#10

Homework #10

First off, I must state that while I do support these laws, I wouldn't walk around NYC topless for reason that needs not to be stated.

Laws prohibiting this were most likely relevant during the time of their creation. .In terms of sexuality and appearance, society was more conservative. Victorian era values were still apparent (they're still vaguely around today).  The law reflected the moral values of the time. Time is a bit strange in that the passing of it correlates with change.

Looking round the bus I am presently riding in, I see two teenage girls wearing matching revealing bikini tops. Another woman who has no business wearing shorts that reveal her thighs is wearing shorts that do such. A group of boys are wearing wife eaters (white undershirts).

Looking at the ads posted along the ceiling, I see an ad for Abercrombie & Fitch featuring a topless man. Right next to it, well there’s ad showcasing the progress of some new train station in Brooklyn. In the newspaper, I was reading there is an Ad of a woman in a bathing suit focusing on how wide her legs are open (apparently a flagship store for a popular brand of clothing is open). The point is that times have changed.

This means that people are no longer as sensitive about public displays of sexuality. It shouldn’t be inferred that all displays of sexuality are acceptable. The people are more open about the subject. These news laws that permit a woman to be topless is a reflection of that.

I must admit there is a fragile peace with this law. I can easily the potential for sexual assaults to become more prevalent. Some men can’t help themselves nor can they keep their hands and other body parts to themselves. If this occurs by all means, there should be action taken to prevent this. Women are being harmed if this occurs.

On the notion of harm, I believe that Mill would agree with me in supporting these laws. No one is being harmed if a woman is walking around topless. People would most certainly be upset (Victorian values) but laws aren’t intended to necessarily prevent most emotional harm. The prevention of emotional harm is a potential consequence of the prevention of physical harm.

Mill would agree that being topless is a form of expression. Like the male who flaunt confidence in their figures when they remove the shirts, women are doing the same. It may be a bit odd at first, since the general population is not adjusted to seeing women in this manner outside of a sexual relationship. I’ve known a decent amount of women who show off their confidence by being topless. There is nothing wrong with it.

#9

1. What, according to Mill, is the major problem for a democracy?

Mill was a utilitarian, and as one, he wanted people to be treated equally. He wanted everyone to be happy.  His problem with democracy was that neither happiness nor the opportunity to do so was satisfied by his own standard.  Unfortunately when we view happiness today, and even before, happiness is mostly measured if one has the money and alliances, such as someone with higher status or influence, that can control anything around us. For example today, government limits people on liberty. For example, the internet, once was used to make connections with others world wide, now politicians have made it strict to the point as to check our accounts, same goes for phone calls, or even the freedom to travel. 2. Mill believes that not all laws are justified. Why not? Can you think of any existing laws that violate Mill’s principle? Do you agree or disagree with Mill? Why?

I agree with Mill. Some laws are made in the interests of a particular group while ignoring others. I believe anti-prostitution laws violate his principles. It is a violation of the liberty of tastes and pursuits. While the laws are now meant to apparently stop and contain the spread of AIDS and other STD’s, these laws are not needed to do so. It is in the best interests of a sex-worker (prostitute), to not spread or become infected with an STD. As doing so would reduces the amount of clients a worker has. Therefore, the law is not justified under its current premise. 3. How does Mill justify the freedom of expression?

In a democratic country, there will be groups that are not represented in government. Freedom of expression will allow certain groups to have a voice even though they are not represented in government. 4. Freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment; are there any cases of free expression, which are not protected by the First Amendment? Do you think freedom of expression should be unlimited?

The classic example for yelling fire in a movie theater is a case where freedom of expression is not protected by the first amendment. It should be unlimited, ideally, but as we have seen, there are certain types of expression we could do without. Yet, there would be no discriminatory means to moderate any expression. As the cost of having to listen to terrible things, freedom of expression should be unlimited. 5. Some scholars have suggested that the cases in which the courts have permitted states to limit religious freedom nearly always involve activities important to minority religious groups: the use of peyote by Native Americans, the practice of polygamy among Mormons and Muslims, the refusal to salute the flag among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on. These critics contend that the courts would not be likely to permit similar restrictions if they impacted “mainstream” religious groups in America, such as Christians or Jews. Is this criticism fair?

