No one especially a child puts themselves in a situation will they are going to be harmed. Although I know Mr. Dyer probably didn’t mean it this way, but I felt as he was saying a child or woman “asked for it” and by that, I mean rape and so forth. How does a child or woman let themselves become or be a victim to something they may have no control over? I just don’t understand the concept.
The rationale behind this statement was that, there was no violation of the 13th or 14th amendment. This was due to the fact that the distinction between the races did not imply anything that broke the rights assumed in the 13th amendment. Not only that, but the 14th amendment only protects the people in only a political point of view instead of social equality as well. The backing behind all of this is that all citizens in the eyes of the constitution have no color and as a result shows that there is no difference in class. Therefore, since Plessy insisted in being in coach, which was not for his particular race, he was subject to being fined and jailed for his
There's no such thing as an "immoral crime" because everyone has different moral codes, what one person thinks is horribly wrong could be totally normal to another so there's no such thing as a "moral person".
If the laws they create and impose are all morally just then there is no problem with citizens following the laws when there aren’t any morally ambiguous laws. Look at the story of Antigone for this concept, in Antigone the king enforces a law that morally does not seem right. Because of this, Antigone refuses to follow the law, and the king even goes through many measures to not punish her. A society with any citizens not following the laws, and the authority not punishing them for that crime means that they are not a legitimate authority. It is not enough for an authority just to be able to get people to blindly follow the laws, but those laws must be morally right and the people in understanding of
The entire scripture does not mention any personal pronouns, the same way these are left out in everyday life. It’s based on “we” pledging, removing all sense of self from each being. It’s forced, as pledging from “we” means it’s coming from everyone, so to say otherwise would most likely be deemed evil. They aren’t pledging to much, either. It’s all based on the allegiance to concept of being one.
Thoreau had excellent ideas; however, his ideas are radical to both his time period and today. Disobeying the law is frowned upon by most societies, but some people are similar to Thoreau and deem that there is nothing wrong with forms of peaceful protest. While it is important that every individual follow his or her own conscience, it can only be obeyed completely freely to a certain point. One’s conscience might tell them that they should not pay their taxes, when another’s does not; this is why laws are established. If one does not abide by a law, there are consequences because they followed their conscience.
The hangman said he only had the chance to keep murdering people because nobody stood up and said something about it. It is ironic that the victim said nobody cried for me because when other people were getting hanged he didn’t say anything either. This leads to the bystander effect because the people of the town did not want to say anything since maybe someone else could have said
A. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975: In this precedent, the supreme court decided that the presence of mental illness alone is not enough to warrant involuntary confinement. If the patient is no longer found dangerous to him/herself or others, there is no justification to continue confinement. Commitment needs to be justified on the basis of mental disease and dangerousness. This precedent is applicable to the case of Mr. Y, because the statement above states dangerousness and mental illness as a basis for justifying continual commitment for Mr. Y. If the preponderance of evidence shows that Mr. Y is dangerous due to his mental disease, then deciding to civilly commit him would meet the requirement of this precedent case.
The courts have stated that even if the officer’s actions taken were reasonable under the circumstances, which comes under the good faith doctrine, therefore no misconduct needs to be deterred and the exclusionary rule will not apply ("The "Good Faith" Doctrine"). The officer has to prove to the courts that they have the good-faith
The intention of remaining permanently separated from the other must be seen from the guilty party. In the case of Miller v Miller , an original involuntary separation could be converted into desertion by the formation of an animus deserendi by the respondent when it was physically impossible for her to join the petitioner. Since all that must be proved is the fact of separation. It was irrelevant for this purpose that the spouses were forced to live apart and therefore could not live together even if they wished to do so. Even though there was de facto separation, there would be no desertion unless the guilty spouse had the intention of remaining permanently separate from the
Consol. School District the courts denied her claim of retaliatory discharge the reason being mutual trust and confidence between Procunier and Jennings were essential to the proper functioning of the workplace and Jennings’ discharge was based upon a loss of trust and confidence by Procunier, which was reasonable under the circumstances. 4. How do you legally defend your recommendation? a.
Meaning, that we must be careful when expressing our thoughts that are based merely in our judgments without testing them with a fair and noble mind. With this in mind, no individual has the power to make another upset, sad, or feel any other emotion, as we have the power over our mind to allow it or not to allow it. However, some of us are quick to lead our opinions with our hearts or external factors, instead of seeing the bigger picture. Therefore, our quick judgments/reasoning can have an ugly impact in our world. But, what are truly the limits of human freedom?
Since there was not intent to trespass and not an extra hazardous activity, the plaintiff could not collect money for her injury. This relates to class because it discusses responsibility of personal property (the defendants pickup truck). He is responsible for making sure there are no rocks (or hazardous material) in his tires possibly acting as a threat to others. Though he is responsible for his pickup, in this case there was more to the story and he was not responsible to pay. It also relates because the plaintiff was arguing that the rock trespassed onto her yard from the highway and acted as a threat to her causing injury.
I believe freedom of speech should not be limited. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the right to limit our freedoms ,that act is truly unconstitutional. If we let them limit our freedoms then that gives them the power to limit little by little until it 's eventually all gone. The people should not be suppressed they should be allowed to put forth their opinions and speak against anything they feel isn 't right. the constitution states that you can say whatever you want as long as it does not include anything profine, or violent.
Another would be that it is foolish to want those close to you – family, friends, etc, - to live forever because that’s not up to you and as stated in the quote above, it’s foolish to want things that aren’t yours to be yours because that’s impossible. He gives example in his sixteenth rule that when a person is mourning, it’s not what had happened, but rather his/her judgment of what has happened, so the best approach is to not mourning it inwardly, or applying feeling/judgment to it. So nothing beyond our own opinions belong to us, and because we can control our opinions, we can apply his reasoning that’ll supposedly lead to achieving peace of mind in life. This is because in his thinking, reason is good, and irrationality is bad, and to be intolerable of the rational – things out of your control – is irrational. Another part of human finitude that he gives way to improve upon is lack of self-discipline.