The criminal justice system distinguishes between two types of offenses: “mala prohibita” and “mala in se”. Legally proscribed offenses are those that are deemed wrong solely because they violate a formal rule. On the other hand, morally proscribed offenses are acts that cannot be justified in a civilized society. Examples of legally proscribed offenses include prostitution and gambling, while morally proscribed offenses encompass premeditated murder and forcible rape.
The case of State of Washington vs. Thaddius X. Anderson showcases the difference between “mala prohibita” and “mala in se”. The main issue is whether second degree unlawful possession of a firearm necessitates “knowing possession”. Our determination is that the offense does indeed require “knowledge”. As a result, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, Division One, which supported the trial court’s ruling that considered second degree unlawful possession of a firearm as a strict liability offense (STATE v.).
Mr. Anderson denied ownership of the car and gun discovered within it, asserting that they belonged to his cousin. He contended that he should not be held responsible for the gun’s presence in the vehicle. In the criminal justice system, two concepts are differentiated: “mala prohibita” and “mala in se”. While one necessitates awareness, the other is solely established by a statute without requiring knowledge. Mr. Anderson’s culpability was determined based on the principle of “mala prohibita”.
Mr. Anderson’s actions were considered offensive because they broke a law, making it unimportant that he didn’t know about the gun in his car. Nevertheless, his argument focused on “mala in se,” which are morally forbidden crimes like planned murder and violent rape that require knowledge of wrongdoing being done. Terrorism has had a significant impact on modern society, causing the deaths of many innocent people.
The definition of terrorism in the United States includes acts that endanger human life or critical infrastructure, violate criminal laws at any level, and have the intention to intimidate or coerce civilian populations. It also involves manipulating government policies through intimidation or coercion, as well as impacting government actions through extensive destruction, assassinations, or kidnappings (U.S. Legal).
Today’s terrorism is comparable to the “mala in se” concept in the criminal justice system. The well-known terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 serves as a prime example of this, resulting in the tragic loss of 2996 innocent lives. This attack was a planned act against non-combatant civilians. The events of September 11th, 2001 illustrate morally prohibited actions that cannot be justified within a civilized society. As mentioned in our textbook, terrorists hold strong moral beliefs and exhibit unwavering certainty in the righteousness of their cause, leaving no room for ambiguity (Martin, 2010).
Terrorists rationalize their actions by citing self-interest and deny accountability for their deeds. Their motives may stem from perceived injustices by a more powerful entity or a sense of superiority. However, in today’s society, intentionally ending someone’s life because of their beliefs or liberties is not only against the law but also morally unacceptable. Hence, these acts are considered “mala in se”.
References:
STATE v. ANDERSON, No. 67826-0. (State of Washington August 10, 2000). U. S. Legal.
(n. d.). Retrieved September 5, 2011, from uslegal.com:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terrorism/
Martin, G. (2010). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspective,
and Issues Third Edition. In G. Martin, Understanding Terrorism:
Challenges, Perspective, and Issues Third Edition (pp. 82-84).
California: Sage Publication, Inc.
