It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction. One response is to suggest that the harm principle can be defined in a less stringent manner than Mill 's formulation. This is a complicated issue that I cannot delve into here except to say that Mill does not seem to be significantly concerned with the potential dangers of psychological harm.
This however is due to a flawed understanding of excuses, derived by equating it with causation. Causation per se is not an excuse as every action is caused. Insanity on the other hand, is rooted in the non culpability arising from lack of rationality. In the Indian context, the Indian Penal Code of 1860 does not explicitly mention the term insanity and instead, uses ‘unsoundness of mind’. It removed terms like mental illness or disorder, which caused confusion due to the digression of legal insanity from medical insanity.
4.3 Malpractice as an Ethical Issue Malpractice of doing the opposite of acting in good faith (Bruhn, s.a.:111). It is defined as the failure through ignorance or negligence, to render proper service, resulting in injury or loss to the client (Bruhn, s.a.:111). Professional negligence consists of departing from usual practice not exercising due care (Bruhn, s.a.:112). Any violations of confidentiality and sexual misconduct have received the greatest attention in the literature as grounds for malpractice suits (Bruhn, s.a.:112). The only violation practitioners are allowed to do is client’s confidentiality under those circumstances mandated by the ethical guidelines or by state law (Bruhn, s.a.:112).
A lack of action from law enforcement, in regards to misogynistic cyber-bullying cases, stems from decades of social misogynistic biases and misogynistic law enforcement protocols observed in early domestic violence cases. One example of an early misogynistic law enforcement protocol is given in the book, “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace” by Daniel Keats Citron; “Police training guides instructed officers that it would be unreasonable to remove abusive husbands from the home because they were simply responding to their wives ‘nagging.’ Psychiatrists reinforced this view with a medical diagnosis: battered wives allegedly suffered from ‘feminine masochism’ that propelled them to nag their husbands into beating them; they derived pleasure from the abuse,
The display of lateral violence in nursing is an issue that is hurting the profession as a whole. Lateral violence is an unprofessional display of behavior from one nurse to another that is meant to intimidate. According to Tina Dimarino “researchers have found that the most common forms of lateral violence in nursing include nonverbal innuendo, verbal insults, gossiping, undermining, withholding information, sabotage, infighting, scapegoating, backstabbing, failure to respect privacy, and broken confidences.” This type of behavior is also termed horizontal violence, nurse to nurse, incivility or bullying (Dimarino, 2011). The need for
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.
It is prima facie unfair, according to Rawls, to allow the least-well-off to starve to death simply because of their own bad luck, which merely appears to point to ‘formal impartiality’ as ‘formally concerning for all’. In contrary, a just or non-formal impartiality might allow special consideration for persons who have traditionally been marginalized or subject to discrimination. Rawls comes to realize that the ultimate argument for the difference principle is a Kantian
. Lord Atkin in his speech in Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions stated, “simple lack of care – such as will constitute civil liability — is not enough; to prove criminal law there are degrees of negligence; and a very strong reason is needed to prove before felony is established. To impose a criminal liability under section 304A of IPC, it is necessary that death should be the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused , and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua
Scope of liability is divided into two parts; foreseeability, which excludes liability for harms that were sufficiently unforeseeable at the time of the tortious act that were not among the risks that made the defendant negligent; and superseding cause, which is an intervening act that relieves the defendant of liability. The contributory negligence is the most common defense to negligence. It’s when the plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care for their own protection. This defense results in preventing the plaintiff from recovering any type of reward. Comparative negligence allows the damages to be divided between both the plaintiff and the defendant to their degree of
Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high
As I interpret this quote I can see that more evidence is proving Mr. Ewell to be guilty of hitting his own daughter. Mr. Ewell is left handed and in the quote is says that Mayella was bruised on her right side, from this I can predict that Mr. Ewell abused his daughter and Tom Robinson is innocent. I can presume that Mr. Ewell abused his daughter because he said that he did not get her examined by a
The doctrine of transferred intent, which is highly criticized by Dressler as a useless and potentially misleading legal fiction, see p. 122 - 125, is not followed in Texas. Instead, in Texas, the issue of what happens when a different person or property than the target is injured or harmed or otherwise affected is an issue of causation. The same is true when a different offense than the one desired, contemplated or risked was committed. Section 6.04 (b) TPC says that a person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what the actor desired, contemplated, or risked is that :(1) a different offense was committed, See Thompson v. State, 236 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. Crim.
An act is wrongful usually only if it has some consequence. The police and the prosecutor acted in an unreasonable and legally reprehensible way when they omitted to put Clint into custody, while being fully aware of how great the risk of the harm to Anne and Bernice eventuating was, and what the gravity or seriousness of the harm was likely to be. A delict (wrongful conduct) is the act of a person which, in a wrongful and culpable way caused loss (damage) to another. There is a causal connection between the police and prosecutor not putting Clint in custody, and Anne being assaulted. Had they put Clint in jail, Anne would not have been assaulted by
Sexual abuse is when a caregiver is sexual assaulted or raping an elderly patient. Neglect is defined as an elderly is being mistreated by a caregiver by failure to provide food, shelter, health care, or protection for a vulnerable elder. Financial Exploitation is an elderly signature is being forged for financial transactions or for his/her possessions. Emotional Abuse is when a caregiver is insulting, threatening, humiliating an elderly patient. Abandonment is when a person or a caregiver is deserting an elderly person.