After Francis B. Palmer murder, the main question that was posed by the court is "should a murderer inherit"? There was a disagreement between the judges on how the statute of wills should be applied and interpreted. As a result, Judge Gray made some surprisingly strong arguments that the court is "bound by the rigid rules of law", therefore, Elmer should not be denied his inheritance. Unlike the dissenting judge, Judge Earl claims that no one should take advantage of his own unlawful actions. Due to these different perspectives, I will first analyse both judge's decision. Secondly, I will make a claim that Judge Earl's decision was inconsistent and invalidates the written statutory law, therefore, the dissenting judges make a stronger argument. Finally, I will use the Legal Positivism Theory to challenge Judge Earl's Natural Law Theory to support my position. …show more content…
Palmer case, the court sided with the majority judges on the notion that Elmer should not benefit from his crime. Considering that this maxim was not law, the court's decision was solely based on moral judgement. Even though there was a binding will that granted Elmer the property, the majority believed that the legislators who created the statute of wills did not intend to allow a murderer to inherit under the will. Judge Earl continued to infer that if the case existed at the time of the creation of statutory wills, necessary steps would have been taken to prevent this issue. His argument was based on the fact that Elmer's intention was to commit murder to receive the property, therefore, to give him this benefit would be unfair to the testator and his
What would a person who follow the Natural Law School of thought have to say about the Dudley and Stephens’ case and why would they say it?
The question of free will has been a never ending discussion by philosophers and ordinary everyday people for decades. In this paper I will be analyzing the case of Ethan couch, a 16 year old boy accused of manslaughter under the influence of alcohol, from the three different viewpoints of free will; a hard determinist, a compatibilist and a libertarian. Then I will discuss which view I agree best with under the specific conditions of this case.
A substantial debate over the law’s relationship with morality exists within the legal system. This debate gained new perspective when Oliver Wendell Holmes published The Path of Law in 1897, which outlined his view on the relationship between the law and morality. This paper will first consider whether or not Holmes believed that a writing must be moral in order to constitute a law. Next, we will explore my general agreement with Holmes’ view on this matter. Then, the paper will consider an objection to my agreement with Holmes, and then reply to that objection. Finally, we will end by analyzing the discussion of the relationship between morality and law. In this paper, I will argue that Holmes does not believe that a writing must be
The Fells Acres Case was set against the backdrop of many other child sex abuse scandals that had caused mass hysteria across the nation. As a result of what was considered to be a newly found epidemic (child sexual abuse), members of the court were influenced by convictions in other cases, leading to influence on the Fells Acres Case before it even went to trial. Emotional appeal heavily influenced the verdicts within the Fells Acres Case as a result of personal bias influenced from the media. The moral reactions of the prosecution and other members of the court resulted in the preconceived notion of the verdict before the trial began: that the Amiraults were guilty on all counts. Those of the prosecution approached the case with their own perspective; their opinion reflected their own practices and beliefs, thus causing the outcome to validate what they were originally looking for: a guilty verdict. The criticism Rabinowitz portrays explains how the mindset of the prosecutors disregards all of the facts leading to a just verdict and instead promotes finality. As a result, in the Fells Acres Case Justice Elizabeth Dolan allowed the testifying children to face away from the accused in hopes to create a less intimidating environment. As a product of Dolan’s emotional agenda, the justice had violated The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights that requires the accuser to face the accused. Furthermore, resulting from moral reactions, prosecutors and judges ignore the plasticity of children and their memories as well as the impact such plasticity’s have on the
Case Name: State of Texas VS. Douglas Nathan Palmer. NO- 6985-C. State’s motion for Judge to disqualify or recuse
In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system
Brady vs. Maryland was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant faced his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
It is easy to see that the legal factors involved are themselves not perfect. Since the Court is made up of human beings who are similarly imperfect, it is not implausible to suppose that the Court likewise
In his essay Why Abortion is Immoral Don Marquis attempts to argue that abortion is almost always wrong except for a few special circumstances such as when the life of the mother is being threatened by the pregnancy. In his thesis Marquis asserts that abortion is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being and the ethics of abortion is solvable. The strongest argument that Marquis presents to defend his thesis is the claim that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victim’s future. In this paper, I will argue that this argument fails because aborting a fetus is not in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.
www.iep.utm.edu/legalpos/ [April 17 2001][accessed 4th November 2012] Plato.standford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/ [2003][accessed 4th November 2012] 6 Joseph Raz The Authority Of Law: Essays On Law And Morality(1979)p. 47
Christopher Simmons was not your typical American teenager. Abused and neglected as a young boy, by the time he was seventeen years old he came a convicted murderer and was sentenced to the death penalty. His case quickly became under fire for overriding his Eighth Amendment right that stated that the federal government cannot impose cruel and unusual punishment upon anyone. Christopher Simmons was old enough and mature enough to understand that what he did was morally and socially wrong. If someone can completely conjure up a murder plot by oneself, then they should be sentenced to the death penalty no matter the age. Simmons should have received the death penalty despite his age at the time of the crime he
In this case study, I will explore the concept of stare decisis and wherether it is in exorable command. I will be explaining what the court means when it say that” stare decisis is not an inexorable command”. Also what it would mean for the American system of criminal justice, if stare decisis actually was “inexorable command”.
This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.
This paper will demonstrate how Hart’s account of the relationship between law and morality shows an understanding of how they both work together yet can also work as separate entities. It will take a specific look into the internal point of view to aid the understanding of why
This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)