Again, Strawson clarifies the Basic Argument that moral responsibility is impossible, this time "in very loose- as it were conversational- terms"(219). In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us.
Thus, as far as primary rules are concerned, Hart argues that there is a need for certainty, so that these rules can be applied by general public without any official guidance. There are a number of defenders of rule of law who have emphasized the need for the same kind of safety. He also discusses clarity as to which norms are to be declared as law. Hart had earlier argued that rule of recognition serves a very important purpose in peoples’ understanding of which rules can be secretively enforced by the society. However, in the Postscipt of his book, the Concept of Law, he says that the need for certainty is not a requisite condition.
In the case of a plaintiff or party’s rights, a temporary injunction is not conclusive or deciding. If rights have been harmed, a preliminary injunction can halt progress to prevent further injustice. At the point of a temporary injunction, the court examines the present state and circumstances before continuing into an area that would obstruct the rights of the parties involved. The use of this injunction is generally considered to be appropriate only in extraordinary
In the judicial and quasi judicial context, this concept is backed by the basic underlying rule of “Justice must not only be done but also seen to be done”. In this background, the Doctrine of necessity gives legitimacy to decision making by ignoring the possible bias. According to this doctrine, a decision maker subject to disqualification owing to bias or conflict of interest can nevertheless make the decision if: 1) no other decision maker who is competent is available 2) no other competent decision making body can be constituted 3) quorum can’t be achieved without including him In such scenarios, the doctrine of necessity overrules the rule against bias. The logic of the doctrine of necessity is that, if there is a choice between allowing a person with bias to make a decision or to stifle the
Justice is the resolution of a critical situation (Selzer), and is comprised of three crucial parts. One is that justice must be a rational thought, free of any influence from emotions (Selzer). This means, that in order for a just resolution to be found, it must be made only with concern for facts and information, and should not be concerned with the emotional repercussions of a resolution. In addition, justice, needs to be vindictive, and should be justified as such. Lastly, justice must be about restoring balance (Selzer), not about complete retaliation, as acts of retaliation result in a cycle that occurs for ad infinitum.
Besides, a similar approach was adopted in PP v Saimin where Sharma J upheld that the prosecution must be able to established the burden of proof throughout the trial. The evidence discloses a prima facie case only when it is uncontradicted and if believed, it will be sufficient to prove the case against the accused. This means that before the defence could be called, the court had to make a determined appraisal of the evidence given by the prosecution and that the prosecution witnesses would have to be subjected to a rigorous test of credibility. In other words,
Burden of proof in civil trial cases Burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies, this is the principle that one has to consider. Evidence contains facts of issues that really relevant and which is also admissible in the court, they are meant to support the case of parties or spoil the case which supposed to discharge party in his burden of proof, in civil cases it always based on the balance of probability, which the party have responsibility to establish before the court. Based on this, the court in civil will act on the preponderance of evidence, means that the party with genuine and clear evidence will wins the case. Example of this type of case is when there is a contract between two parties and plaintiff proved
Navsa JA seems to of the opinion that the defence should be retained but must be approached with extreme caution, especially in situations where the provocation was a once-off triggered event. It should only be applied by using legitimate inferences to determine the accused’s state of mind without too readily believing the ipse dixit of the
When we say responsibility it is our obligation to do the things that are assigned to us or the things that are needed to be done even though we are not the one assigned to, if we have the capable to helping others with their task its already a responsibility. Decision Criteria Non-Disclosure Agreement(NDA) also known as Confidentiality Agreement. - Is a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential knowledge, material or information that the parties want to share with the other parties for a certain purpose, But wish to restrict any third parties. Assumptions In every company there’s a Confidentiality Agreement. In this case it doesn’t say that there’s a Confidentiality Agreement, but I assumed that there is.
For accepting a belief whether as true or false, one needs to be self-conscious first. It needs to be noted that, since intersubjectivity is not