PlanetPapers.com RSS Feed

Can Article 25 Arbitration Serve as a Temporary Alternative to WTO Dispute Settlement Process? Bashar H. Malkawi

2018-11-25T08:53:31.543-05:00

RINGKASAN JURNAL Heriyanto, Dodik Setiawan Nur, “Solusi Intervensi Kemanusiaan Sebagai Penyelesaian Konflik yang Terjadi Pasca Kudeta Presiden Mursi di Mesir

2017-12-24T11:59:03.78-05:00

RINGKASAN JURNAL, Solusi Intervensi Kemanusiaan Sebagai Penyelesaian Konflik yang Terjadi Pasca Kudeta Presiden Mursi di Mesir

2017-12-24T11:53:48.48-05:00

INTERPOL NCB ISLAMABAD

2015-01-28T09:47:57.24-05:00

Capital Punishment

2006-08-27T17:03:29-04:00

In Death penalty has no place in U.S., Cynthia Tucker has concluded that she is against the death penalty. The issues that she has raised are the questions; does America need the death penalty? Is Capital Punishment an effective penalty? Yes. The death penalty protects society and keeps order in Justice. Capital Punishment does not stop people from killing one another. However, the only thing it mainly does is stop a known killer from killing innocent people. I believe that it is the correct punishment for those who commit crimes bad enough to deserve death. The United States uses the death penalty as a punishment for the more sever criminals like murderers and rapists, most of their convicts are guilty. Few on a rare occasion, one innocent person is put to death by capital punishment United States say this only happens on a rare occasion, that rare occasion should never happen. In some cases in the United States and in Canada the wrong people are accused of crimes that they did not commit. Since the 1900’s, in the United Sates, there have been at least four cases where an innocent person is executed.(Fletcher,M.) Four innocent people executed each year for a mistake made by the use of Capital punishment. The cases of innocent people put to death cannot compare to the criminals who deserve it. John Wayne King deserves the death penalty. For John Wayne King there is no excuse for this kind of behavior in the killing of James Byrd Jr., The act was evil. Some people believe that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. However, we need to have the death penalty in force for those criminals who do commit such crimes. Life in prison does not stop these crimes from being committed. The death penalty does. With the criminals in jail for life, there is a possibility that they could break out and kill again. The criminals could be up for parole. We are keeping criminals fed and clothed with the know fact that they are killers. Many criminals ask for the death penalty.” Confessed killer Aileen Wuornos, the subject of the 2003 movie Monster, said she wanted to "get right with God" before her 2002 Florida execution”. (Willing,R. ).

Assimilation Copyright

2006-07-22T16:40:39-04:00

Civilization, the thing that makes humans different from the other animals on this planet, is the ability to pass knowledge down from generation to generation with each successive generation building on the knowledge of all generations that came before. It is this “human knowledgebase” which has allowed us to progress to the point we are at today and it is this knowledgebase that is now under attack, an attack that threatens the very roots of civilization. In 1790 George Washington signed into law Copyright Act of 1790, which granted a temporary monopoly on the knowledge to authors, and inventors of that knowledge with a limitation of 28 years. The reason for this temporary monopoly was to allow Authors and Inventors a reasonable return on their labors. (note I didn't say maximizing profits) After that 28 years was up the knowledge became part of the human knowledge base and civilization could once again build freely on that knowledge. All copyright and patent law in the US is based on an article in the Constitution, which granted congress the power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." At the time it may have seemed like a good idea to grant a temporary monopoly in order to allow authors (copyright) and inventors (patent) time to profit from their writings and discoveries and this article became the bases for both copyright and patent laws. However the founding fathers were very careful not to make the mistakes Europe had made in creating a monopoly. They specifically worded the constitution to allow for authors and inventors to get a fair return but also to prevent copyright and patents from being used as a control mechanism to control knowledge which was the reasoning behind Copyright in Europe. This was a very important difference between the power granted to congress in the constitution and what had happened in European copyright laws. Also notice that the words "fair return" were used instead of "maximize profits". Copyright is not about maximizing profits, it's possible to get a fair return even with limited copying going on, in fact it was legal to copy as long as money wasn't involved up until 1976 when our copyright laws were changed. Since that time, many revisions have been

