Do you agree with the Statement from Lord Patrick Devlin Essay

Do you discipline with the Statement from Lord Patrick Devlin - Essay ExampleDo you agree with the Statement from Lord Patrick Devlin?The general public finds it convenient to refer simply to The law implying that there is one, universally accepted and externally imposed set of rules by which social club is g overned. Very often, this concept is tied to the someones sense of morality and values, perhaps stemming from religious beliefs or cultural experience. Hence it great deal expect that what is lawful is not to be questioned one clay of law is very much like some other since humans do understand what is right and what is wrong. And since the law is then instituted to protect individuals within the society, but to a greater extent master(prenominal)ly the society at large, it may seem that the statement of Lord Patrick Devlin, that theoretically any onslaught of privacy, however utmost(prenominal), mustiness be sanctioned, is accurate (Devlin, 1965 118). If the society is to be protected, an invasion of the privacy of the individual is a small price to pay. Additionally, the society at large would permit such invasions, since each individual would mean him/herself protected by the invasion of someone elses privacy. In theory, the protection and service of the society must outweigh the rights of the individual, if the individual threatens that society. Legal practitioners and theorists, however, do debate and consider law as constructed, rather than as an external framework within which societies exist. Furthermore, the purpose of law is not as simply stated as a set of rules meant to protect the society and the individuals within it, with the safety of the society being more important than that of the individual. In a world app arntly embracing democratic and human rights principles more widely, the prioritization of the community over the individual is brought into question. As an overview, laws need to be defined as rules which people agree to be repress to, whether within their communities, or on a wider level, which they agree to within their societies or States. To have effective legal systems, the individuals within communities, societies or the States of the world must agree to abide by the laws they have recognised, and acknowledge the representation of the institutions or people who are appointed to manage those laws. There is, in the making of laws, likely to be some overlap between moral and legal rules but, more importantly, whether there is moral justification for a law or not, there has to be widespread convention within the community or society which recognises a law (Hart, 1994 258). The argument must stand that there should be a rule of identification tally to which the individuals within a society do recognise and agree to abide by a law. Some norms of a society do fall within the authority of the legal system, while others are socially accepted norms, not always framed by legal structures. All laws, though, are not necessarily connected to morality but do serve to coerce the members of a society into unobjectionable behaviours and practices. But laws can only be valid when private citizens meet their obligations, or obey the rules, according to the law, and public officials enact the conduct set out within those laws to manage and enact the legal system (Hart, 2004 110, 116). Often if a legal system is able to meet such criteria, and there are no political reasons for defying the legal system, the population at large will with few exceptions, obey the law. Thus it can be proposed that the judgement of society can sanction every invasion of a mans privacy, however extreme