Sez your definition. Isn't an act that damages others an "innately immoral act"?
Prostitution is illegal because it is immoral. Malum prohibitum refers to things like traffic laws, which the violation of are not really immoral in and of itself, but only because they've been prohibited. Prostitution is immoral in and of itself.
An innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include adultery, theft, and murder.
"Examples include adultery, theft, and murder". Prostitution is not mentioned, but mentioned are all acts that harm another.
This is a criticism of the misuse of the law, not the law itself. Any law can be misused. We can fight corruption without overturning the law.
The law (not statute) against murder can be abused?
No, attempting to prove that it damages "society" is a socialist presumption. Laws against individual damaging themselves are not.
I'm wondering. How can you even discuss these things with me? You appear to know what you're talking about. I'm no lawyer, by I have studied cases and treatises on the law.
Attempting to prove an act or possession article is a clear and present danger to the health, welfare and safety of the people of a state is an ancient exercise of a political unit's police power.
It is specifically for statutes that regulate beyond acts that harm another. Acts that harm another are covered automatically by malum in se law, which is, predominately, common law. (The term "law" means "common law", in case you didn't know. Statutes are under color of law).