The Man Who Brok 1000 Chains- Morality vs. Legality

2006-02-06T21:56:58-05:00

When looking at as issue as right or wrong, it is imperative that the issue be categorized into either a matter of legality or morality. While some may be both, the simple fact that an action may be immoral does not qualify it as necessarily illegal. The film A Man That Broke A Thousand Chains, based on the true story of Robert Elliott Burns, showcases many examples of morality and legality. If an action is immoral, that means it defies one’s moral code and is commonly perceived as “wrong” based on what one values. If an action is regarded as illegal, it is one that breaks a law and requires just punishment. Once he escaped out of the Georgia camp, he made a move to Chicago, where he found a quaint boarding house to live in. The lovely female owner and Robert soon became very close; he told her his secret after she read it in his writings. They loved each other, though he did not want a commitment. After blackmailing Robert into marrying her, she became very jealous and ended up letting his secret out after she became very angry for not receiving enough attention. Being a big businessman of a huge magazine, this move was devastating. He was then sent back to the camp in Georgia, losing not only his fortune from business, but his new found love, Lillian. Though turning in an escaped convict is more legal than not, being what one would call a “tattletale” on account of being jealous or angry is wrong. His wife’s decision to turn her love over to the police was an act that showed cold-heartedness and most would say is wrong, since it seems wrong and foolish to incriminate one’s close friend. Though this action resulted in legal issues, this one case was a moral case. When Robert first left home, he was desperate for money and was convinced to join a man who promised some profit. Unfortunately, Robert went with the criminal and was pulled into an armed robbery. Robert unwillingly followed the criminal’s orders and held a shopkeeper at gunpoint. As a beginning of the unfair tale, Robert was the only one captured and was tried. No matter his unwillingness or disagreement to the armed robbery, he still took part in it. An armed robbery is quite obviously legally wrong; it is illegal to steal money, and more illegal yet

Case of the Shipwrecked Sailors- Prosecution

2006-02-06T21:55:27-05:00

In the “case of the shipwrecked

Judicial Merrit retention in the state of Florida

2005-08-05T23:30:26-04:00

Merit Retention Merit Retention is a system of appointing State Supreme Court Justices that was established in Florida in the 1970’s. Whenever a State Supreme Court vacancy occurs, a Judicial Nominating Commission submits to the Governor the names of three to six nominees, from which he must select one to fill the opening. Once appointed, the new Justice’s name will appear on the ballots in the next election, with the question, of whether or not he or she should remain on the bench. New Justices face their first merit retention vote as soon as the next statewide general election is held. If the Justice is not retained in office, the appointment process will be repeated. If the Justice is retained however, she or he will serve a six-year term beginning in January following the “merit retention election.” Florida State Supreme Court Justices then face another retention vote in the general election occurring shortly before their six-year term concludes. If a Justice is not retained then, the Judicial Nominating Commission and the Governor will replace him or her. Additionally, the Florida Constitution institutes a mandatory retirement age for all Justices who reach the age of 70 (FL Supreme Court, 2005). According to proponents of the merit system, when united with a stipulation for intermittent retention elections, “merit” selection allows an accommodation between the conflicting concepts of judicial independence and accountability, though many people question whether retention elections actually ensure any consequential degree of accountability at all. Critics cite that because incumbents appear for retention without an opponent, judicial retentions are generally very low-key affairs, which result in negligible voter interest in, and knowledge about, the Judges qualifications and past performance. As in nonpartisan elections, voters also have no cues to tell them who to vote for. Consequently, voter drop-off has been more considerable in retention elections than in both partisan and nonpartisan judicial elections. Moreover, generally all judges are habitually retained in office, regardless of their qualifications or past performance (Webster, 1995). Personally, I don’t think that the type of merit retention system that is in place in Florida should be extended to the US Supreme Court or the Federal courts. The entire thing seems a bit haphazard to me. Everyone I know who votes, always votes that judges should be retained. Certainly there couldn’t be any type of national retention election for Supreme Court

