had great difficulty talking, eating and sleeping. She was concerned that her husband would be convicted of a serious criminal offence if he helped to end her life and sought the permission of the court for active euthanasia. The courts refused her request. This relates to euthanasia which is both morally and legally wrong, reinforcing the idea that certain views in society share the same moral and legal opinion. In reference to article two of the human rights act it clearly states that 'No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.' Now even though it was at the persons request the court of law have a duty to stand by the rules that have been set out. If they had allowed the life of Diane Pretty to be taken the question is where does it stop. There could be thousands of people around the coutry that will start doing exactly the same which could potentially cause a huge dissruption to the peace of society. However in article 8 of the human rights act it clearly states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. It also states that there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Now it says that everyone has the right to a private life but it also mentions that unless it is threat to national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The law is clear on the fact that euthanasia is a crime and this act will reinforce that because it does say that everyone has a right to privacy but unless you are commiting a crime, in this case it would be taking somebodys life then the law has a right to invade that privacy and ensure that the rules are inforced accordingly.
Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 2
Right to life
1) Everyone�s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2) Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a)in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b)in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c)in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Article 6
Right to a fair trial
1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a)to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b)to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c)to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d)to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e)to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
To conclude, in order for us to understand the true nature of law in society, we must fully develop our understanding of where the current societies moral standing is. In essence a law that was deemed a right decison in a case that was decided years ago does not make it right in the current time. For example the case of marital rape would have been thought to be a very easy decion as the people in those times believed that as soon as the female partner had given consent to marry the male she had automatically submitted herself to sexual acts with her partner weather she wanted them or not. However in this day and age this law has been deemed wrong and has been changed and the law of marital rape had been put in place to reflect the change in socieites moral views.
