rality must be instituted as substitutes for law. An individual must not be coerced into their behavior, rather, they should choose their actions based on the moral merits of the actions and not on the artificial consequences imposed by law. This is demonstrated in the theory of reasonable doubt. “If a man under twenty-four has a reasonable cause to believe that a girl was over the age of sixteen years, he has a good defense. The law regards the offence as sufficiently serious to make it one that is triable only by a judge at assizes. “Reasonable cause” means not merely that the boy honestly believed that the girl was over sixteen years of age, but also that he must have had reasonable grounds for his belief.” The subject demonstrated that the law has looked upon his free will and his decisions in an adverse way, despite the fact that he believed that he had done nothing wrong. Society’s morals have in turn charged him. A person must be able to understand and recognize the morality in specific actions; this is where freedom lies. Law does not promote understanding nor does it allow analysis; it therefore does not allow freedom. Will an individual, if existing in ideal circumstances, exhibit socially unacceptable behavioral deviance (i.e, violent activity)? Will a well-educated, morally endowed, spiritually enlightened human being, living in a state of absolute freedom, and uninhibited by the adverse influences of endemic social ills, exhibit the sort of behavior that law claims to curtail? One can merely look to the workings of present society for answers to these questions. Even today there are many people who, though living amongst society's harrowing influences, do exhibit socially acceptable behavior. These people will most often be those who are well educated and were brought up in a relatively acceptable environment. Looking within present society one can see that, even with the limits imposed by our ...
