The Court holds that immunity is a concept is granted ratione personae and on the expiration of office, this becomes rationemateriae. The same applies to a head of State. Further, the jus cogensprinciples regarding torture treat it as a crime punishable with severe numbers of years in prison. Thus, it a settled principle of law that a head of State may be liable for acts done in his capacity as an official and no immunity is granted to
He also mentions that a “high five” is a gesture of showing appreciation. He provides the readers with an interesting clever main argument; however, he does not provide enough reasoning to support his sub-arguments. Furthermore, he occasionally uses misleading examples that weaken his argument instead of supporting it. In his article, Riggle (2016) explains that awesomeness is
There is a statistic that gets thrown around a lot regarding how much of human communication is intimately tied to body language. When humans talk about gender and sexuality, speech becomes especially embodied, a performance for others to interpret, internalize, or judge. But if this is true, the speech-action dichotomy falters. Pornography, one of the ways humans communicate about gender and sexuality, is both action and speech. Catharine A. Mackinnon’s article Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech is arguing for access to legal recourse to those who have been harmed by the pornography industry.
Critics and conservatives often argue that publication and distribution of obscene articles (books or movies) are the leading cause of sex crimes like rape and molestation and justifies ban anything that may appeal to prurient interest. most psychologists testify to the harmlessness of obscene publications, and the early fixation of sexual patterns of conduct. Thus the only other reason to ban wide dissemination of obscene material is that is leads to lowering of moral standards of society. Determination of obscene content in any article is very subjective save, hardcore pornography and judging obscenity on the anvil of public morality which itself is very subjective. With no set standards as to what may constitute obscene punishment under section 292 IPC may be deemed to be retrospective as it is dependent on the censorship of the
They both share one thing in common: the first amendment. The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment.
If he gathered many different accounts and each community had a different story from the others, but the individuals in the community had the same story, then it would be important for Geertz to understand if the story has already been told it has already been modified. Additionally, it is important to note that Geertz may have simplified the story by leaving out what appeared at the time to be unnecessary details. Furthermore, as the best narratives have meaning in them, Geertz’s selective with the information he included is questionable. However, the benefit of a simplified account of the events which implies an accurate meaning despite the risk of misinformation may outweigh the downsides in ethnographic
2.3 A Panoramic View: John Stuart Mill’s Defence of Liberty John Stuart Mill makes a very necessary and significant distinction in the opening lines of his book On Liberty. He spells out legibly the theme of his essay as he indicates: “The subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” By this statement, we could stipulate explicitly, yet briefly that, J.S. Mill’s theory of liberty has little to do with the so called argument between determinism and free will. Its focus is largely directed towards the political cum ethical mode of coexistence among human beings. Despite the fact, critics assert, that Mill’s theory of liberty is much more individualistic, he like Aristotle is not ignorant of the fact that the “human being is by nature a social or a political animal.” In this line of thought, Mill indicates that liberty is one of the issues which border much on the relationship that coexists among people in a society but it is seldom addressed.
And went on to state that in the current era of modernisation marriage is regarded as partnership of equals and that a wife is not a subservient chattel of the husband. Moreover, towards the viewpoint of a reasonable man the concept of marital rape exemption will be an absurdity to the law. It could be argue that in the decision of the courts in R v R, the judges took a retrospective approach to the case and allowed criminal sanction for a husband to rape his wife. The courts had also confirmed this view in the case of R v Miller. The case of R v R has also bought profound effects to the development of the law in the case of CR v United Kingdom , where the appellants argued that there was a breach of Article 7 of the Convention which the European Courts of Human Right held that to convict under the circumstances of rape is not in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention.
We as human beings are born with challenges which in certain ways test us and also makes us stronger. Throughout history, ethicists have used reasoning to develop and justify the moral structures. Since the beginning of history reasoning has been used a literary device and has always done the job. Although others may disagree with other forms of knowing it may have flaws in regard to reason.reasoning is an analytical form of knowing, it has strengths such as accuracy and specification, while other forms may have flaws of bias and accuracy, which can affect a way of knowing. It is easy to understand that emotion, imagination and other ways of knowing will hardly solve any ethical dilemma.
The death penalty can be a greatly valuable device in sentencing criminals that have perpetrated a portion of the most exceedingly terrible crimes known to society. It is basic that we start to pass enactment making capital punishment lawful all through the United States so justice can be served appropriately. The morality of the death penalty has been hotly discussed for a long time. Those opposed to the death penalty say that it is immoral for the government to take the life of a citizen under any circumstance. This contention is refuted by Immanuel Kant who set forth the idea that, a society that is not willing to request a life of some individual who has taken another person 's life is essentially immoral.
Your Honor and the ladies and gentlemen of the Jury of the Court of Justice, throughout this case it has been well established that the defendant in question, Charles I, is not only guilty of exercising absolute, arbitrary power over his subjects in the United Kingdom, but also for establishing and enforcing laws that undermined the good of the people. Though the defense might argue that Charles I was a remarkable leader heavily influenced by religion, he actually ruled over England as a tyrant. Charles I thought he was superior to Parliament and his subjects, and disregarded the law with utmost disrespect. Though he believed in the Divine Right of Kings philosophy, that he was put on this earth to serve God’s will, this does not excuse Charles’ actions of imposing unjust taxes when he became in need of additional financial funds. His taxation for ship money was outrageous, and only furthered his own strength and power.
Washington Post has posted on May 24, 2015 that the FBI confirms that no major terrorism cases were caught form the Patriot phone data collection (Krieger, 2015) The American Civil Liberties Union filed a law suit against the government in 2013. The case provides evidence that the Patriot Act is infringing on American’s privacy, freedom of speech and association. Within the Patriot Act, surveillance of phone records such as phone numbers, and duration is being collected across the United States. The ACLU deals with defending the civil liberties and those phone surveillance and would have drastic impact on how they advocate for Civil rights (Kaufman,
“America’s Unjust Sex Laws” is an editorial published in the Economist that argues that America’s laws for sex offenders is too stringent. The author makes tenacious arguments that gets the reader thinking, however most of the arguments that were made I contest with. “America’s Unjust Sex Laws” argues that the sex offender laws in America are too harsh. It begins by discussing “Megan’s Laws” and the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 to describe the current sex offender laws. The author then goes on to discuss how large the sex-offender registry is in order to support their first point that harsh penalties shouldn’t be imposed for minor crimes.
Introduction Having called the tune, Cintolo cannot be excused from paying the piper on the basis of his vocation…[We] emphatically reject the notion that a law degree, like some sorcerer’s amulet, can ward off the rigours of the criminal law. Legal ethics and how they are applied by international lawyers have become the subject of much contention since the infamous Bybee/Yoo memorandum drafted in 2002 by Jay Bybee and John Yoo otherwise known as the ‘torture memo’. This essay seeks to examine the issue of legal ethics through the lens of the experience of John Yoo and what this means for the provision of international legal advice in the United States (US) system. This examination will look at, first, the ethics of lawyers in the US system.