The R V. Dudley And Stephens Case Essay

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

Going against the Supreme Court, which is the supreme law of the land, in the Worcester vs Georgia case demonstrates how Andrew Jackson abused his power as president. John Marshall, the chief justice at the time, ruled that the United States did not have possession or legal jurisdiction over Native American land, and no individual states had authority in Native American affairs. However, Jackson went above this, since the court did not order marshals to enforce it. In the Indian Removal packet, it was stated that in May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian removal act to exchange land with Native Americans. To do this, he coerced tribe leaders, sometimes by getting them drunk or high, into signing away their land through removal treaties. In the

The Cherokees provided the best example of Native Americans who understood their rights most clearly as they demonstrated in their plight objecting the Cherokee removal and as they exhibited in the construction of a constitution strikingly similar to the United States constitution as well as those of the states, carefully outlining their rights in an organized coherent manner. Consistent with the federal and state constitutions, the Cherokee constitution reflected a profound belief in republicanism, a representative form of government in which those eligible to vote elected individuals to make laws to protect their life, liberty, and property.

An analysis of history and the contemporary exercise of police practices suitably describe the experiences of many black men when dealing with law enforcement officers. Before the due process revolution that occurred in the 1960s, the rights of many back men were abused on a daily basis. These practices continue regardless of a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court that was geared towards limiting the discretion of police officers. Through the ruling, the Supreme Court sought to promote the legal rights of black American as compared to any other court in the judicial system (Maclin, 2012, p.1275). In light of these issues, the Terry v. Ohio lawsuit was filed after John W. Terry, the petitioner was stopped and frisked by an officer after the law enforcement personnel suspected him of casing a store for a possible robbery. After the police officer approached Terry for questioning, he decided to search him first, which contributed to numerous concerns regarding searches based on the Fourth Amendment. The case represents the need for a boundary between a reasonable belief and probable suspicion based on coherent facts.

King v. Burwell is a case ruled by the US Supreme Court on June 25, 2015 to confirm health law subsidies. It challenged the legality of subsidies issued by the IRS on behalf of states that used the federal health insurance exchange. Perhaps millions of people who are under the federal exchange are at stake since they could lose their subsidies. Furthermore, the test relied on the meaning of four words in the Affordable Care Act, “exchanges established by the State.” These words imply that state exchanges could issue subsidies, but it did not literally specify that states didn’t establish their own exchange or the ones under the federal exchange. A definite conclusion is that both the state exchange and the federal exchange can have the health

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.

A trust can only be enforceable if it is sufficiently certain. The three certainties of a trust must coincide for a trust to become valid. Absence of any of the uncertainties makes a trust invalid from the start. The three certainties are certainty of the subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of the objects. All these certainties must be established to make a trust valid. The purpose of the certainty requirement of trusts is to ensure compliance with the intentions of the settlor. For a trust to be enforced, there must be an individual who can compel the trustee to enforce the trust. The trust should also be capable of being implemented for the benefit of a beneficiary. The certainty requirement ensures that a trust is capable of being implemented failure to which would render the concept of trusts pointless.

One of the most famous common law cases in history about a shipwrecked boat and castaways who in order to survive resorted to cannibalism of a fellow ship mate. Throughout the case necessity is put into many perspectives. Should it be necessary in some circumstances to take the life of one in order to preserve another’s life? Through an egoistic perspective one is expected to act in a manner that will maximize his or her long-term interests (Davidson 45). Egoism may ignore blatant wrongs and introduces inconsistency into ethical decision making (Davidson 48). Dudley and Stephens were thinking of their long term interests. They knew that they had been at sea for quite some time with little food and no water. They felt that they were in better shape and had families at home that they needed to look out for. In their minds when speaking of taking one of the

“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.”

For a timeline and a narrative of the cases that set legal precedence in the areas of retaliation and sexual harassment would consist of Williams v. Saxbe in 1976. The court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination when sexual advances by male superior towards female employee. In the Barnes v. Costle case in 1977, it set the precedent that if a female employee was retaliated against for rejecting sexual advances of her boss, it is a violation of Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. The court of US Court of Appeals, Second District ruled in this matter. In the Bundy v. Jackson case in 1981, it set the precedent that if an employee is sexually insulted, there can be Title VII liability. This was ruled by

In the case of the Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, there were several moral and ethical issues. I will explain them in this section using facts from Prof Michael Sandel’s video, the cited case, and a book titled “Cannibalism and common law: a Victorian yachting tragedy” by Alfred Bryan William Simpson.