John Stuart Mill articulated the principle in the 1859 essay On Liberty, where he argued that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
It finds earlier expression in Thomas Jefferson's 1785 "Notes on the State of Virginia", Query 17 (Religion) in which he writes, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
The harm principle was first fully articulated by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill [JSM] (1806–1873) in the first chapter of On Liberty (1859),[1] where he argued that:The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion.
That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.
Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.Mill also put the harm principle within his list of rights that sprung from liberty.
Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow; without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.According to Mills, harm is thus necessary but sometimes insufficient to justify legal coercion.
The harm principle is also found in recent US case law - in the case of the People v Alvarez, from the Supreme Court of California, in May, 2002: In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime itself - i.e., the fact of injury, loss, or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.The harm principle even found its way into the drug laws of Columbia, in 1994, and again in 2009: In July 2009, the Columbian Supreme Court of Justice reconfirmed the 1994 ruling of the Constitutional Court by determining that the possession of drugs for personal use 'cannot be the object of any punishments,' when the incident occurred 'in the exercise of his personal and private rights, [and] the accused did not harm others.Even if a self-regarding action results in harm to oneself, it may still be considered beyond the sphere of justifiable state coercion.
It states:Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.
Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people, if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct.
Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.
The harm principle scope of usage has been described as too wide to follow directly and to implement possible punishment by a state.