What is condemn and how does it differ from a verdict? In English law, condemnation is an express prohibition imposed by a court on the conduct of an act. Where such an action has been formally disapproved by the court, either through the prescribed method of publishing the notice or formally instituting the proceedings, the public notice is said to have been Condemned.
However, the essence of the word is not that simple. For a simple act may be condemned without having been formally disapproved. For instance, where an official body or official proceeding has been duly instituted, there is no necessity for the public notice to be published. The official body can decide in advance not to take action against the suspected activity and this would be condemned.
However, if there are suspicions that a public body is not imparting its jurisdiction in a timely fashion, then there may be a situation where what is condemned is not properly being administered. In such a situation, public opinion may again play a decisive role. If the suspicions are not acted upon quickly enough, it is easy to show that there are in fact public disapproval of the suspected activity and it is to be found, as a consequence of this disapproval, that condemnation has been formally taken.
It is important to note that what is condoned and what is condemned is a very complex concept. There are many shades of gray, and there are many different legal jurisdictions. The jurisdictions themselves can differ in what they consider to be condemnation and what they consider to be condoning. In many cases, people can be condemned and yet condoned at the same time. In other cases, people can be condemned and yet not yet condemnation. When two actions are found to be alike in both nature and in both jurisdiction, the situation is termed complementary.
A person may be considered to be aware of what is condoned by the society in which he lives, but not condoned by another. This is to say that he may have reservations about a certain act, but he does not think that he should be held responsible for it. His reservations do not amount to what is condoned and what is condemned. His reservations amount to personal opinion, and his opinions, like others’, may not form a legally binding rule. However, when a public figure such as a politician is found to have been found to be in the wrong, then this may well constitute a clear case of what is condoned and what is condemned.
What is condoned by one public figure may be condemned by another public figure. Different public figures will find different things to be Condemnable and what is not. For example, it may be universally known that what is morally wrong, but not so with what is morally right. So it is possible for a public figure to publicly condemn something that is in fact not illegal, but that he may believe is illegal. And if two public figures find something to be morally wrong, but not illegal, then they may still agree to disagree about the illegality of the act.
What is condoned by one individual may be condemned by another, but not in either case. The simple test of what is condoned or not, by public opinion, is this: whatever public opinion happens to consider to be morally right, is what is condoned. If two publics happen to hold different views of what is moral, then they are not to be compared, as the same thing cannot be both condoned and condemned. Two publics, A B C, may find something to be both wrong, yet they may also consider something to be both right. This is not the test of what is moral, but of what is condemnable.
There are various other kinds of cases in which what is condoned by one society or by another, is not what is moral. This can occur when a society regards what is moral to be evil, or something that is in fact a crime, or an unnatural act. This would require the knowledge of the distinction between what is moral and what is evil. This knowledge could only be gained by the study of the history of mankind.