33
The Mechanics of Moral Crimes Rosemary Yin
T
he criminal justice system is created by the people and in America, law is seen as a vital part of democracy. Yet, its application to the people often eliminates an individual or group’s ability to behave according to their own moral standards. In other words, law provides a physical and inflexible version of morality which applies to all people in a given society. The criminal law seeks to punish wrongdoers, protect Society, compile an inventory of the socially unacceptable acts, and simultaneously educate the public of the acts a small but influential minority of legislators have disapproved (Friedman 10). Many believe that action can and should be taken to discourage behavior only if there is a potential for substantial harm to others as a result of said behavior, or as John Stuart Mill believes, “[t]he only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Meier and Geis 23). The elite often portray Society and social order as victims of harm, justifying the necessity of moral crimes. Jurists often draw the distinction between crimes which are mala in se and mala prohibita (Friedman 125). Mala in se are crimes which are deemed inherently evil in themselves, while mala prohibita crimes are deemed evil by societal rules, such as laws and rules of conduct. In literature, the term “moral crime” refers to a special category of crimes mala prohibita, which involves only the harm of Society. Committing “moral crimes” is commonly blamed and punished as a source of societal decay or as an offence against “public decency” (Friedman 126). Although the law aims to be an application of accepted moral codes of conduct, its codes are altered by various power dynamics. Past examples of US moral legislation are the Prohibition movement, and drug laws concerning opium and cocaine. These specific three examples are significant because of their racial origins; the laws are fueled by public discrimination and governmental oppression towards minority groups such as German immigrants, Chinese immigrants and African Americans. Across history, groups in power have abused other classes. American history shows that the wealthy white elite are no different.
P
olitical and societal order is defined and maintained by a certain elite subcommunity. Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Friedman writes that the “criminal code reflects ... some notion of the moral sense of the community ― or, to
North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics
be more accurate, the moral sense of the people who count, and who speak out, in the community” (125). Politically, groups which hold sound power are given a greater say in legislative policies, resulting in the acts associated with minority groups to be deemed immoral. The first factor which causes inequality is the different levels of natural involvement; those strongly immersed in the political process have financial ability to take time off from work, and the resources to push for their goals and priorities (Jacobs). Donations from the enormously wealthy have also become transformed into “speech” through decisions like Citizens United (Bai). A similar bias exists in the voting process, favoring those who are highly educated and white. In 2000, 56.4% of whites voted, compared with 53.5% of blacks and 27.5% of Hispanics (Jacobs). The voices of minorities are stifled further by the unequal responsiveness of public servants. A Princeton study found that constituents with incomes at the 75th percentile of distribution had three times more leverage on senators than constituents with incomes at the 25th percentile (Bartels). Citizens who earned at the bottom fifth percentile of income distribution receive extremely little representation from senators; they are essentially treated as marginal citizens. The weighted system of political representation is largely influenced by money, as well as politicians’ desire to become re-elected. Therefore, they cater more to the wealthy, the constituents who are likely to vote in favor of their Congressman who acts with their best interests. Jacobs notes “[t]he socio-economic bias in citizen politics implies as well that the concerns of members of disadvantaged groups -- for example, racial and ethnic minorities, women, immigrants, and lower-income groups -- are systematically less likely to make themselves heard.” The additional representation that the powerful acquire creates many mala prohibita crimes which deem certain acts linked to minorities as immoral and criminal. The mala prohibita specification specifies the importance of human designation; crimes mala prohibita are, after all, judged illegal by morally relativistic standards.
I
t is important to note that the moral differences are often, in this literature, perceived from mere patterns portrayed in public forums. In other words, a few anecdotes or outliers are seen as impenetrable proof of cultural characteristics. The specific moral standards of a societal subset are virtually impossible to identify and quantify. However, the public of-
