The Legal And Political Systems

Imagine you are the director of health information services for a medium-sized health care facility. Like many of your peers, you have contracted with an outside copying service to handle all requests for release of patient health information at your facility. You have learned that a lobbying organization for trial attorneys in your state is promoting legislation to place a cap on photocopying costs, which is significantly below the actual costs incurred as part of the contract. (Case Study, p. 20)

Many involved in legal practice would argue that a case in a court of law is only won on the basis of evidences and witnesses. But those people don’t mention logic; because they sub-consciously take logic for granted; as you would take a premise understood in an enthymeme. Many scholars, both inside and outside the field of law argue that law’s today are the result of years’ of experience and observation and try to keep law outside the scope of logic. The aim of this study is to dispel any ignorance of principles and use of logic in legal practices and emphasize how logic forms an integral basis of legal practices and laws (Cohen) 1. We will show how logical elements like syllogism, fallacies etc. developed hundreds of years ago are still used in the structuring of legal arguments. We will also throw light upon how Aristotelian logic is used in legal

The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..

Political Philosophy is typically a study of a wide range of topics such as, justice, liberty, equality, rights, law, politics and the application of a codified law. Depending on what the philosophy is, it usually tends to be a very sensitive and a personal ideology that an individual holds within the reality of their existence. Several of the fundamental topics of political philosophy shape up the society that we live in as these specific topics and their implementation by the state ensures a legitimate government. In Political Philosophy, the aforesaid concepts or topics are evaluated and analyzed with tremendous depth in context to their history and intent. Furthermore, in a rather colloquial sense, political

The United States prides itself on the fact that we have the rule of Law. In other countries such as Japan, the people are expected to obey the government and corporations. If we did not have lawyers, bureaucrats would administer the law. Some complain that we have too many lawsuits, but very few would accept having to obey only the government and the bureaucrats.

and community; but law does not see any difference. Therefore, law is centered purely on law

different from natural law because ‘ it calls for a certain measure of regularity of observance for without this feature, it would hardly be entitled to rank as law at all. A natural law on the other hand may stll be held to be valid even if it is never or scarcely even observed.’7 Legal positivism will only work in a community where it is widely accepted. Hart suggested that the legal system is a ‘closed’ logical system where decisions may be deduced by logic. For

The contrast between Natural Law and Legal Positivism is a necessary starting point for those who wish to understand the relationship between law and morality, and the most varied manners in which it influences society to this day. When it comes to analyzing which theory offers the most well-rounded idea of law, one can argue that Legal Positivism provides the best definition of what law is at its essence. However, because Legal Positivism came to exist as a critique to what was proposed by Natural Law theorists, it is significant that both are explored in depth as means to support such argument.

Sociologists have many perspectives when it comes to the examination of our laws. Three out of many theories of lawmaking processes are the Rationalistic model, Functionalistic view, and Conflict perspective. Rationalistic models view laws as a rational way of increasing protection for members of society from crimes which are “socially injurious” (Vago 2012). Functionalist view look at where the ideas behind the laws come from and describes laws as “re-institutionalized customs”, where lawmaking is a reiteration of customs (Vago 2012). Conflict perspective describe laws as value the opinions of the elite, instill unequal access to economic goods which upkeep the social economical groups, basically keeps the elite on top (Vago 2012). The three theories are all similar but different at the same time. In my opinion, conflict theories captures the reality of law making process.

No specific law has passed that relates distinctly to publication but there are areas within law that touch upon the notion of publication. This subject mainly revolves around the law of copyright. This is legal protection within publication of books, magazines, journals etc. Copyright disallows publication of work that is copyrighted. There are exceptions to copyright where the owner of copyright can grant the right to do something with work to another person, which would normally be an infringement of copyright if not permitted. Publishing agreements must be in writing, an absence of this document can nullify a publishing agreement. The Publishing agreement also requires for an author to pay fees.

Since we were kids and became conscious of our surrounding, our parents and grandparents instilled in us an awareness of what is right and wrong. In other words, it is a trait of all human beings and fosters from our desire to get along with each other to live a harmonious life. Laws are a set of rules and behaviors set by governments that society illustrate on what people can or cannot do. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: it will identify and define what distinguishes law from ethics and what similarities they share. The second is an analysis of examples of where law and ethics either meet or diverge. Third is the role where law and ethics either meet or diverge.

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)

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.

In this paper, I will propose that it is better to look at whether a law is legally valid or not through the perspective of natural law theory as opposed to positivist theory. My argument consists mostly of the language of “improvement” which can only exist based on the theory of natural law which states that law is something which has an objective truth behind it. Only when there is an objective mark to hit can there be hits and misses and I believe that positivism disregards the possibility of hits and misses entirely. So, my argument is that it makes more sense to consider legal validity of a law from the perspective of natural law rather than positive law because it includes not only the previously set up legal system when considering validity, but it also considers the general idea of some kind of morality as well. A sub argument is that the starting legal system must have had some basis by which to have been created and accepted which must be some form or notion of morality.

In every political society it is the law which contributes to its civilized character, but law is the handmaid of social justice, rendering in the interest of society that which is according to law and to which a person or persons are entitled.