This criticism seems to be fair. We must take into consideration that mainstream religions have adapted to coincide with existing laws  (Christianity) have become special exemptions from these laws to an extent (Judaism). Yet, before we go on and approve every religious freedom, we must consider the effect of allowing said freedom to exist within the group.For example, the use of peyote wouldn’t affect people of other religions since that freedom would only be granted to the Native American. Of course, the sale and distribution of it among that group would have to be regulated.We must also consider how far reaching the freedom will be. For example, polygamy would be allowed among Mormons and Muslims but should these marriages be entitled to the same privileges of a monogamous marriage? While I do not have the answer for this question, it does bring up some thought.As we say, Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. I’m sure if the sides were reversed, similar arguments would be made. 

Part 1

1. How does M.L. King argue that segregation laws are unjust?

M.L.K. uses the concepts found in natural law as grounds for his argument (“an unjust law is no law at all”) that segregation is morally wrong. Under this, all segregation laws are unjust since it legally and overtly enforces a social pyramid. By this, I mean that these laws enforce the notion of a greater and lesser race based upon skin color (“I am better than you cause I have a lighter skin tone,” and vice versa).These concepts are false and highly elitist as well at the empowerment the apparently give. There is nothing that can objectively place on race over another. Therefore Segregation is morally wrong and unjust.


2. Why, according to King, should we disobey unjust laws?

We as people have a moral responsibility to obey “just” laws. Since people have this responsibility, it also their moral obligation to disobey “unjust” laws. A problem that comes up with this type of logic would be determining what laws are unjust. The standards that dictate what is unjust seem to shift as quickly as the weather.  It seems as if people disobey laws if it is convenient for them.

3. How does Aquinas determine if a law is just or unjust?

Aquinas proposes that there are several levels of law; eternal law (highest form of law, god’s law), followed by natural law (determined by nature), and human law (laws made by humans, lowest form). Morality is based off of eternal law. If any human law (natural law couldn’t contrast eternal law since nature is solely based on God’s will), goes against eternal law, it is unjust

4. How would a Legal Positivist judge segregation laws?

This would depend on the date it was being asked. If it was during the time of segregation, then a legal positivist would judge the laws positively since it was recognized and created by a government body. If it was any time after, the opposite judgment would occur and the positivist would not agree with it since it was no longer recognized by a government body (exclude Mississippi, they’re just lazy.)

PART 2

If a law is unjust, it remains law at the end of the day until a governing body strikes the law off the books. Just or not it remains law. Skipping over the relativity of laws (is it unjust to pay more taxes GE? Yet, if we were in their position, we would feel just), MLK’s imprisonment does refute Augustine. He derives morality from divine law, and therefore it can’t be moral for someone to be imprisoned under MLK’s circumstances.  It isn’t natural law that dictates any race superior (since its not there it can’t be divine), it isn’t found anywhere except in human law. Human law has shown to be erroneous and morally unjust. Yet since these law are still in effect, unjust and all, it refutes Augustine’s assertion.

Assignment #7

May 19, 2013

Part 1

What are Jackson’s arguments in support of the charter of London?

The Charter of London granted the defendants the ability to defend their actions in light of any evidence found in the presence of a tribunal featuring representatives from the four victor nations. Rather than having a jury or singular judge, this tribunal grants the defendants an impartial trial, at least according to Jackson’s argument.  The defendants are viewed as innocent until proven guilty. This Charter would not solely govern the acts of common men but the actions of rulers and those who possess a significant amount of power. Even though it wasn’t formally written that genocide and torture are crimes, it should be no surprise that they should be. Overall, it would grant governments the ability to structure laws proactively instead of reactively since laws tend to “lag behind moral(s).”

What are Wyzanki’s arguments against the legality of the charter?

He doesn’t condone Nazi actions. Wyzanki claims that the Charter of London is an example of ex post facto law (No crime, no penalty without an existing law). The charges brought against the men on trial were in violation of law recognized after their crimes were apparently committed. Charges like those would have not been brought up in the US since it was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, their guilt was decided before trial since the tribunal they were being tried by presenting themselves as victims rather than neutral parties. The question was not of innocence and guilt but rather of how severe the punishment handed out was going to be. There was no opportunity given for the defendants to be innocent despite Jackson’s notion of “innocent until proven guilty.” This notion of trial and justice would be carried over to other instances where the winning side in a war placed captured “war criminals” on trial.

