Which term describes acts that are illegal only because a criminal statute exists, not because they are inherently wrong?

Which term describes acts that are illegal only because a criminal statute exists, not because they are inherently wrong?

• A. Mala in Se
• B. Mala Prohibita
• C. Deprivation Model
• D. Mens Rea

Answer: (B)

The main idea is distinguishing acts that are illegal because law says so from those that are wrong in themselves. Mala prohibita describes conduct that is illegal simply because a statute forbids it, not because the act is morally or inherently wrong. This includes things like certain regulatory offenses or traffic violations—acts that might not be morally condemned if not for the law prohibiting them. In contrast, mala in se refers to acts that are inherently wrong by nature, such as murder or robbery, where the wrongness is not dependent on a specific statute. Mens Rea deals with the mental state required to convict, not with whether the act is inherently wrongful, and the Deprivation Model is not the term for this distinction.

The main idea is distinguishing acts that are illegal because law says so from those that are wrong in themselves. Mala prohibita describes conduct that is illegal simply because a statute forbids it, not because the act is morally or inherently wrong. This includes things like certain regulatory offenses or traffic violations—acts that might not be morally condemned if not for the law prohibiting them. In contrast, mala in se refers to acts that are inherently wrong by nature, such as murder or robbery, where the wrongness is not dependent on a specific statute. Mens Rea deals with the mental state required to convict, not with whether the act is inherently wrongful, and the Deprivation Model is not the term for this distinction.