"Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson). Another example of this is imagine a rapist. It would be barbaric and morally unacceptable to rape the rapist. Even though it may seem that those who kill should be killed themselves, it really isn't moral and is not universally
After this, public outrage surfaced and formed the legal definition of insanity, which evebtually became known as the M’Naghten rule (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2008). A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity claims that due to mental illness, the defendant should not be held morally responsible for the crime. In order to successfully plead the insanity defense, a defendant must not only show that he is mentally ill, but also show that there was a link connecting the mental illness and the criminal offense (Grachek,
This is because Danforth feels that if he is lenient with his decisions, it looks as though he is weak and being unfair to the rest who did not get postponed. Since Danforth has authority over the rest of the court, John Proctor is later executed due to Danforth signature. Additionally, he uses the number of cases he has had in court and the amount he has put in jail as a number to hold over peoples heads. The number Danforth claims is a point of trying to scare those who may being lying and show that Danforth is merciless. He tells the open court, “And do you know that near to four hundred are in the jails from Marblehead to Lynn, and upon my signature?”(81).
Sullivan (1964), but higher than the previous state standard where damages may be claimed if defamatory articles were published, Burger disagrees with the court 's rationale. Instead of creating a new approach, Burger states he would prefer to let the law progress "with respect to private citizens rather than embark on a new doctrinal theory which has no jurisprudential ancestry." Although he does not agree with the majority ruling, Burger does find that Gertz was wrongly held accountable. He cites the importance of Sixth Amendment and that lawyers should be viewed as neither positive nor negative. Further, he argues such views would cause lawyers to become selective with unpopular clients.
One of Gopniks main point states that the Bill of Rights emphasizes process and procedure rather than principle. What this means is that a criminal can abuse his rights for his own protection. For example Gopnik quotes Stuntz by saying that a criminal can get off a charge simply because the officer who made the arrest didn 't have a proper warrant. This proves the basis of the Bill of Rights following the one track minded belief that process and procedure is the only way to properly operate a system. Both Stuntz and Gopnik believe that the Bill of Rights could be the cause of the unstable justice system that plagues our communities today.
Miller, through Judge Danforth was able to illustrate this individual corruption by his rigidity of purpose, one which we find difficult to sympathise with as he miss uses his power to punish the innocent, in order please the town’s majority. This Is clearly noted at the back end of Act III where he asks a series of short, sharp questions “you are a lecher”, “-do you deny it Mr Parris”, -you deny every scrap and title of this”, in hope the truth will come out. This is significant because he’s combining this illicit fear of the supernatural and political manipulation in order to get a well-regarded individual in John Proctor to confess to witchcraft. With him dealing with political absolutes “witchcraft is an invisible crime … who may possibly be witness to it?” leads to countless flawed and irrational judgements.
He explains this by discussing the unjust law system. He states, “One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all” (3). C. Claim about Reading 2 (state what is the claim that you will be making about your second reading)
Stahmer believed this utilization of judges was not just as these judges were not from a neutral party. Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” supports this premise as it stated, “It is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, because self- love will bias men in favour of themselves and their friends. And on the other side, hostility, passion and revenge will lead them to punish others too severely.” Thus, per Dr. Stahmer, the courts should have neutral representatives and judges to serve.
People may argue against Jamison by saying that she challenge the common sense that people should be responsible for what they have done. In the other words, if one committed crime, he deserve the correspondence punishment under United State legal system. When the correspondence punishment happen to be incarceration, he should be incarcerated. This argument is weak because the fact that Charlie does not deserve incarceration in Beckley does not necessary leads to the generally conclusion that people should not be responsible for what they have done. What Jamison wants to argue is that people should feel empathy towards those inmates.
The law should be amended or changed to make it less vague and to ensure that it does not obstruct freedom of speech or the rule of law. In particular, ‘insulting’ is far too weak a condition as is the concept of causing harassment, alarm or distress. This law is far too vague and damaging to freedom of speech. It allows simple disputes to escalate into legal argument or process resulting into people ending up with criminal records just for getting into an argument. A recent case of “Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions ” required the high court to re-examine the common situation where a person has been charged with section 5 offence after swearing at a police officer.
When Rudolf Hess stated that he was actually prepared to do so, this right was ignored (McKeown 34). When Hess stated that he was prepared to act as his own counsel, this right was ignored. In denying Hess this right, the court argued they were doing him a favor. Hess was exhibiting signs of amnesia and insanity, and any effort made to argue his own case would likely have been compromised and unproductive. However, the opportunity to argue one 's own case is inherent in the right to counsel.
Slide 1 “Violence can be used for good… justice”. Slide 2 Justice always involves action, and if power is abused, justice cannot be enforced. This justice is explored in Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men and in McTeigue’s V for Vendetta. Through many literary and film techniques, both composers explore modern issues with the distribution of justice experienced in the world today. Slide 3
Finally, in the fifth count of her complaint, Ellina states a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). “[T]o impose liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress: (1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; (4) The emotional distress must be severe.” Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 566 (1977). Critically, the intent requirement of the tort requires the tortfeasor to have acted intentionally or recklessly. Indeed, in her complaint, Ellina alleges that Gil “intentionally and/or recklessly engaged in conduct . . .”
Since the dawn of mankind’s existence, the human mind has struggled to distinguish between right and wrong. As depicted by Michael J. Sandel, Justice conveys the significance of ethics and morality in controversial cases and issues. One of the most fascinating and well-known cases by the name of Her Majesty the Queen v. Dudley-Stephens, brings to light the issue of justice in society. Over the course of twenty-five days in July of 1884, three men become stranded at sea—a cabin boy by the name of Richard Parker, Captain Thomas Dudley, and First Mate Edwin Stephens—after their ship, The Mignonette, sinks in a storm. The three men fight for survival; they eat the bit of food in their lifeboat, catch a sea turtle, and begin to drink their own