·Sometimes people excuse the damage they cause by saying this was a mistake or that they did not mean to cause the damage. Is this a valid excuse to avoid liability for damage caused? Explain your answer. With the above question about people that is liable to a damages due to their civil wrong and now finding an excuse to avoid damages. In law, there is no excuse and the defaulter would therefore be liable for their offence committed except if the judge in a court of law based of their reasonable doubt found that it was not proven true that such person would be liable for a damages.
I take issue with him rooting his arguments on what is just and unjust. Socrates states that breaking the law would be unjust, and implies that this is always the case, but I do not think that is necessarily true, just his opinion. Laws are created by people, and people are not always perfect, even the most democratic governments can be imperfect. So even though something is the law, it could be unfair or unjust at the same time. The “social contract” argument falters here; just because one benefitted from a governing body when it was doing its job doesn’t mean they have to abide by it when it makes a bad move.
“Convictions generated through plea bargaining are less related to the evidence, and, hence, to actual guilt, than convictions generated by trial” (GilChrist). This serves as an injustice to society because the plea has no restrictions or prerequisites. In order to reform the policy, the article suggest that plea bargains must have some type of evidence of actual guilt before the plea can be given so it will not put those who are innocent in the same category of those who are truly guilty. Allowing the innocent to believe they stand a chance in a trial is important. “Compelling the innocent to lie in order to secure the beneﬁt of a plea bargain further undermines the perceived integrity of the legal system by denying the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to be heard” (GilChrist).
Although some may argue that law is imperfect and there are instances in which the law is incomplete or otherwise non-ideal and therefore must be broken in some fashion at some point. I strongly disagree. By violating the law, you jeopardize the very power you seek to obtain. If the law is not good enough for those in power to follow,
This may not relieve you from guilt, because you most likely don’t care, but these are suggestive solutions to eradicating marginalized groups. Reflecting on social disadvantages and creating actions to abolish them is a beneficial start. Redemption is forgiving others, nevertheless redeeming others is the rarest and most superior form of redemption. Halberstam’s use of humanization in “Imagined Violence” to demonstrate a recognized sense of human dignity, representing guidance between those in need of assets. Violence is impossible to obliterate, nonetheless violence can be interpreted in a different way.
An example of theft being justifiable is if someone needs a piece of property to end an emergency situation but the property is someone else’s property. It would be morally wrong if the person did not steal the property. One heinous scenario that is justifiable is if there is an emergency situation like the occurrence of a natural disaster. It is morally right to not help because it could lead to an emergency situation. It affects everyone, and wasn 't a foreseeable event to avoid.
Bentham sees monetary penalties as ‘ideal’. This I argue is incorrect. Monetary penalties have so many disadvantages that they should not be used to a greater extent in the criminal justice system. Thus some have gone as far to argue that they should be completely abolished. However Burch has said that this would not be possible so reform should be favoured instead.
People such as Martin Luther King Jr, and Henry David Thoreau took Sophocles's works as an influence over their own publications and actions. In “On The Duty of Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau writes, “They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil.” He argues that it is the fault of an unjust government rather than unjust people when rules are broken and blames are placed. MLK Jr. also writes, “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just.
The issue is whether M. Bega’s conduct was outrageous and intolerable. This element is satisfied when the outrageousness requirement "is aimed at limiting frivolous suits and avoiding litigation in situations where only bad manners and mere hurt feelings are involved." Id. "It is insufficient for a defendant to have acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal." Russo v. White 241 Va. 23.
In some circumstances, the norms favoring intervention may be weakened, leading bystanders to resolve the conflict in the direction of nonintervention (Darley and Latane, 1968). One circumstance may be the present of other witnesses. However, the pressure does not focus on the observer when there are several onlookers present. Potential blames could be distributed and it is superbly reasonable to assume that whatever punishment that happens to any individual is slight. His own intervention would be redundant (Darley and Latane, 1968).