To what extent should a moral code shape our laws? John Stuart Mill had thought that the law should only be used to ensure that citizens are protected from the harms others would inflict upon them. Self inflicted harms and moral wrongs that do not harm any individuals should not be matters that the law should deal with. Whereas Patrick Devlin believes that using the law to enforce morality is not unjust. Both parties display opposite opinions of the law, and how the law should administer our lives. When taking into consideration an issue like prostitution; a victim-less-crime, Mill proposes stronger more efficient arguments than Devlin. If certain behaviour is considered morally wrong, that alone is not enough for the creation of a criminal offence, as well as victim-less-crimes are not proper grounds to sanction people for things that merely only harm themselves. Due to time constraints and length restrictions this is a brief synopsis as to why prostitution should be legalized. .
Devlin was a legal moralist, he believed in a strong moral code, and he insisted that law should be used to prohibit behaviour that conflicts with dominate morality. Devlin sought to seek a contemporary society , which in a city-state is problematic due to different interpretations and opinions. Devlin believed without law restricting behaviour that is looked down upon, is only an extension from freedom of religion. Furthermore, he believed that a man with faith is qualified to question God and the Devil, which is what religion is about, and the free thinker can disagree, but no disagreement can take place with reference to good and evil (morals). Devlin does not accept Mill's ideal, and believed that the value of freedom of question and the dangers of narrow mindedness has placed society in debt. The pursuit of freedom to its extreme would be impossible for society to live in; Devlin believed there is other alloys which reinforces our society without corrupting.