The Law Of Obligation Is A Private Law

Equity is that part in the law that moderates the harshness of common law and statute and because of this persons seeking assistance from an unconscionable transaction have been able to find relief through equity. Although equity only appears in the most repugnant of situations, it comes as in disbelief, that the courts would consider a newer level of standard for unconscionability. The following paper considers the effect of the statement made and the ramifications of the statement through equity.

Many changes have occurred in the legal system over the several decades it has existed. These changes have caused the victim to be the focus point of legal action and the changes have also caused the victim to either be the negative focus point (through blaming the victim for the actions of the criminal) or completely in the background as a “witness” (such as in the case of feudal barons taking over the system). In the following, I plan to explain the background of both the victim justice system and the criminal justice system as well as show what changes have occurred through the development of them both.

“The heart of the capitalist economic system is the protection of private property, which is, by definition, the cornerstone upon which capitalist economies function. It is not surprising, then to find that criminal law reflects this basic

Durkheim even argued that the penal law expresses a society’s “collective conscience” (Luckenbill, 1992). Therefore, it is seen as just and fair to all members. According to Michalowski, the law serves all people equally (Schmalleger, 2012). It is not biased and works with the people to protect them from what they feel endangered of.

To be sure, modern laws are made to express the general will, a will that aims at the common good. This means that laws in most cases intend to protect every social member’s rights under the principle of justice and fairness. For telling examples one need to look no further than American judicial system. The access to the two courts systems, one federal court and one state court, provides citizens with the greatest potential to have their legal problems

The preliminary point into an inquiry of distributive justice is to disconnect the conjunction of “distributive,” and “justice”. For the purpose of this essay, I will inherit and accept John Rawls explanation of justice from A Theory of Justice. “Justice,” according to Rawls, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” Therefore, from a societal perspective, justice as the first virtue negates the utilitarian maxim that a loss of freedom for one would be acceptable if there was a greater good to be shared by others. In a truly just society, all people are treated fair. The questions of individual liberties are taken as settled. In the just society, liberty, rights, and fairness are not subject to a utilitarian calculation nor are they susceptible to political bargaining.

In a world in which people have fundamental disagreements regarding the substance and purpose of human existence and what constitute ‘the good life’, it is a question how should human rights be installed within a nation’s legal system. This essay argues that because we cannot ascertain without doubt what human’s nature is, and in order to prevent atrocities as those in the Second World War: all humans should enjoy, as members of the human species, fundamental rights to secure their existence. Hence, within a nation’s legal system, those are known to be civil rights. Further, political rights should be ensured firstly to the citizens of that nation, but, due to the rapid globalization and the growing fluidity of boarders (for example in Europe)

Rights are created to ensure that citizens of this society are protected under law and are treated impartial in front of the law. When the protection and recognition of an individuals right is not seen thought in court, numerous of issues can surface the individual who is being treated unjustly may filing a complain of unfair treatment in court. In the Lin Family Murder case, the accused Mr Xie is entitled to their rights of which are not withdrawn in the view of he being the guilty party; this would lead to a breach in the code of recognising the rights of an individual (Visitation, 2015). The effectiveness of the adversary system in achieving justice regarding the protection and rights of an individual is

Demanding non-wrongdoers to finance the compensation of descendants who sustain a livelihood above the specific level of livelihood is unjustifiable, as considerations for distributive justice may take precedent over retributive justice (Perez. 2012). Even still, should the victims of descendants be living below a specific welfare level, the circumstance must be unaffected by third party influence. They must have exasperated all means for raising their situation above the specific welfare line and the reasoning for the entrapment must solely be ascribable to the historical injustice itself, or the failure by perpetrators and consequential descendants to redress the wrong. The claim for setback compensation is unconvincing if the setbacks in attributed to irresponsible life choices, such as a failure to achieve the minimum requirement level of state education, involvement in crime or addiction to drugs and alcohol. Examples such as these qualify as external influences, unassociated with the original wrong in question and therefore, compensation is not

“The Universes of Obligation” is described as individuals in a society whose obligations is owned and rules apply, and whose injuries call for amends. In other words a society's Universe of Obligation includes those people who society believes they deserve some kind of respect and whose rights it believe are worthy of protection, But Sometimes the protected people of the Universe of obligation might find themselves out of the Universe of Obligation when circumstances occur.

Access to justice is an issue for those in society who do not have the financial means to effectively obtain a judicial remedy or enforce their legal rights in court. Such citizens require financial assistance to be able to afford the necessary legal assistance required to ensure that a fair trial takes place. In this essay, firstly there will be a discussion on the importance of access to legal aid to assist citizens who are not on state benefits, but lack the financial means (hereafter, vulnerable citizens) to obtain the necessary legal advice, support and representation (hereafter, legal assistance) in order to effectively access justice through the courts. The discussion will involve establishing the importance of access to legal aid for justice to effectively be accessed by vulnerable citizens. Secondly, there will be a discussion on the impact that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (hereafter, LASPO Act) has had on access to justice and access to courts for vulnerable citizens. Legal aid is a necessary mechanism to ensure that vulnerable citizens can obtain the necessary legal assistance for justice to effectively be accessed through the courts. Since it gives vulnerable citizens a reasonable opportunity to present their case and obtain a fair outcome from the court.

As an American citizen, I believe it is the American people’s duty and responsibility to obey the law, pay taxes, and serve in court. The law provided by our system of government allows for optimum function and potential required for a nation to thrive. Obeying the law leads to a safe and protected society which is beneficial to the American people. And remember, the law also makes sure the leaders of our country to do exploit its citizens. Those who break the law, whether it be local, state or nation-wide, are promoting danger and chaos within our borders. Secondly, I consider paying taxes to be another duty the American people must commit to and follow. Taxes keep our society operating and moving. Taxes help pay for health care, infrastructure,

The putting element approximately this listing when compared with earlier makes use of of truthful trial is that all of the rights are “possessions” of the defendant and sell the precept of “equality of hands” where the defendant is allowed “an inexpensive opportunity of providing his case to the court beneath conditions which do no longer location him at a huge downside vis `a vis his opponent” certainly, views represented in the first cluster of popular declaration, inclusive of proportionate punishments, judicial equity, freedom of sense of right and wrong, religious toleration, the right to life and the security of humans, among different conceptions one may additionally associate with ‘liberty’ or toleration, had been not unknown in ancient texts. As for the query of social and economic justice or ‘equality’, article 22 of the usual assertion stipulates that each human possesses ‘monetary, social, and cultural rights, [as] necessary for his dignity and the free development of his

The Criminal Justice System goes as far back as the days of Jesus. There were Soldiers who acted like policeman, the tribune which was the court system, and Caesar, Herod and even Pontius Pilate stood as judge. The prison system was that of dark caves and dungeons. As we journey to the twenty-first century, nothing has genuinely changed. In my essay I will explicate how the various aspect of criminal justice relate to one another as well as why it so important in society. Criminal Justice refers to the facet of social justice that concern violators of criminal law. The

As a part of this relationship individuals gave up some of their liberties in the interest of the common good, with the purpose of the law being to ensure that these common interests were met. For Beccaria, this meant that the law should be limited and written down so that people could make decisions on how to behave. More importantly, punishment was to fit the crime not the individual and was to be certain and swift (Williams & McShane, 2010). Offenders were to be seen as reasonable people with the same capacity for resisting offending behavior as non-offenders. The guiding principle of the criminal justice process was the presumption of innocence; and in this general framework punishment was to be seen as a deterrent to criminal behavior. The central concern of the law and the criminal justice process was therefore the prevention of crime through this deterrent function.