Also known as: malum prohibitum
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A category of offenses that are wrongful solely because positive law prohibits them. Such offenses lack inherent immorality and typically arise from regulatory or administrative schemes designed to advance public policy. Courts often apply a foreseeability requirement when using a malum prohibitum offense as the predicate for involuntary manslaughter liability.
Luis flew a small camera drone over guests at a crowded indoor launch party in violation of a civil aviation regulation. The drone malfunctioned and struck Maya, causing fatal injuries. Prosecutors charged Luis with homicide based on the regulatory misdemeanor. Because the ordinance is malum prohibitum, liability turns on whether a reasonable person would have foreseen that flying the drone indoors over a crowd created a substantial risk of fatal impact.
Dr. Lang parked her car in a clearly marked ambulance-only bay at a hospital to save time. An ambulance carrying a heart-attack patient was forced to wait, delaying treatment and causing the patient's death. Prosecutors charged Dr. Lang with misdemeanor manslaughter. Because the parking ordinance is malum prohibitum, the court must determine whether blocking the emergency entrance foreseeably risked a patient's death.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Luis took ten passengers on a charter boat limited to six despite choppy seas. A large wave struck the overloaded vessel, causing it to capsize and drown passenger Carla. Prosecutors charged Luis with homicide based on the passenger-capacity regulation. Because the harbor rule is malum prohibitum, liability depends on whether exceeding capacity in rough water foreseeably risked capsizing and drowning.
Carlos loosely secured propane tanks on his food truck instead of strapping them inside a metal cage as required by city ordinance. A jostle in the festival crowd caused a tank to tip, leak, and explode, killing customer Maria. Prosecutors charged Carlos with homicide based on the safety ordinance. Because the regulation is malum prohibitum, the court must assess whether the unsecured tanks foreseeably risked explosion and death in a crowded setting.
Luis ordered his crew to continue nighttime crane lifts over public sidewalks despite a city ordinance prohibiting the activity during curfew hours. A heavy load swung out, the rigging failed, and falling materials killed a pedestrian. Prosecutors charged Luis with homicide based on the construction ordinance. Because the ordinance is malum prohibitum, liability hinges on whether lifting loads over sidewalks at night foreseeably risked a fatal strike.
Cole chained the store's only exterior emergency exit shut during closing shifts to deter theft, knowing the action violated local fire codes. An electrical fire broke out after hours. Janitor Samantha could not escape through the blocked exit and died from smoke inhalation. Prosecutors charged Cole with homicide based on the fire-code violation. Because the code is malum prohibitum, the court must decide whether obstructing the exit foreseeably risked entrapment and death during a fire.
When the underlying misdemeanor is malum prohibitum, most courts require that the resulting death be a foreseeable or natural consequence of the unlawful conduct before imposing manslaughter liability. The classification therefore adds a foreseeability limitation that is not required when the predicate offense is malum in se.
Supporting sources
Malum in se offenses are inherently immoral and dangerous, while malum prohibitum offenses are wrongful only because legislation prohibits them to advance regulatory goals. The distinction preserves the common-law requirement of moral blameworthiness for serious crimes and limits strict application of doctrines such as misdemeanor manslaughter to regulatory violations.
Supporting sources
No. A regulatory violation classified as malum prohibitum supports manslaughter only when the death is a foreseeable result of the prohibited conduct. Courts refuse to convert every death occurring during a minor regulatory breach into manslaughter without this additional showing.
Supporting sources
…abandonment of the ingredient of intent, not merely with considerations of expediency in obtaining convictions, nor with the malum prohibitum classification of the crime, but with the peculiar nature and quality of the offense. We referred to “. . . a now familiar type of legislation whereby penalties serve as effective means of…