Legal impossibility which occurs when one’ conduct is not illegal could be used as a defense. However, the factual impossibility, which happens when one believes that his conduct is considered to be illegal. For instance, he believes that the box he received today contains drugs while it does contain drugs. In McElory, where the defendant was charged of attempted possession of dangerous drugs, the defendant arose the issue of factual impossibility, however, the fact that factual impossibility is not a defense led the defendant to lose. Under the Model Penal Code which defines the attempt to be “a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime” , there are three ways that lead you to be guilty of attempt.
Procedural law requires notice and a hearing while substantive due process is governmental objective. Basically, substantive due process has to do with very specific fundamental rights of citizens’ while procedural due process is when a citizen is not awarded the proper procedures under law. Substantive due process is additional to procedural due process. Procedural law is the analysis of how law is administrated while substantive is an individual analysis of the law. Procedural law has to do with both criminal and civil law.
Therefore, based on the strikingly similar doctrine, the issue of access is inconsequential in this case of infringement. Issue 2: Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: In deciding the case, the Court relied broadly on Copyright Law, most specifically with respect to the basics of copyright protection. In addition, the Court also maintains the strikingly similar doctrine upheld in the case of
This objection states that the guidance that lex provides is often wrong as it requires the state to be responsible for inflicting the same deeds on criminals which ultimately compromises the morality of law enforcement (186). This objection is relatively easy to support, however, there is potential to highlight the shortcomings within its argument. For example, it can be argued that there are rare situations in which rape can be justified and therefore not a punishable offence. The claim that there is a situation that rape could ever be considered a feasible action is preposterous in today's society, however, it is a situation in which this objection could be
It may have been a careless, unintended error. Even if the error was unintended, Thomco could still be held liable. The law helps to provide the following three-part approach in order to decide liability in a case such as Squish v. Thomco: (1) The negligent supply of false information to foreseeable persons, known or unknown; (2) such persons’ reasonable reliance upon that false information; and (3) economic injury approximately resulting from such reliance. (Meiners, 154) As negligent misrepresentation is a tort of deceit, it would have to be established based on these guidelines that the deceit was in fact consummated. There is no doubt that Squish suffered economic injury, but it was not established that the other actions caused the result of the economic
An issue in theoretical basis on what should prevail or which is supreme between International Law or Municipal Law (national law) is usually presented as a competition between monism and dualist. But in modern approach there is now the theory of coordination or is also called Harmonization theory that rejects the presumption of the other two theoretical concept, monism and dualism. The monist view asserts the international law’s supremacy over the municipal law even in matters within the internal or domestic jurisdiction of a state. While it is true that the international law defines the legal existence of states as well of the validity of its national legal order, the dualist asserts the international law is an existing system that is completely separated from municipal or national law. That dictates the
Intolerance to injustice stands as a key component of American identity. If authority upholds just action, ethical progress can be made. This progress includes authority’s principled decision making and respect for its citizens. Progress is forward or onward movement toward a destination of nationwide justice. An individual’s civil disobedience to unjust authority promotes positive progress within America.
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 fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine states that evidence acquired illegally must be excluded from trial. This extension of the exclusionary rule is based on the same basis as the exclusionary rule itself, with the main goal of the doctrine to deter illegal police activity and to preserve the integrity of the court. The Supreme Court however, has permitted such evidence to be used in some proceedings (WEAL 2008). The exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine differ because Fruit of
Then, it will briefly discuss the reciprocal connection between propaganda and the history of international communication. Propaganda and politics are interrelated. Politics often require the use of propaganda to reinforce its legitimacy and achieve its purpose; similarly, propaganda may affect political situation by shifting public opinion. As an outline of how propaganda can be exploited as a political tool, one might consider the following scenario. When the government wants to achieve its ideal of certain policy, it might use messages that give positive light to this policy.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the ‘cardinal principles’ enunciated by Prof. Ian Dennis vis-à-vis reversal of burden onto the defendant in criminal cases. To what extend does it achieve it’s purpose? Introduction In Woolmington v DPP, Viscount Sankey LC laid down the golden thread rule (also known as concept of presumption of innocence) which presumed the defendant is innocence until proven guilty by the prosecution by proposed “Throughout the web of the English criminal law, one golden thread is always be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…” The prosecution bears the legal burden to prove the guilt of defendant beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases whereby the defendant bears the evidential burden