Talk:Malum in se

message: When Malum in se and Malum prohibitum both spend a lot of space talking about the other, perhaps it is time to merge them. Manney 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: Would doubtlessly merge "in se" w/ "prohibitum". Each adds meaning and context to the other since they are almost always used in concert to discuss legality of actions. It is also essential to mention that prohibitum actions are not necessarily in se, and vice versa. It would be hard to think of examples of in se that would not be prohibitum. If a legal system is to be virtuous, then in se actions should always be prohibitum.
I'd say for sure that the only one is regicide ;-). 86.219.177.34 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also strongly agree that this article should be merged. The article on Malum prohibitum seems a little better so maybe we could do little more than just replace this one with that one. I don't have time now but I'd say the next person who reads this should merge it if there are no objections made in the near future, since there haven't been any objections made to merging in the last three years. Mindbuilder (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: An example given of Malum Prohibitum is driving on the left or right.
While it's true that in the UK and most (all?) commonwealth countries people drive on the left, that is a matter of tradition, not of law, at least in the UK. The road markings, driving instruction and so on are all set up for driving on the left, but there is no absolute requirement to do so... nor is driving on the right prohibited.
I can't give a legal reference to back this up (I don't believe one exists, we don't have a list of things there's no law about), but if you take a look at The Highway Code you'll see things listed as "must", "must not", "should" and "should not". Those written as "must" and "must not" have a legal basis and cite legislation to back them up. Those marked "should" and "should not" are advisory only. Driving on the left is, strangely, a "should" item.
I don't believe this is a good example of Malum Prohibitum as strictly it's neither Malum nor Prohibitum. Seatbelt, helmet or recreational drug use laws would be MUCH more appropriate examples.
I've removed the section about driving laws for the time being as I couldn't see a straightforward way of making it factually accurate and I certainly don't have the time to dig around for information on where driving on one side or the other, seatbelt use or helmets are either mandatory or advisory. Jack of Many (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Examples 

message: Rape, murder, are malum prohibitum, and not malum in se. You are mistaking moral conduct with law, there not being any inherent wrong/evil in murder nor rape, except that what comes in context of the circumstances. Statistically, most humans live in cities, populated areas, under peacefull circumstances with more than sufficient resources that those issues do not prop up in terms of survival, therefore considered to be malum per se.
Mallum per se, is for example, continuous torture, due that not being an inherent natural event in any form nor manner (not even for food or survival).
The standard example, used in the animal kingdom, are animals, whom play with their prey, killing them, but then leaving them alone without a second thought. This too is somewhat virtual, being it that for many animals, it is solely an exercise of a behavioral mode. (Witches cats, for example, where in olden days considered evil, for that same form of reasoning, and by and through indirection, the old lady librarian, now considered hag)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.217.235 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malum in se.