Malum prohibitum – In a way, opposite of Malum in se. It means ‘crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.
Malum Prohibitum
Definition:
Malum prohibitum is a Latin term used in criminal law. It refers to acts that are considered crimes because they are prohibited by law, rather than because they are inherently immoral or evil. This is in contrast to malum in se, which refers to acts that are wrong in themselves, such as murder or theft, which are universally considered morally wrong.
In simpler terms:
Malum in se = evil in itself (intrinsically wrong).
Malum prohibitum = wrong because the law says so (legally wrong).
Key Characteristics of Malum Prohibitum Crimes:
The act may not be morally wrong.
The legality depends entirely on statutory law.
Punishment is imposed to regulate behavior, maintain order, or protect public welfare.
Examples include traffic violations, tax offenses, fishing without a license, or failure to file regulatory reports.
Legal Basis and External Law
Indian Penal Context:
In Indian law, many statutory offenses are malum prohibitum, e.g., offenses under the Companies Act, 2013, or regulatory laws like the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These acts are not morally wrong per se but are prohibited for regulatory purposes.
Common Law Context:
In the common law system, courts often differentiate between malum in se and malum prohibitum to determine mens rea (criminal intent). While malum in se crimes usually require intent, malum prohibitum crimes may be strict liability offenses, where intent is not necessary to prove guilt.
Case Law Examples
United States v. Balint (1922) 258 U.S. 250
Issue: Violation of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act.
Significance: The court held that the act was a malum prohibitum offense. The defendant’s intent to break the law was not required for conviction because the act itself was prohibited.
Cheek v. United States (1991) 498 U.S. 192
Issue: Tax evasion charges.
Significance: Failing to pay taxes is malum prohibitum. The court discussed that ignorance of the law might not always excuse, but intent can affect penalties in certain cases.
R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie (1978) 2 S.C.R. 1299 (Canada)
Issue: Environmental regulatory offenses.
Significance: The Supreme Court of Canada categorized offenses into true crimes (malum in se) and regulatory offenses (malum prohibitum), often imposing strict liability on the latter.
Key Points to Remember
Mens Rea:
Malum in se: Usually requires criminal intent.
Malum prohibitum: Can be strict liability; intent may not matter.
Purpose:
Malum in se: Punish morally blameworthy acts.
Malum prohibitum: Promote regulation, safety, and order.
Examples in Daily Life:
Parking violations, jaywalking, building code violations, failing to report income.
In short, malum prohibitum crimes exist to enforce societal rules rather than punish moral wrongs. Understanding this distinction is crucial in criminal law for determining both the nature of the offense and the required mental state for liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments