CRIMES MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Summary

The transcript discusses the classification of crimes into two categories: Mala in se and Mala prohibita. Mala in se crimes, like murder and robbery, are inherently wrong and require wrongful intent from the perpetrator. In contrast, Mala prohibita crimes are not wrong by nature but are deemed illegal due to statutes, regardless of the actor's intent. An example is provided where a truck driver was convicted for unknowingly transporting liquor, illustrating that knowledge of wrongdoing is not essential for conviction in Mala prohibita cases. This highlights the legislative power to regulate certain actions without consideration of moral implications.

Takeaways

• 😀 Crimes are categorized into two classes: Mala in se and Mala prohibita.
• 😀 Mala in se crimes are inherently wrong, such as murder, rape, and robbery.
• 😀 Mala prohibita crimes are not inherently wrong but are prohibited by law.
• 😀 Crimes classified as Mala in se require a wrongful or unlawful intent from the perpetrator.
• 😀 In contrast, crimes classified as Mala prohibita do not require wrongful intent; the act itself is sufficient for liability.
• 😀 The common law, which was applied in England and American colonies, originally considered all crimes as Mala in se.
• 😀 An example of a Mala prohibita crime is the 1906 State Statute prohibiting the transport of intoxicating liquor without a license.
• 😀 In the example, a truck driver was convicted for transporting liquor without knowing its contents, highlighting the lack of requirement for intent.
• 😀 The appellate court upheld the conviction based solely on the act of transportation, disregarding the driver's ignorance.
• 😀 The legislature has the authority to define certain acts as criminal regardless of their moral implications or the perpetrator's knowledge.

Q & A

What are the two main classifications of crimes discussed in the transcript?

The two main classifications of crimes are 'Mala in se' and 'Mala prohibita'.

What does 'Mala in se' refer to?

'Mala in se' refers to crimes that are inherently wrong, such as murder, rape, and robbery, requiring wrongful intent from the perpetrator.

How does 'Mala prohibita' differ from 'Mala in se'?

'Mala prohibita' refers to actions that are not inherently wrong but are criminalized solely because they are prohibited by statute, requiring no wrongful intent.

What legal framework was referenced in the transcript?

The transcript references common law, which includes statutory and case law used in England and the American colonies before the American Revolution.

Can you provide an example of a 'Mala prohibita' crime mentioned in the transcript?

An example of a 'Mala prohibita' crime is the 1906 State Statute that made it illegal to transport intoxicating liquor within the state without a license.

What was the outcome of the case involving the truck driver transporting liquor?

The truck driver was convicted of violating the statute, despite being unaware of the barrel's contents, as the Appellate Court upheld the conviction based solely on the act performed.

Why did the Appellate Court uphold the truck driver's conviction?

The Appellate Court upheld the conviction because the act of transporting the liquor was sufficient for the crime, making the driver's knowledge or intent irrelevant.

What power does the legislature have concerning 'Mala prohibita' crimes?

The legislature has the power to prohibit certain acts regardless of their moral implications or the ignorance of the actor.

What is the significance of intent in 'Mala prohibita' crimes?

In 'Mala prohibita' crimes, the intent of the actor is not considered necessary for the prosecution; only the commission of the act is required.

How are 'Mala in se' crimes typically prosecuted?

'Mala in se' crimes are typically prosecuted by establishing that the perpetrator had wrongful intent and committed an inherently wrong act.