Williamson’s employment? Was this even battery at all? The plaintiffs did not want that to be the case, as there is a law preventing personal lawsuits against federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Holding: The trial court has determined that Mr. Williamson was outside of the scope of his employment. The appellate court however, determined that he was within the scope of his employment and this cannot be sued personally.
This is because the death penalty is an explicit violation of the 8th amendment in the United States Bill of Rights. The 8th amendment has three clauses: excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. Capital punishment clearly crosses the line of the last part in the amendment that states “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This section does not allow the government to harm any citizen of the United States in such a way, which, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1972, includes the death penalty. In 1972, the Supreme Court was faced with the landmark case Furman v. Georgia. This case dealt with an accidental murder, and resulted in the sentencing of William Henry Furman to death.
The issue, in this case, was if the freedom of religion was protected under the first amendment. The court held that the statute can punish criminal activity without religious relations. The First Amendment protects religious belief, not religious practices. The First Amendment doesn’t protect religious practices that can be considered to be a
The Court noted, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." For example, although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon what message was communicated. Finally, the Court concluded that Texas' interest in preventing breaches of the peace did not support Johnson's conviction because the conduct at issue did not threaten to disturb the peace. Moreover, Texas' interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity did not justify Johnson's criminal conviction for engaging in political
To ban speech for this reason, i.e.,for the good of the speaker, tends to undermine the basic right to free speech in the first place. If we turn to the local community who were on the wrong end of hate speech we might want to claim that they could be psychologically harmed, but this is more difficult to demonstrate than harm to a person 's legal rights. It seems, therefore, that Mill 's argument does not allow for state intervention in this case. If we base our defense of speech on the harm principle we are going to have very few sanctions imposed on the spoken and written word. It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction.
With due respect, it is illegal to promote long-term or permanent birth control to the specific groups or individuals for the supposed good of society. In another context, it is illegal to perform any treatment on the patient without the legal doctrine of the informed consent. The state has an interest in protecting a minor from an inappropriate sterilization and may require court approval (Harris, 2008, p.
Connecticut is the landmark case that led to Roe v. Wade. The case argued that it was unconstitutional to outlaw contraceptives of any sort. “On June 7, 1965 the Supreme Court argued that the law which imposed criminal sanctions upon any person who uses any drug, medical article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception is unconstitutional” (Roraback). Also, the Supreme Court declared that the Connecticut law was unconstitutional because it restricted contraceptive use by married couples and this violates their right to privacy (Fein). “The decision spawned additional vexing ligation seeking expansion of the right to privacy to include possession of obscene materials in the home, personal reputation, abortion, confidentiality regarding drug use, and homosexual sodomy” (Fein).
Pretty’s claim was unsuccessful due to the domestic realisation of the vast moral considerations at stake, and they therefore looked to the democratic will of parliament that can be found in legal text. The European Court of Human Rights did the same and applied the EU equivalent, the Margin of Appreciation, and refrained from passing judgment on the case. One of Mrs Pretty’s claims involved the violation of her human rights, she especially relied on the Right to Life Article 2 and that she is entitled to protection from inhuman or degrading treatment . Furthermore Pretty claimed that her right to respect for private life had been breached. It is clear then that there is an obvious moral overlap with each aspect of the human rights legislation which Mrs Pretty sought to justify euthanasia.
Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high
There are multiple factors correlated with each individual case. An individual with a terminal illness with no cure should be able to consent to the ability to end their life on their own means. “Patient centered deontology is the best ethical framework for evaluating the moral permissibility of euthanasia. It allows Patient autonomy and making judgments based on the act and agent themselves rather than the consequences” (Nathan, 2015). There is no difference in active and passive euthanasia, they are morally permissible, and that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia, in itself, actually diminishes the autonomy of the patient because this deems the agent as external in contrast to the patient acting as the
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Facts: Two plaintiff, Griswold and Buxton, were the Executive and Medical Directors for Planned Parenthood League at Connecticut State respectively. They had been accused and later convicted and fined $100 each for violating the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The Act illegalized any use of drugs, medical item, or any other appliance for the purposes of preventing conception. Griswold and Buxton had been found quilt of giving information, medical advices, and counselling to couples about family planning. These directors were claiming that the ruling that led to their conviction had violated the 14th Amendment, which states citizens’ rights to privacy and equal protections from the laws.
301). The accused right under section 8 of the Charter in R. v. Hamill,  1 S.C.R. 301 was violated; however, it was not as a result of the throat hold. The charter violation was on the basis of the unlawful search of the resident without a search warrant, even though the throat hold has taken place. However, it was concluded that the evidence would not affect the fairness of the trial and they should be admitted (R. v. Hamill,  1 S.C.R.
She posed a “relatively serious” threat to the country and its’ citizens. Issue The issue and question at hand was whether the 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act of California violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, the other question was that did the Criminal Syndicalism Act also violate the First Amendment. Rule of Law- A state can prohibit its citizens from knowingly being a part of or beginning an organization that promotes criminal syndicalism with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Analysis – The clear decision of the court was that they did not want anything that
The Court held that firing Roe for his behavior and "speech" did not violate the First Amendment. Government employers, the Court wrote, could restrict their employees ' speech in ways that would be unconstitutional if applied to the public. However, government employees had the right to speak on matters of public concern, such as on
Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.