The relevance of the Harm Principle in the 21st Century Canadian Criminal Law

The relevance of the Harm Principle in the 21st Century Canadian Criminal Law Name: Instructor: Course: Date: The Relevance of the Harm Principle in the 21st Century Canadian Criminal Law Despite its ambiguities, J.S. Mill's harm principle has been influential to debates regarding the limits of the legitimate state or social action. According to Mill, the state has the right to intervene if a person's actions are perceived as a source of harm to other members of society. However, his argument for supporting the assertions of this principle creates a wide variety of meanings to the term "harm." His utilitarian argument creates open windows for extensive state control over individual life while still staying true to Mill's liberal political philosophy. Those who do not support the harm principle argue that the principle provides an avenue to the state to interfere and control the actions of a person who is assumed to have their rights. In essence, they argue that the harms principle is not supportive of the right of individuals. It gives the state more power than the individual. Despite these opposing views, the harms principle remains relevant in the 21st century Canadian Criminal Law. Mill’s harm principle is relevant in the 21st century because it gives people liberty to plan their lives and makes coercion applicable beyond the limitation of state interference. The harm principle protects the people from state interference in cases involving risk of harm and unnecessary taxations that are caused by avoidable actions. The state is right to intervene in the event a parent fails his or her duty to a child because it involves another person. However, it is different in the cases of gambling, idling, and gambling. These acts present a risk of harming others but violate the individual rights only. But Mill asserts that preservation of dignity and development of natural abilities are the only duties people have to themselves, and the harm principle does not allow the state to intervene in such duties. However, the principle allows the state to coerce those involved in private drinking, idling, and gambling based on dignity degradation and failure to fulfill certain obligations. Such people cannot be coerced based on the risk they pose to others, but the state can intervene once they threaten public financial abilities. The harm principle does not provide any viable objection to state’s coercion on those individuals participating in life-ruining activities. Thus, the harm principle applies where public harm matter while state intervention comes in when the risk of perceived hurt is identified.[Dimock Susan. “Mill, J. Stuart: On Liberty” in Classic Readings and Cases in the Philosophy of Law, 304-319, 1st edition. New York: Routledge 2006.307] Mill's harm principle allows state's interference in some personal behaviors that are prevalent in the 21st century. The way he defined what harm is, there are a vast number of cases that allow the state to intervene. As a result, the point about risk can be added because Mill used the risk of damage as a legitimate basis for measuring harm. However, the actions that can create the risk of hurt among members of a society are varied. According to Mill, gambling, uncleanliness, idleness, and ...