A Case Study On Devlin Philosophy Essay

A Case Study On Devlin Philosophy Essay Devlin had a very keen inquiry regarding law and morality and he was in favour of interference of law in the case of private morality, whereas Hart was in favour of individual rights. Dworkin was famous for his critique of Hart’s legal positivism. . Instead he was in favour of a middle ground between positivism and natural law. Morality differs from place to place, country to country. For example, adultery is a crime in most Asian countries but not in United Kingdom. This essay consist of Wolfenden committee’s report, the inquiry of Devlin about the report, analysis of HART’s individual rights, HART- Devlin debate and Dworkin’s full analysis of all the reports. The Wolfenden Report: In 1957 the committee on homosexual offenses and prostitution under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden published its report, bringing the issue of legal regulation of morality to the forefront of public attention.   [ 1 ]    The committee gave their most significant pr oposal that homosexual conduct between consenting adults in confidential should no longer be criminal offense, which we believe to be crucial, specially the importance which society and the law must give to freedom of a person of choice and action in private morality matters.   [ 2 ]    Devlin’s Inquiry about the Wolfenden Report: Devlin took an interest about the report as he has to pass the sentence as a Judge. According to Devlin if a female is punished for abortion then there is no difference between crime and sin. So there should not be any separation between crime and moral law. After publication of Wolfenden report he argued that â€Å"The suppression of vice is as much the law’s business as the suppression of subversive activities.   [ 3 ]   Devlin pointed out three questions: Firstly, is society entitled to pass judgement on all matters or can pass on some matters or reserved it into the private sphere?   [ 4 ]    Secondly, if society is entitled to pass judgement, is it also entitled to use law as a means of enforcement?   [ 5 ]    Thirdly, if the second question receives an affirmative answer, is society entitled to use the law in all matters or only in some?   [ 6 ]    Now the question is what is meant by society? According to Devlin, society means a community of ideas, without shared ideas on politics, moral and ethics no society can exist.   [ 7 ]   Each one of us has ideas about good and evil, they cannot be kept private from the society in which we live. If man and woman try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil they will fail, if having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate.   [ 8 ]    For society is not something that is kept together physically, it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought, if the bonds are too far relaxed, the members would drift apart, a common morality is part of the bondage, the bondage is part of the price of society, mankind which needs society must pay its price.   [ 9 ]    According to Devlin the answer of his first question would depends upon the second question’s answer. If society has no right to make judgement on morals, the law must find some special justifications for entering into the field of morality, if homosexuality and prostitutions are not in themselves wrong, the onus very clearly on the law giver who wants to frame a law against certain aspects of them to justify the exceptional treatment.   [ 10 ]   But if a society has a right to make a judgement and has it on the basis that a recognised morality is as necessary to society, say a recognised government, then society may use the law to preserve morality in the same way as its uses it to safeguard anything else that is essential to its existence.   [ 11 ]