In addition, the defendants on trial were being charged for the actions of other individuals in their group. These charges violated traditional judicial law: How could people be tried for a crime they could not be liable for? If there was some liability on their part, then yes they could be tried but there wasn’t apparently. The defendants were being charged for crimes committed by the entirety of the Nazi army.

All of this greatly challenged the legality of the charter but as stated earlier; the fates of the defendant were already decided long before this charter was drafted.

  

Part 2

I don’t agree with the sentence, but I don’t know much time a person should serve for crimes like these.

There is merit to Grainer’s defense in this context. While working at a civilian job, the penalty for dissent is relatively low compared to the penalties in the military. Any person who objects to a task assigned to them on moral or ethical grounds is free to make their pleas in court if penalties are placed on said person. While in the military, it is common for problems and dissent to be handled internally.  From my time in the U.S. Navy, this is more than true. Since Granier was in the military during the time of the alleged crimes, any dissent against orders that would have advanced the military’s agenda towards “victory” would have most likely been met with some form of punishment. Due to his contractual obligations, he would have to do anything he was ordered to or face possible imprisonment, loss of benefits and pay, among other penalties. Overall, he was forced to obey orders of his superiors or lose the benefit he has worked for during his time in the service. Whether he knew of legality of his actions or not is irrelevant under these circumstances. 

We can’t exactly determine if Grainer enjoyed the acts he is being accused of beyond a reasonable doubt. The grin he displayed in the photo could have just been him attempting to hide any dissent.  Much of his apparent enjoyment is heresy; it once again can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  

ASSIGNMENT # 6

1.     What is the difference between criminal law and tort law?

Criminal Law: Is when the prosecutor is the government. The legal system enforces payment to the government or jail time.

Tort Law: Is when the plaintiff/ person who suffered damages by others, suits another for damages to person/property and demands payment for damages.

2.     What are the conditions for strict liability and negligence?

For strict liability to be met, a risk of serious harm must be present in an action even if reasonable care is used to avoid said harm. For example, men working with explosive items; there is still a risk for harm even if the explosives are handled properly (accidental discharge, etc.). Though if the harm is caused without taking reasonable care to avoid it, there is no strict liability. For example, carelessly tossing around active, timed explosives.

For negligence, there must be a breach of a duty of care occurring with a factual and proximate cause and creates damages. For example, doctors knowingly not informing Patient A of contracting disease X. Due to this, disease X went untreated and developed into a life threatening problem causing emotional and physical distress. The doctors were negligent due to not informing and treating disease X in Patient A.

3.     What does it mean that an event A caused another event B? Give an example.

Is when an action is taken, with means or no means of causing harm to others. The final outcome is when B does something to add into A’s actions.  For example: Person A is walks a busy intersection and person B is driving to school.  A decides to cross an intersection, looks both ways and sees a car about a block and half away from him.  He decides to cross the street even if the pedestrian light says to hold, he believes he has enough time to cross.  B, the driver, is texting and driving and does not notice the pedestrian crossing and the lights changing. A should have waited for the light to change and allow for all vehicles to come to a complete stop before crossing.  But B shouldn’t have been texting and driving, risking motorists and pedestrian lives.

4.     What is legal causation? Give an example.

Before legal causation is established, factual causation must be established. Legal causation is the determination of laws that can be applied to the situation established in factual causation. For example, A steamed a carrot in front of B causing B to question their purpose in life. Since there is no law against burning carrots or causing people to question themselves, no laws can be applied nor can legal causation. If the laws prohibiting either action, then legal causation can be established. 

5.     What were the reasons for the court's decision in Lynch vs. Fisher? Do you agree - why or why not?

Though it was the negligence of the employee of Fisher and Wheless, Adkins, that caused the unfortunate series of events, they are still liable for the damage (as well as their insurance company) caused by the events since Adkins was acting as an agent of the duo. The court ruled that Adkins and his companion were responsible for making sure that their vehicle could be identified as out of service by approaching drivers. Since they didn’t take the steps to do so, they were negligent. I do agree with this ruling.  As stated, this could have been done by lighting flares on road surrounding their vehicle or placing some reflective markers indicating so. In failing to do so, it set off the chain of events that led to Grunter shooting Lynch and subsequent damage. Had they done so, these events would have not occurred in the manner they did. Their negligence sparked the chain of unfortunate events.

