Which of the following describes "mala prohibita" crimes?

The term "mala prohibita" refers to acts that are not inherently wrong or evil but are considered unlawful because they have been designated as crimes by legislation. This categorization involves behaviors that are prohibited by law, highlighting that their criminality comes from societal rules rather than any inherent moral failing.

For example, offenses such as jaywalking, gambling, or licensing violations fall under mala prohibita, as they are defined as illegal by laws enacted by governing bodies, but they do not violate fundamental moral principles in the same way that acts such as murder or theft do. This distinction is important in criminology, as it suggests that the societal context and legal frameworks create the conditions for labeling certain actions as criminal.

The other options, while discussing different crime-related concepts, do not accurately describe mala prohibita. Inherently evil acts, such as murder and theft, are classified as "mala in se," which means they are wrong by their very nature. Crimes that violate personal liberties might include more serious offenses like encroachments on rights, which are not specifically about the legal designation at play in mala prohibita. Lastly, acts committed in self-defense are typically justified and do not fall into the category of crimes, making them irrelevant in this context