The Ethics Of The Law

“The Verdict” is a movie that deals with medical and legal ethics. Frank Gavin is an alcoholic who hasn’t won any of his cases in the past three years. Mickey, his former partner, gives him a medical malpractice case that is sure to settle for a large amount of money. The case of Deborah Ann Kay, a mother who was given anesthetic when she had just eaten inhaled her vomit and is now in a coma. The Donaheys, her sister and brother in law are hoping for a good settlement and Frank assures them that they have a strong case. While the case is going on he meets Laura, a woman at a bar who he falls in love with. Frank goes to visit Deborah Ann Kay in the hospital and is affected by her condition. He meets with the defendants who run the

People that work with laws every day know that it isn’t an exact science. The reason is not that it has a lot of issues or that it is always affected by politics, instead the main reason is the human factor. People end up changing their minds and everyone one makes mistakes at some point. For example, in legal situations the information that is collected could be incorrect or made up. That is the main reason why law and ethics go side by side. Most people want to make the correct decision whenever it comes to something that deals with law and ethics. When people look at something that is illegal, they automatically see it as unethical. However, whenever something is legal people think that it is ethical. Law is a system of rules of human conduct created by society but enforced by public authority. Being able to understand what is right or what is wrong, plus the ability to recognize the difference between them is called ethics. To have a successful business, employers need to have intensive ethical values as well as an organizational culture run on a set of ethical principles. As a matter of fact, the ethical issue is very important because it could certainly affect stakeholders who are interested in the company. Furthermore, if an organization has high values in terms of ethics, the impression that the stakeholder obtains will be the key in building a trust relationship convincing them stay in the organization longer. Finally, to gain a good reputation in society it is

This case challenged the rights of marital privacy within the home. In 1961, Griswold and her partner, Dr. Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. A law enacted in 1879 made it illegal to use anything to prevent contraception in the state. That’s right, nothing could be used to prevent pregnancy. Consequently due to their actions, Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined to pay $100. Griswold appealed her conviction to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the state was in breach of multiple amendments including the fourteenth, first, and of course, the third amendment. The argument based on the third amendment was that the home is and should be a private place. No one is to know what happens in the home, or in the bedroom for that matter. The only way to prove that the women who visited the clinic were actually using birth control would be storm their homes. In the end, it was found that Connecticut's actions were unconstitutional and this court case paved the way for future cases such as the famous Roe vs Wade

In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that prohibited the use and education of contraceptives to both married and unmarried women, men, etc. Since this law was said to be seldom enforced, a Planned Parenthood in New Haven, Connecticut decided to take the risk. The executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle Griswold, and a doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, Dr. C. Lee Buxton, were arrested, found guilty, and fined $100 each (equivalent to about $750 U.S. today) for counseling a married couple about contraceptives and prescribing birth control to the wife. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, where the Connecticut court upheld their conviction. Griswold and Buxton appealed to the Supreme Court of the

On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the

The central contention of the case is of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The court argued that it was “within the power of the State under the Fourteenth Amendment” to provide sexual sterilization to those who were found to be “with an heredity form of insanity or imbecility.” Upon close examination of the 14th Amendment, one can see the ambiguity it contains. The Amendment can be read as really saying that the “state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; …deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” as long as “due process of law” is followed, and granted “the equal protection of the laws.” And this seems to be the way the Supreme Court read it. Since due process was

Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Buxton, a licensed physician serving as Medical Director for the League, brought this case forward. They were arrested on the charge of giving information, instruction, and medical advice to married couples on preventing contraception. At the League, they would examine the wife then prescribe what they thought was the best contraceptive device or material. At the time of these actions, Connecticut had two statutes (§§ 53-52 and 54-196) that state the following: “any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days” and “any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender.”

In Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy, Johnson outlines the struggle to overturn an 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law while arguing for the right of privacy. In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, attorney Thomas Emerson argued that the “anticontraception statutes denied Griswold and Buxton their right to liberty and property without due process of law, as guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Furthermore, in constructing the constitutional right of privacy, Emerson cited the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Then, in the Supreme Court’s 1965 majority opinion, Justice William Douglas stated that “The First Amendment… has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion.” He went on to elaborate that the 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law was unconstitutional because “a law such as Section 53-32 that attempts to punish the mere use of contraceptives ‘sweep[s] unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade[s] the area of protected freedoms.’” Therefore, Griswold was finally able to achieve a fight that had begun fifty years prior.

Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, were arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. They were fined $100 each. They sued the state of Connecticut claiming it violated their constitutional rights. Their argument was that a married couple has a constitutional “right of privacy” They directly argued that- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal

Griswold was a Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, she and another gave some instructions about birth control and some other ways of planned parenthood in the state of Connecticut. Griswold was convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. (along with with some other medical treatment) The conclusion is although that the constitution does not directly protect the right to privacy, the numerous zones in the Bill of Rights, do establish a right to privacy. The Connecticut statute conflicts with this right, therefore making it void. At first the case was on the side on Connecticut, until the case was later overturned by

Often times in today’s world we take certain luxuries for granted. The right to vote, the right of free speech, etc. But one of those luxuries that people often don’t consider is the right for women to use birth control. The Supreme Court case that argued for the use of contraceptives was Griswold vs Connecticut. The court case was argued March 29th-30th 1965, but was not decided until June 7th 1965. The case was on the debate of whether or not the use of contraceptives should be legalized. Griswold, the Executive and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was on the side arguing for the legalization of the use of contraceptives in a marriage. While the opposing side, the state of Connecticut statute, had forbidden the use of contraceptives since 1879.

On June 7, 1965, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was the constitutional right of married females to be prescribed birth control. This ruling found fault in the Connecticut state ban on the use of contraceptives. The 1879 Connecticut law was ruled as unconstitutional because it infringed on citizen’s rights to privacy. This case is studied to this day because it concerns the rights and liberties of individuals.

Law and morality work together to guide our behavior; while law does it by punishing us if we do something wrong, morality does it through incentives. In their articles, both H.L.A Hart in “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” and Lon Fuller’s reply to professor Hart in “Positivism and Fidelity to Law,” discuss the concept of law post world war II Germany and their re-imagining of natural law as put forth by Gustav Radbruch’s theory. In this paper, I hope to show how both law and morality is needed to create just rules, more specifically drawing from the “grudge informer” case mentioned in Hart’s article. First, I will explain the dilemma of the “grudge informer” case and the contradicting theory laid down by Radbrunch’s.

When it comes to large sums of money, it is not uncommon for the spender to feel they have been ripped off or become over protected. The practice of law is no exception to this phenomenon, and crocked lawyers and paralegals have negatively contributed to the notion. On several occasions law professionals have taken client money for personal use, acting against the law and rules of professional conduct. Although lawyers and paralegals have their own individual rules and guidelines to abide by, they follow the same professional structure of proper conduct. The rules of conduct for paralegals is governed by the Law Society of Upper Canada and is the governing body responsible for reports of misconduct. Further investigations will lay out the proper procedures and tasks that must be completed when a paralegal encounters an accusations of misconduct, specifically when a client accuses a paralegal of misappropriating money from the clients trust fund. When it comes to possible options it is important to remember that by proactively sending a report of the circumstance to the Law Society of Upper Canada with a detailed list of events, bookkeeping and accounts billed to the client will help your case prior to the client reporting you to the Law Society. Should a paralegal choose to ignore the threat of the client, in hopes that the client will not follow through with higher involvement, the paralegal will then face an audit by the Law Society. If the Law Society is apprised that the

“…No matter how plain a women may be if truth and loyalty are stamped upon her face all will be attracted to her...” Anna Eleanor Roosevelt was born on October 11, 2014 in New York City, New York. She was the only the only daughter of Anna Hall and Elliot Roosevelt; she was the middle child in her trio of siblings. Her brothers were Elliot Roosevelt Jr. and Gracie Hall Roosevelt who were the oldest and youngest siblings respectively. The Roosevelt siblings encountered trauma at a young age. Their mother passed away when Eleanor was only eight years old and their father passed away shortly after, when Eleanor just turned