norml21 - Page 63

Page 63 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 The Court in Mud was merely recognizing the principle
 enunciated by Mill only a few years before:
 Acts, @f whatever kinds which without
 justifiable cause do harm to others, __!9_Y___
 9_!_d_i_t_the___ore important cases 9bsol___tg__f
 required to be_ controlled by the un___fav___o_rable
 sentimen%s_ andL when needful, h y the active
 _interfereD ce to maL_kindo The liberty of the
 individual must be thus far limited; he must
 not make himself a nuisance to cther people°
 But if he refrains from molesting others in
 what concerns them_ and merely acts according
 to his own inclination and judgment in things
 which concern himself, the same reasons which
 show that_opinion should be free prove also
 that he should be allowed, withcut
 molesJ__a%io____ to carrf£ his ooinicz_s ipto
 practice at his own cost__
 Mill, sups_, at 68 (emphasis added).
 Mill's principle has retained its vitality to the present
 day; "At the core of (the concept of liberty) is the notion of
 total personal immunity from governmental control: the right 'to
 be let alone' That right is not absolute, however ..o (T)his
 liberty' must yield where it 'intrude(s) upon the freedom of
 others.'" Ravin v. Stat___9, 537 P.2d 494, 500 (Alaska 1975)
 (citing Breese v. Smith, 501 P.2d 159 (Alaska 1!)72), and BishoT)
 v. Cola__w, 450 F°2d 1069 (Sth Cir. 1971)).
 Bo Precedent for the Mill's Standard Exists in Other
 Areas of Criminal Law.
 The concept that the only standard by which a competent
 adult's conduct may legitimately be regulated by the State is

Previous , Next , Return to Index