Hate crime What distinguishes a hate crime from other crimes is an underlying motivation based on the victim’s group membership. There has been much debate over the constitutionality of hate crime laws and which groups (if any) should be protected by such legislation. Those against hate crime laws argue that it is a violation of First Amendment protections of free, association, and freedom of thought. The Supreme Court confirmed that freedom of thought is implied by the First Amendment in R.A.V. v. St. Paul which those against hate crime laws argue makes such laws unconstitutional.
But, even though he is objective, he is also biased because he mainly provide examples that supports his argument so that the reader can be convinced with his stand. Although he gave a different point of view, the supporting details mostly favour that stealing is always wrong. This can be seen through the weight of both argument, in which he provide stronger evidences to support his side compared to the other perspective. For example, in supporting his position, some of the examples that he gave was from Cuttle, that is taken from a national law journal, and also researches by Mixim, Moss and Plummer in New Ethical Problems. Unlike when he tries to introduce a different perspective, he gave evidence from Carla, that is taken from an internet chatroom, and Hibbs, from National Press Daily.
He also decides that there are two ways of knowing the wax: through the senses and through intuition. Knowing the wax through the senses is deemed inadequate while knowing the wax through intuition is more sufficient (12). Knowing the wax through the senses is inadequate for the reason that the senses can be deceived. After Descartes finishes his mediation on the wax example, he decides he must stop at this point,
It overlooks various scenarios in which more than one wrongdoer exist. This is a shortcoming of corrective justice which proposes that tort law is only a matter of rectification of losses wrongfully inflicted by only one defendant. In fact, the main purpose of tort law and private law theory is providing compensation for the wrongs done towards the plaintiff regardless of the number of defendants. When the main aspect of private law theory is providing compensation and justice to the plaintiff, it cannot be denied only because one aspect of private law theory is not applicable to it. The judge neglects so many other aspects of the theory and interprets corrective justice in a very literal sense.
An ethical dilemma is a difficult situation that involves a conflict between values and has no distinct definite answer. An individual facing an ethical dilemma is usually confronted with various tough choices. The individual has to question how one should react towards that complex situation and thus, make an informed choice based on what one believe is right or wrong. Ethical dilemmas are often times very multifaceted and unpredictable. They possess two or more competing solutions that are morally correct, but acting on one would mean transgressing the others.
There are some exceptions to the rule that any relevant evidence is admissible. This includes: Opinion evidence The general rule is that opinion evidence is not admissible, as the function of a witness is to relate the facts to the court so the court can draw its own conclusions. However, there are
When the defendant’s wrong does not fit in any of these pigeon holes he is said to have committed no tort. Hence this theory of Salmond is also known as pigeon hole theory. However the theory of pigeon hole has been criticized by the latter writers as they feel this theory, if accepted, will put an end to the growth and evolution of the new categories of liability in tort and the Courts could be prevented from identifying any new torts based on the violation of the legal rights of a person. Torts are infinitely various and not limited and confined.
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
Literature Review *Needs Serious Help The literature used for this subject is closely related to one another with key differences between each different articles approach. They all address the concept of police corruption and deviance in general but take different stances on the cause of it and how it’s fundamentally made within a flawed system. The articles to follow suit all provide insight to previous methods of addressing the matter.
A different between criminal law and law of tort is that the main purpose of law of tort is to compensate people who suffer harm and not punish the people who caused this harm, a different between law of tort and contract law is that the law of tort makes as liable to people with whom we have no previuous relationship. “The defendant is in same sese at fault, either because he intends harm or because he take unreasonable risk of harm. As for the breach of contract, it not be considered tort”
Based on my knowledge on conspiracy I believe that the RICO act is necessary but can also be not useful depending how the defendant pleads his case. Conspiracy is defined as a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. I think the RICO act is necessary because part of me believes that organizations would continue to get away with heinous crimes if the act was non-existing. Another reason to I believe RICO is necessary is because it has been important to up and coming laws. RICO has led to revitalizing the interest in civil punishment.
You mentioned in your post that whether the defendant is guilty or not, if they are violated by an officer then the violation needs to be put to light. What are some consequences for the defense attorney if he is caught not bringing evidence (that could alter a trial) to court? What are the defendants’ rights that are being violated by the officer? One of duties that is to be performed by a defense attorney according to America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System is to, “zealously represent the client’s interests within the bounds of the law.” If the defense attorney fails to recognize the violation of his defendants’ rights does that corrupt the duty that is supposed to be performed?
It is ethical in most case to consider the nature of the crime committed as opposed to pre-trying the victim because he or she belongs to a certain group, (Weitzer, 2005) Detailed Outline: 1. Profile policy Profile policy as stated in the previous sections mainly deals with the selective discrimination of a group of persons basing on their race, religion color as well as social status, (Ingram, 1998). 2.
Some judges follow these guidelines and some do not. If a judge follows these guidelines then it is helping these attempts. These sentencing guidelines can also hurt these disparities because I think since our system of punishment isn’t so great these sentencing guidelines can be unfair. For example, two judges can be handed a similar case, one judge can
Offender profiling it’s used to analyze crime scenes such as how was it committed the behavior and predicting characteristic of the criminal. It is not as effective because some things are hard to predict such as physical characteristic, but the possible chance that criminals have certain personality characteristics such as mental illness, which most of them have different symptoms could help know some more about the offender. It is not always effective due to unsuccessful cases such as the criminal changing its motive or change geographical pattern. It is a big help to recognize and know more about the suspect. Some dangers in using offender profiling is that a wrong suspect might be captured instead of the one predicted.