Process Essay: Analyzing Kant's Evidence

The dilemma the court system faces is whether the priest should be forced to testify in court or if he shall be allowed to keep silent in accordance to his seal of confession. By forcing the priest to testify, this would allow for the truth to exposed about what happened between the girl and the abuser. Father Bayhi would also be acting as a witness to the case because the girl told him in confidence about what she had been experiencing, thus proving the now dead abuser’s guilt or innocence. By allowing the priest to keep his seal of confession, it would allow the priest to keep his seal of

The Rape Shield Law was enacted to protect the rights of rape victims and to encourage rape victims to come forward that might not otherwise do so for fear of their past sexual history coming to light. Some of these rape victims are afraid that their private sexual history or previous sexual encounters will be brought up in court or become public knowledge. Many times the fear of exposure and shame could prevent victims of rape from coming forward and making a complaint to the police against an assailant. With the introduction of the rape shield law a reluctant victim might be more willing to come forward and file a complaint.

Gacy was the living nightmare of America. From 1978 to 1994 Gacy terrorized the streets of Illinois committing murders. His case was never ending as he was always in and out of jail. His trial started on February 6, 1980, he was convicted for sexual assault and murder. In 1994 the judge and the jury ended this case with their final verdict. Although people viewed Gacy’s actions as unforgivable, he managed to bring closure to families by helping solve other murders.

This unfair treatment of women by the laws actuated Thomas Paine who asserted that women were robbed of freedom of will by both the civil and the common law.

Q.2 How and why does Rachels modify Kants categorical imperative? Are there any problems with this modification?

Kant follows that it is impossible that the phenomena exist by themselves, since the empirical reality is validated as real as it is intuited by the subject. Consequently, space and time, being pure forms of sensible intuition, are also conditions attached to the subject who intuits and without these the subject would make it impossible to receive representations.

The testimony of a victim of sexual assault stands at par with the testimony of the injured witness. In fact, the deposition of the victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight. But unlike the case of physical assault, in sex offence, given the very nature of the offence, corroboration by eye witness moreover of an independent witness cannot be expected. In Rafiq v. State of U.P., it was observed that, need for corroboration of testimony of prosecutrix and presence of injury on her person depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Inferences regarding rape can be drawn from circumstantial

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. The definition of sexual assault covers all the sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape. It is not the problem of our country but it’s the problem increasing worldwide. There are various factors affecting the investigation of sexual assault cases but some of them plays a very important role while investigation of the such cases and to arrest the main suspect or the offender of the case. There are various investigation protocols for investigation of such types of crime has been developed in the other countries but in our country like

The judge directed the jury that consent is never appropriate. This is simply false, since consent is a recognised defence. This is evident in the case of Jones, when there is a genuine belief of consent to rough play. In sporting activities consent is also a recognised defence, as seen in Barnes. It was also argued by Dr Peter Jepsen in his paper “Consent and non-fatal offences against the person” that any sexual activity will involve some assault and battery. It is only when consent is absent the law will and should step in. It is inconceivable how the judge concluded consent should always be ignored, as consent must be discussed in some capacity.

Generally, the person with whom someone enters into a relationship with is no one’s business but his or her own. However, depending on a couple’s ages, getting intimate with a partner may be considered a criminal offense in Pennsylvania. Being convicted of statutory sexual assault charge can have serious consequences with lasting effects.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to thank you for your time today. As you can see, we have a very important trial here today. Mrs. Edna Pontellier has been charged with the crime of shirking her duties of a mother-woman and it is your job to convict her of such a crime. We have had numerous witnesses come and testify to Edna’s disregard of her role as a mother woman.

Summary: Mayella Ewell is called to the witness stand. Unlike her father, who looked like he had prepared for his appearance in court by bathing for the first time in months if not years, Mayella looks like she actually has an ongoing acquaintance with soap and water. Mr. Gilman asks Mayella to describe what happened that night in her own words, but she doesn't answer, so he switches to more specific questions. Her answers are still minimal, so the judge asks her to just tell the court what happened, and she bursts into tears. Judge Taylor tells her that she has no cause for shame or fear, so long as she tells the truth. The judge asks Mayella what she's scared of, and she points to Atticus. When the judge asks Mayella how old she is, she says nineteen and a half. The judge tells Mayella that Mr. Finch isn't going to scare her, and that his job as judge is to stop him if he tries. Mayella, soothed, finally gets going on her testimony. What she says: she was on

In R v Mokrecovas, a case of rape in which consent was a defence, the issue was if it was open to the defence under section 41 (3) (a) to cross examine the complainant about an allegation that she had consensual sexual relations with the accused’s brother on two occasions during 12 hours before alleged rape. It was held that the cross examination about sexual intercourse with the accused’s brother would add nothing to these grounds for allegation. The subsections (3)(b) and (c) were enacted to reverse what was decided in R v Riley. In most of the cases, the jury would most likely infer such behaviour by virtue of the other evidence in the case. When evidence is introduced that the accused and the complainant have either been married or have been living together for a period of time, and in situations such as this, it’s the judge’s duty to direct the jury that any inference can have no bearing on the issues to be decided.

Kant’s ethical theory relies on the principles that the only one thing, which is good without qualification, is a good will. In Kant’s term, a good will is a will, where all taken decisions are fully determined by the Moral Law or moral demands. He states that all talents of the mind, which can include intelligence, wit, judgment, courage and others can be definitely named as good traits, however, at the same time these qualities can also become extremely bad on the condition that the will of using them is not good. Kant believed that some kinds of actions should be prohibited, such as murder, theft or lying, even though the consequences of these actions would lead to bringing more happiness than the alternative (Bonevac,

The issue arose whether or not consent is a valid defence against the harm that was inflicted between the appellants in private. With this defence of consent, the House of Lord had to consider the following situation where D harms V, does the prosecution have to prove that V has a lack of consent towards the harmful act of D before convicting D of OAPA 1861 under s20 and