CHAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS OF HAVING A CLEAR DEFINITION WITH ITS CORRESPONDING ELEMENTS FOR THE CRIME OF UNJUST VEXATION Substantially, defining the crime of unjust Vexation with corresponding elements would bar any challenges against its constitutionality based on the grounds mentioned in Chapter V of this paper. Procedurally, defining the crime of Unjust Vexation with corresponding elements will also help both the prosecution and the accused avail of several procedures recognized under our criminal procedure, such as: Plea Bargaining The rule on the provisions on Pre –Trial indicates that plea bargaining is one of the matters to be considered during the pre-trial stage, a proceeding conducted before the trial. “Rule 116, Sec. 2: Plea of
In court, Sara Creek had to justify the breach and hoped to pay damages, but Walgreen’s desired an injunction. Before comparing damages to an injunction in this specific case, it is helpful to mention the general differences between the two. One advantage of awarding an injunction (specific performance) is that it is on the parties to negotiate damages that benefit both sides. If the transaction costs are low, it could be more efficient to award an injunction. An injunction effectively takes the two parties to the market, which will determine the price of breaching more accurately than the government.
There is also legal innuendo. While this is not defamatory on its face, a legal innuendo statement can be defamatory when combined with certain extrinsic or outside circumstances. This contextual information may cause a statement to be considered defamatory in a certain jurisdiction while not another. When looking at legal precedent , strict liability rule is applied to legal innuendo . This is the standard level of liability
However, the law is the law, and when disobeyed whether unjust or just, consequences will be determined “by the code of the law”. However, human rights must be acknowledged when superiors make laws, and if they are not these laws must be revised, removed and/or
In everyday usage, Equity refers to being ‘fair and just’. However, the legal meaning of Equity is more limited. As described by Maitland; ‘It acts as an appendage or ‘gloss’ on the common law’. In other words, Equity is a branch of the law that was developed in order to alleviate the rigid application of Common law rules . From the time when it has first emerged, the law of Equity has been through numerous transformations.
The rules main goal is to prohibit evidence obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admissible in court (Siegel 2010). The exclusionary rule may prevent evidence seized in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admitted into court, an officer who has violated someone's rights could also be sued along with their agency. According to Section 1983 of the U.S. Code an officer could be prosecuted criminally under some circumstances as well (Forsythe n.d.). The case United States v. Leon is notable because due to this case the good faith exception was added to the exclusionary rule. The exemption allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights as interpreted from the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial if police officers acting in good faith relied upon a defective search warrant (Siegel 2010).
The same thing happens with search warrants for homes. The same thing happens when it comes to Muslims at airports or after any major bombing. I understand that people are fearful of things that they don’t understand, however, it’s an individual’s responsibility to understand them. That doesn’t justify violating someone’s right of privacy by conducting a random search and use the system to make it legal. We all deserve the right to privacy unless we violate the law.
The Law and Free Speech Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, not all speech is protected equally, and some forms of speech may be illegal. In some situations, states enact law in an effort to minimize offensive forms of speech, and in doing so violate the First Amendment. While the intentions of such laws are not to infringe on the rights of citizens, oversights of the intricacies of law do occur. Such is the case with the established Breach of Peace – Incitement law, at least in part.
Take as an example functional equivalents of borders. Oftentimes there are functional equivalents of borders well within the geographical borders of the United States such as airports, ports and checkpoints on busy highways. These equivalents pose a challenge to agents as they are within the borders of the United States, however there are still exceptions to policies that would otherwise restrict their actions, such as the Fourth Amendment. When law enforcement be it any level within the territorial borders of the United States attempts to search and/or seize goods there must be a warrant signed by a judge in order to convey existential circumstance for said search/seizure. However at geographical borders or the functional equivalent of borders there is an exception to the Fourth Amendment that states that agents acting in a customs enforcement or border security role can search and/or seize subjects and materials based upon suspicion of criminal behavior.
General examples include the laws regarding torts (laws against any wrong doing for which an action for damages be brought), contracts, and real property. A specific example of a substantive law is a law prohibiting trespassing on another’s property. Substantive law, which refers to the actual claims and defences whose validity is tested through the procedures of procedural law, is different from procedural law. Substantive law is the statutory or written law that defines rights and duties, such as crimes and punishments (in the criminal law), civil rights and responsibilities in civil law.