6.     What were the reasons for the court's decision in Palsgraff vs. LIRR? Do you agree - why or why not?

The court of appeals dismissed Palsgraff’s appeal. It was determined that there was no proximate cause by the LIRR (acting through their two agents, the guards) in the plaintiff’s injury. The guards could have not possibly known that pushing the passenger and his hidden package towards the car would have led to her suffering emotional trauma. There is very little sufficient relation between the guard’s actions and the plaintiff’s injury. I agree with the courts ruling. There was no possible way that the two guards could have known that the passenger was concealing fireworks within his newspaper at the time the events occurred. If they had known, they would have not acted in the manner they did. Therefore, the LIRR can’t be held liable for the sequence of events that was caused from the discharge of the fireworks and the plaintiff’s injury.

Stanley Tookie Williams - Part I

       The criminal justice system was founded with the intent to take into consideration the people who follow the social order and those who act against it. While people who follow the order are rewarded with an opportunity to make a comfortable life for themselves, those who don’t are punished.  A punishment typically involves some sort of penalty ranging from a fine to imprisonment to execution. These are meant to rehabilitee people as well as deter crime. Having your freedom stripped away within the confines of stone walls and metal bars gives a criminal an opportunity to introspect on their lives and find reasons to live in peace with the social order rather than against it.

    

       Without a doubt, we the people have ignored the rehabilitation effects that our justice system provides. Tookie Williams is a prime example of the rehabilitation effects of our justice system. The founder and ex member of one of the most widely known street gangs in the US has renounced his former ways and creation and has promoted peace among people as well as condemning the actions and purpose of his creation.

       

       His clemency should be approved not due to the public opinion or publicity surrounding it but that he is rehabbed and is ready to return as a major contributor for society and its social order. He speaks against gang activity. Being a founder of a gang, he speaks with a high level of credibility that neither police officer nor prosecuting attorney can speak with.  Williams, if he were to be given clemency, he certainly would and take the opportunity to reach out to the lives of all youth as well as current gang member to show them that the apparently glamorous life of a gangster is not the ideal way to live. He is also a shinning example to any community of how even the worst situations can lead to something great.

       In conclusion, this man has served his time and has shown that he is truly a better man after it. Clemency should be granted.

“Wendigo” Case

Diana Swisher

4/7/13

Assignment #4

“Wendigo” Case

Part I

Make your case as prosecutor – argue in terms that the defendant is responsible for his act even given the circumstances.

CASE:

A Native American in Northern Canada is charged with manslaughter for

killing what he took to be an evil sprit clothed in human form, called a “Wendigo;”

in his tribe a Wendigo is believed to eat human beings.

The defendant saw what appeared to be a tall human form running in the distance,

gave chase, challenged the victim, and then fired.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVISED on: 4/8/13

It is true that people ought to respect other persons’ religion, that is not in stake here. The accused, presently here is charged with manslaughter for killing a man. The reasons the accused provided to the court are as follow, he claimed:

He tried to kill an evil spirit “Wendigo” clothed in human form,

believed by his tribe to eat human beings. 

Now, according to the accused, this “Wendigo” has killed and eaten humans, and felt the need to kill “it”, and pursued the victim with a gun, shot him and killed him\

It seems that the accused had previously predicted the event and Intent to take matters into his own hand.  

The victim was nowhere near the accused, or approaching the accused.  The victim had no previous contact with the accused, prior to the incident.  This shows that the accused had both: Actus reus and mens rea.

 Who is to say that this man would not use the same excuse, sometime down the road? Are we to allow such person to walk our streets free and wait for another “Wendigo” to die due to this man‘s actions?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL (DISREGARD) Posted on 4/7/13


It is true that people ought to respect other persons’ religion, that is not in stake here. The accused, presently here is charged with manslaughter for killing a man. The reasons the accused provided to the court are as follow, he claimed:

He tried to kill an evil spirit “Wendigo” clothed in human form,

believed by his tribe to eat human beings. 

Now, according to the accused religion/believes states that, anyone who observes/sees a “Wendigo” should/must kill “it”.  But instead, the accused feared this being, and took it upon him to kill “it”, with a gun.

It seems that the accused had previously predicted the event and Intent to take matters into his own hand.  

The victim was nowhere near the accused, or approaching the accused.  The victim had no previous contact with the accused, prior to the incident.  This shows that the accused had both: Actus reus and mens rea.

 Who is to say that this man would not use the same excuse, sometime down the road? Are we to allow such person to walk our streets free and wait for another “Wendigo” to die due to this man‘s actions?