What are discussions on legal principles of law?

Most people tend unreflectively to assume that laws belong to legal

systems. "Most educated people," writes H. L. A. Hart, "have the

idea that the laws in England form some sort of system, and that in

France or the United States or Soviet Russia and, indeed, in almost

every part of the world which is thought of as a separate 'country'

there are legal systems which are broadly similar in structure in spite

of important differences."' This includes for most people the assumption that laws differ from non-legal rules and principles. There are,

for example, moral rules and principles, social customs, constitutions

and regulations of voluntary associations, and so on, which are not

laws. Many legal philosophers have tried to justify this common assumption. Various criteria have been offered for demarcating the

limits of law, for testing whether or not a particular standard belongs

to a particular legal system. Various suggestions have been made concerning the importance of the distinction between what is legal and

what is not, and the ways in which, by preserving it, we promote our

understanding of law and society. For it has often been acknowledged

that the distinction is not an easy one to draw in precise terms, and

that any reasonable test would admit the presence of borderline cases.

Despite these difficulties many theorists have thought that the distinction is worth preserving, partly because it is not difficult to apply in

the majority of cases and partly because it seemed to them crucial for

Explanation:

1. should those convicted of violating laws be labeled?

-yes, because they are violating other people's human rights, so why should they get their's and other's don't?

2. do you feel that this labeling would be an infringement on a person's rights?

-yes it does technically but they lose the right to be human when they rap.e people of everything they have.