Pros And Cons Of Sir Patrick Devlin's

Regarding the States interest in marriage in general, Sir Patrick Devlin would take a more liberal (meaning more government intrusion) stance when compared to Mills. He argues that the point of marriage is to portray the overall morality of society. Without the laws of marriage, it would be impossible for society to define right from wrong because marriage is one of the most basic and fundamental institutions of law and the State. Devlin believes that there is no such thing as private or public morality and actions. He says that the actions of one in private equality affect the morality of the public, in all cases except marriage. With this being said, although he believes in the preservation of individual liberty, Devlin provides three cases
Devlin argues that the role of the government, or the law, is to enforce the preservation of these morals. Only when an act is followed with true reprobation by society, government intrusion is justifiable. Devlin portrays that a single feeling is not enough for a response and one would need to experience all three for the restriction of individual liberty to occur. However, if society merely does not agree with an act, there is nothing that can be done to change it since it does not encompass all three of those feelings. For example, if the public morality says that it is wrong to for an adult to marry a child, then there is justification for the creation of a law against that act. On the other hand, if it is a case about sending your child to public school over private school, some members of society may dislike the decision, but there is no reason so compelling that the government can create a law that restricts the parent’s authority. Devlin adds that without the moral backing of society, pre-existing laws will have no ground, and therefore, will be