If it was another lion Walter may have not been punished. The Law should be that if killing any lion of any type should be punished. The person whom killed it should suffer the same as the lion did. The lions have a soul just like everyone else. If Walter gets punished for this lion and other people don’t get punished for killing another lion, then Walter shouldn’t be punished for this.
In the commentary “Let People Own Exotic Animals” it states in line 4-7, “Responsible private ownership of exotic animals should be legal if animal welfare is taken care of. Terry Thompson did not represent the typical responsible owner.” Thompson was not a good caretaker of exotic animals, and it was not the animals’ faults they were set free to put people in danger, it was Thompson’s irresponsibility. In the Article Of the Week it talks about how Wolf Run Wildlife Refuge puts safety fences around their animals to ensure they stay inside. If exotic animal owners do this they can own exotic animals without facing the consequence of them losing
Ordinary Negligence and Occupiers’ Liability – Comparing Principles. Based on the discussion above, we can retrieve the key features of both ordinary negligence and occupier’s liability. In essence, the ordinary idea of negligence is when you unintentionally cause injury to someone in a situation where you should have known your action could cause harm. The plaintiff must establishes three factors to constitute negligence. Firstly, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.
Ashley Smith CRJU 1400 LU 7 Review Questions Review Questions for Learning Unit Seven What governs the ethical conduct of lawyers? Discuss the pros and cons of plea bargaining. What has the U.S. Supreme Court held in regards to the professional misconduct of prosecutors? (in terms of punishment) How do forfeiture laws help to deter the conduct of mob lawyers?
In the essay “The Death Penalty Is a Step Back” the author, Coretta Scott King expresses her feelings about capital punishment and states reasons to back up her argument that the death penalty is both a racist and immoral practice. King believes that capital punishment is immoral and illegal, and that it by no means serves as a deterrent for other possible criminals. The author then further talks about how there have been numerous incidents where the mistakenly convicted is put down in the name of American justice. King then argues that by sentencing someone to death, one is assuming that the person convicted is not capable of rehabilitation. The
The type of punishment they get should be corresponding to the crime. Rehabilitation shouldn’t be considered when determining which punishment should be given. Those who follow this theory believe that retribution is unlike revenge because retribution is solely aimed at doing wrong. (plato.stanford.edu, 2014) Victim impact statements
Additionally, police could push perpetrators in the moment for their motives, as someone may not be inclined to initially admit to having a racial bias and committing a crime because of it. Police could do a better job to get the full picture on why a perpetrator committed a crime. This likely would require more training for police officers to recognize and understand racially motivated bias. Lastly, the Federal government specifically the Department of Justice could aid in the fight against hate crime by providing the funds and resources necessary. Specifically funds and resources
The court rejected it stating that his condition amounted to a disease of the mind. Furthermore, the defence of insanity doesn’t recognize compulsions or ones inability to control their emotions; Professor Ashworth has noted that, “some forms of mental disorder impair practical reasoning and the power of control over
Another basis to make Murray’s claim viable is the 1983 Church V Commissioner’s case. The court adopted a similar analysis to the Roemer decision. In the church, the taxpayers got $250000 compensatory damages and a punitive damage of $ 235000 in a defamation lawsuit. The court focused on the nature of the claim and identified that the award for compensation was as a result of humiliation, ridicule and total embarrassment. Those injuries were personal tort-type claims contrary to the physical injuries.
Consensus Summary of Yolanda Pinnelas Case Study The purpose of this paper is to discuss a case study involving a 21-year-old patient, Yolanda Pinnelas, who was studying to be a musical conductor, and who was being treated with chemotherapy. The toxic medication allegedly caused severe deformity of the patient’s hand when it seeped out of the intravenous (IV) catheter and into the surrounding tissues with minimal intervention by the hospital staff noted. This malpractice case will be reviewed thoroughly by each one of the group members and a discussion of the issues relating to duty, documentation, liability, damages and more will be discussed in detail within this paper.