Legitimacy Of Legal Paternalism

Criminal law is the most stringent and final mandatory means of the state.It will cause great damage to the freedom of the individual.Therefore,any criminal legislation must strictly abide by certain principles of legitimacy in order to avoid unreasonable damage to the freedom of the individual.Legal paternalism advocates that in some areas,for the benefit of citizens themselves,laws prohibiting harm to themselves should be enacted,that is,parental compulsory,interfering with individual freedom of certain behaviors.However,liberalism opposes this.Liberalism believes that only the principle of damage and the principle of offense are the legitimate principles of criminal law restricting freedom.This article also stands on the standpoint of liberalism and demonstrates that legal paternalism 1s not suitable as a principle of restricting freedom in criminal law.Legal paternalism can be applied only in the context of the personal field,and legal patermalism can be divided into soft paternalism and hard paternalism,which is the object of liberal criticism.Hard paternalism believes that the limited rationality of the individual leads to the irrational choice,so it depends on the collective wisdom and power to force.Liberalism regards freedom as the most important welfare,and coercive measures will damage freedom.From this,we can see that there is a need for the existence of paternalism,but there are also drawbacks,so we need a new paternalism,that is,soft paternalism.It first judges whether it is rational or not,and then judges whether it is voluntary enough.As long as a rational individual makes enough voluntary choices,it should not interfere,which guarantees freedom and guarantees.Personal benefits.Soft patermalism is a combination of traditional paternalism and liberalism,which is more in line with people's fundamental needs.