The Spirit Of The Law

This landmark case in criminal procedure was marked by great public criticism for the liberal stance shown by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ensures defendant’s rights to what many people regarded as opening the door to convicted criminals to escape punishment through “technicalities”.

The Torah, the Tanak, the Hebrew Bible, and the Pentateuch. No matter how you say it they all mean the same thing. The Torah is the foundation of Judaism: the most sacred documents. The word Torah can mean numerous things. It often simply refers to the T in Tanak. It is most commonly translated to mean “ the law”. There are five books that make up the Torah. These books are referred to as the Five Books of Moses: Exodus, Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The books of the Torah tell the Israelites a story. A story that begins where we begin, and ends before the introduction of the Savoir. It is often questioned, who the author(s) of the Torah is (are). For this question there are generally two main hypotheses: Mosaic Authorship and the Documentary Hypothesis.

Latimer had been a farmer, in rural Saskatchewan at the time of the death/murder of Tracy Latimer, his daughter who had a severe form of cerebral palsy which caused her to be immobile and go through numerous surgeries and be booked for more. The murder happened when Latimer’s wife and his other children went out; this act either shows that he wanted to protect his wife and other children from the death, even though they would inevitably find out about the death at some point in time, or he was trying to conceal the act of murder. Latimer also showed premeditation towards the murder, deciding whether or not he should shoot or cause an overdose to cause the death of his daughter; ultimately Latimer decided to do none of these things and

Robert Latimer, a farmer, was convicted of killing his daughter, Tracy Latimer, who suffered from cerebral palsy as a result of a birth defect. Even though Tracy was considered disabled, her doctors described the care she received from her family as excellent. The treatments that Tracy received were described as “torture” by Latimer and his wife Laura who saw the operations as nothing more than just prolonging the pain that Tracy suffered. ''With the combination of a feeding tube, rods in her back, the leg cut and flopping around and bedsores, how can people say she was a happy little girl?'' Mr. Latimer asked. ''We were never really concerned with any legal problems. We were just concerned with Tracy.'' Mr. Latimer also stated in other interviews that he had considered at other possible ways to end Tracy’s life, including “shooting her in the head”, but he could not bring himself to do it. So he instead placed her in his truck and killed her by carbon monoxide poisoning. In a poll that was taken in 1999, while the trial was on going, it showed that 73% of Canadians believed that Latimer ended his daughter’s life out of compassion and should receive a lighter sentence, however in the same poll on 41% believe that “mercy killing” should be legalized. The polls show that Canadians are open to the idea of ending the lives of those that are truly suffering. Now, the question comes up whether Mr. Latimer had the right to end his daughter’s life just because he thought it was the right thing to do. Should the Canadian criminal court look at Mr. Latimer’s case and judge him as a criminal who killed an innocent girl or a father who could not see his daughter suffer? On January 2001 Mr. Latimer began serving a 10 year sentence; during the sentence he was denied bail in 2007 because the parole board claimed that Mr. Latimer would not change his actions if put into the same situation again even though the

In 1994 Mr. Latimer was found guilty of second-degree murder of his daughter Tracy Latimer, a 12-year-old girl who had a severe form of cerebral palsy. On a leave to appeal from the Superior Court of Canada (SCC), Mr. Latimer’s imposition of mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in this case, so the accused should receive a constitutional exemption from minimum sentences under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During the second trial, the defence counsel asked the trial judge for a ruling, in advance of his closing submissions, on whether the jury could consider a defence of necessity. Whether the jury should have been allowed to consider a defence of necessity. The trial judge told counsel that he would rule on necessity after the closing submissions, and later ruled that the defence was not available. Whether the timing of trial judge's ruling as to the availability of the defence rendered accused's trial unfair.

CBC news (2010) reports there was never any question as to whether or not he did it, he admitted to police that he placed her into his truck cab and ran an exhaust hose into the cab, watching her die. Robert’s reason for doing so was because, “he could no longer watch her suffer” from the severe form of cerebral palsy. They discuss this case in CBC (2010) as the “ultimate response to suffering”, as experienced and interpreted by her father. The national debate on this case revealed polarizing opinions, that, on one side, sympathize with the father and the empathetic suffering he endured. On the other side, are the advocates who strongly oppose any qualification or exception to the law where the victim of murder is a disabled person. As noted in CBC the crown appointed to the Latimar’s case stated, “there is no dispute that through her life, Tracy at times suffered considerable pain. As well, the quality of her life was limited by her severe disability. But the pain she suffered was not unremitting, and her life had value and quality” (CBC,

The official version of the law is the basis on which the law prides itself to be. It claims to be neutral, having no prejudice against race, sex, gender, or any other distinguishing characteristics. The law compares itself to a blindfolded woman as historically women who have been seen as virgins who are pure, uninfluenced, and have no biases. The official version of the law is bound by one rule and that is everyone is subjected to the law and will be treated equally under it. Stare Decisis, a well known term to legal scholars is used define how judges are bound by precedent which means they must treat all cases the same and thus leading to the basis of the official version which is predictable, unbiased law. My focus in this paper is to

Enforcing laws based on the spirit of the law and the letter of the law both contain the same essential elements. A person violates a written rule or law. Many of these statutes are written with specific

This is case that faces Mary Barnett. The issue in this case is that On January 23, the litigant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her life partner in San Francisco having left her six-month-old little girl, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Mary Barnett returned home a week later to find that her child had died of dehydration. She called the police and at first, to let them know that she had left her kid with a baby sitter. She later expressed that she had left the child and she didn 't mean to return, and that she knew Alison would die in a day or two. She has been accused of wrongdoing of second-degree murder; purposeful homicide without intention. In the event that she is sentenced, she could face up to eighteen years in prison. This piece of writing tries to give the verdict of the case after critically examining both prosecution and defendant side.

Les Miserables is a prime example of two individuals conflicted by the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law”. The two main characters, Jean Valjean and and Javert, have two different views on morality. There is a difference between the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law”. Obeying the what the laws specifically says defines the “letter of the law” and obeying the overall message of the law defines the “spirit of the law”.

When discussing the relationship between law and ethics a lot of things are taken in consideration. But the first thing is to know what each of them mean. In some ways law plays a role in ethical values, while some laws can be influenced by ethical values.

When people aren't following the law it doesn't mean that they are doing something that could harm someone; it could be something that wouldn't have no harm no foul. When you don’t follow every law it doesn't make you a bad person. I don't believe everyone follows every law because there are too many laws that we don't really know. Breaking a law that has done no harm doesn't make you a bad person.

act in favour of justice yet it is better to follow the law than to

“…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

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.