“Manslaughter - Recklessness or gross negligence - Assumption of duty of care for infirm person - Breach of duty amounting to recklessness - Negligence - Assumption of duty to care.”
In Griffin v.Illinois (1956) the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause indigent defendants are entitled to a trial transcript in order to facilitate appeals. Justice Black wrote: There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has. Justice Black’s opinion was probably designed to undermine the Betts special circumstances rule, replacing it with a flat requirement that the state had to provide counsel to indigents.(Zalman,2008).
The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.
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
Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.
Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.
Canada has become a country where laws such as: assisted suicide, prostitution, and abortion are becoming easily altered by higher powers; the power of the judges. Canadian judges are changing certain laws that affect the quality of living. The question comes down to who is truly in charge of law making in Canada? The government may make the laws, but judges may reject and change the entirety laws through the use of the entrenchment of the Charter. Additionally, judicial supremacy retains their power through a paradoxical parliamentary supremacy. Furthermore appointing government officials and electing government officials plays a tremendous part in correlations to Canadian democracy. To summarize, judiciary are too powerful through the entrenchment
ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.
Undoubtedly, this had an impact on the school system. Timelines are strictly tracked to ensure compliance. According to DiNapoli and Bleiwas (2008), there are almost 170 different languages spoken in New York. This can make meeting timelines difficulty since children must be tested in their native language. Although it is imperative that students receive the education that they need it can be very difficult to meet timelines in certain
Christopher Simmons a 17-year-old junior in high school at the time murdered Shirley Crook, one early September morning (Oyez, p.1). Simmons was briefly acquainted with Crook previously from a past occurring car accident that had involved them both. Furthermore, Christopher did not plan alone how he wanted to accomplish his crimes. Simmons two friends Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, 15 and 16 agreed to aid Simmons in accomplishing his plan due to Simmons insisting they would get away with charges due to being minors (Roper v. Simmons, 2005,p.3). The three friends met around 2am September 9th; however at the last minute Tessmer left the scene, backing out of the murder plan. Nevertheless, Simmons and Benjamin gained access to Crook’s home through a window left open, which allowed them to unlock the back door. Mrs. Crook was in her bedroom at the time and the two juveniles duct taped her: eyes, mouth and hands closed (Roper v.
In the Spring of 1984, May 23rd, felling like San Antonio v. Rodriguez was an unacceptable decision, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a suit against William Kirby, the commissioner of education, in behalf of the Edgewood Independent School District. MALDEF’s main concern was the way Texas funds public school, they pointed out the fact that he poorest districts in the state, had $38,854 in property wealth per student, while the Alamo Heights ISD, which is in the same county, had $570,109 per student. (TSHA, 2017) Furthermore, property-poor districts had a higher set tax rate that would amount to an average 74.5 cents per $100 a valuation to generate $2,987 per pupil, while richer districts, with a tax rate of half
An act to amend Virginia code 20-124 paragraph two, point three and subsection F of 63.2-1202 in regards to subsection A of 18.2-61 to apply not only to convicted persons but also to an accused person when there is clear and convincing evidence of rape (Definitions; Megison; Rape; Parental, or agency, consent required; exceptions).
Roper v. Simmons was a supreme court case that was decided in 2004 which dealt with whether it is against the constitution, and falls under cruel and unusual punishment, the execute someone who is under the age of 18. This case was particularly important as it dealt with something that many people were against entirely: the death penalty. A variation of this issue was decided nearly twenty years earlier in Thompson v. Oklahoma when it was decided in a five-to-three ruling that it was not constitutional to execute anyone under the age of 16. There have also been many other landmark cases that have challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty for certain parties such as in Atkins v. Virginia which was decided just three
Reasonable people will generally go a long distance to protect their loved-ones. However, most reasonable people would believe that killing someone else in order to protect their loved ones would be immoral and harmful. In the case of R v. Buzizi , a man killed another in a supposed effort to protect his cousin. On an early morning in Montréal, the accused’s cousin and the victim ensued in a brawl. The initial fight was broken up by a third party. A few moments later, the accused, Mr. Buzizi, who saw the initial assault from afar, intervened and pushed the victim. Then, Mr. Buzizi noticed that the victim had an exacto knife, and that his cousin had a serious wound on his neck. For fear that the victim was going to pull out the