The Rights Of The State

Changing social values: The values of societies change over time. Society is forever changing values which then place’s pressure onto the law to change and adapt over time. What is seen as as acceptable may not be considered acceptable at another time. The urge for tougher sentencing in law reform may satisfy the deserved aspects of punishment, but harsher penalties are not statistically shown to reduce crime rates. Thus in seeking to promote social values for tougher penalties it undermines our social value for fairness and the concept of justice for the individual.

Within the criminal justice system discuss the effectiveness of legal and non-legal measures in achieving justice.

Sanctions are only appealed to in the event that there is a breach. It therefore follows that the opinion of Hart is that various form of law cannot be explained in a single expression as orders backed with threats of sanction. Thus, in contradiction with Austin’s viewpoint, Hart formulated a dual system which contains two types of rules, primary rules (duty-imposing) and secondary rules (power-conferring). Primary rules are generally duty-imposing, which embodies non-optional rules of obligation. It often concerned with standard of behavior as requirement to do or to abstain from performing an act. On the other hand, secondary rules are ancillary to primary rules the former conferring right to introduce, to vary the primary rules and to determine the mode in which their violation could be determined (judicial process). Such secondary rules are rather regulatory or facilitative than coercive in nature. In short, Austin’s catch all theory of seeing law as command back with sanction leave no room for right, privileges given to subject of Sovereignty which does not constitute non optional

Both statutory interpretation and the Human Rights Act are a doctrine of precedent by which law is changed and justice is served. The doctrine of precedent is an essential principle of English legal system, which is a form of reasoning, interpreting and decision making formed by case law. It suggests that precedents not only have persuasive authority but must also be shadowed when similar situations arise. Any rule or principle declared by a higher court must be followed in future cases. In short the courts and tribunals are bound within prearranged restrictions by prior decisions of other superior courts. All the judges are also obliged to follow the set-up precedents established by prior decisions which is called Stare decisis. Making decisions according to precedent helps achieve two objectives. Initially it aids to maintain a system of stable laws which gives predictability to the law and affords a degree of safety for individual rights. Moreover, it ensures that the law progresses only in accordance with the developing perceptions of the community. Therefore, it more accurately mirrors the morals and prospects of the community that we live in.

Jurisprudence explores what would be the simplest manifestation of law so as to create a civil society society where both individual liberty and normative goals are practiced. Should the the aim of law be primarily centered on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals geared toward the benefit of of civil society? The laws in any society ought to not be centered on normative goals it ought to conjointly defend individual liberty.

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

Based on analysis from these four cases, conclusions regarding the effectiveness of human rights policy will be discussed.

Law in society serves many purposes, the main of these are protecting liberties and rights, establishing standards, maintaining order, and resolving disputes. Since the CPPCG convened, the UN has

Courts impact policy through how they interpret and apply the law. How the federal court wields their

When The United States came into being, the heads of the country made a great deal of emphasis in making sure the country fulfilled one requirement: the United States needed to be the living image of freedom. This image of freedom needed to exist not only as a geographical and political entity, meaning free from the English, but as a society as well, and that is why it opted for a democracy as a system to rule, to let the citizens be able to live freely. Despite the obvious issues presented in the country on that moment that we might call hypocrite, like slavery; the founding fathers knew what they wanted the country to achieve, and laid a great base for getting there, The Bill of Rights, the document that preceded the Constitution in

Tarr, G. A. (2014). Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking, 6th Edition. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from

In every society around the world, the law is affecting everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect existent to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities.

justice attempts to achieve. Standards, set by the people and implied by the government, should

Initially, laws are difficult to design because lawmakers can’t think of every possibility, every scenario, and every obstacle that may present itself in the democracy. Despite these difficulties, laws keep society together and provide unity for the citizens. Advantages for creating laws, include, but are not limited to, providing direction for the collection of taxes, declaring clear expectations for compliance and punishment of citizens and elimination of chaos.

In this course we have been learning a lot on the topic of legal pluralism and normative orders. The paragraphs below will illustrate legal pluralism by using the case of Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite Bourgeoys. First of all, we will begin with defining what legal pluralism is then we will go more in depth into the case. We will be covering the essential background of the case, the decisions of the courts and schoolboard with justification and a short personal reflection on the subject.