comparative essay

2005-04-05T09:00:02-04:00

A Comparative Essay After reading Americas Constitutional Soul, by Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., and The True and Only Heaven, by Christopher Lasch, I came to the realization that while they have varying ideas on many topics, they have similar conservative views regarding citizenship and civil rights.Specifically, Mansfield discusses his belief that people are best served through arepresentative government and does not believe that all citizens should be allowed to rule directly (Mansfield 141). In this regard, Mansfield contends that people, in general, tend to be irrational and rely too much on feelings as opposed to reasoned conclusions (Mansfield 29-30). Therefore, if a trueform of participatory democracy were practiced where all citizens have the right to activelyparticipate in the decision-making processes, Mansfield believes that our society would not benefit. Mansfield, in maintaining his views that citizens are easily swayed by their feelings instead of by intellectual reasoning, believ! es that professional, special interest groups that are savvy enough to capitalize on this human weakness, would sway the votes of the majority and earn themselves a majority vote. To combat this problem, Mansfield believes (as did our Founding Fathers when theycreated the Electoral College), that a representative form of democracy is the more viable form of government which will better suit our society by assuring that rational, unselfish decisions will be made which will ultimately be needed for the progression of our free and democratic society(Mansfield 29-30).Furthermore, in continuing with our discussion of citizenship, I believe that Mansfield believes that through the use of formal, government institutions, citizens are able to rise above self-interest. He points to the fact that our United States institution is an institution of formalizedbehavior. This document requires that actions be formal. According to Mansfield, the United States Constitution is documente! d proof that citizens want self-government and that they have the ability, through formal processes set up by institutions, to rise above self-interest (Mansfield 151). Similarly, Christopher Lasch seems to have the same doubts about citizens ability toeffectively decide on matters of importance. Through his discussions of Walter Lippmans writings, Public Opinion and The Phantom Public, Lash appears to agree that the use of self-governing is not an effective form of Democracy (Lasch 364). Lasch goes on to further set forth that the old ideas of citizenship are out-dated and that, in fact, citizens can no

Compare and contrast two main theories of ‘crime and deviance’.

2004-07-02T14:01:10-04:00

‘‘a diabetic at work without a recent insulin injection approaching the lunch break may become tense, erratic, short tempered, but that behaviour does not constitute a criminal act’’ (Kelly, Holborn and Makin, (1983) sited in; M. Haralambos and M. Holborn (2000)) It is regarded amongst sociologists that physiological characteristics do not cause criminal or deviant behaviour. This paper will look at a few of the main functionalist and conflict theories of crime and deviance and conclude with which one, in relation to the title, provides the largest body of evidence. Functionalist theorists argue that crime and deviance is caused by ‘structural tensions’ where as conflict theorists argue that ‘deviance is deliberately chosen, and often political in nature’. Functionalists argue that people commit crimes because there is something wrong with the society the individual is in, and that this is what causes the individual to commit crime. Crime is caused by the structure of society. Conflict theorists argue that the criminal makes a choice to commit a crime ‘‘in response to inequalities of the capitalist system’’ (Giddens, 2001, Pg 272) Starting then, with Albert Cohen, a subcultural functionalist, who based his studies on the lower classes, Cohen found that lower class children were disadvantaged at school and thus disadvantaged in light of general success in life. Cohen said the lower class were at a disadvantage before they had even started to achieve! Most lower class children, he argued, do not have the same starting position as middle class children. Because of the difference in class Cohen believes the lower class children suffer from ‘status frustration’ (Haralambos and Holborn, (2000), Pg 357). Following this frustration with their position in society Cohen put forward the theory that these lower class children develop a subculture where ‘‘the delinquent subculture takes its norms from the larger culture but turns them upside down’’ (Haralambos and Holborn, Pg 357). Cohen stated that the success achieved within this subculture related to earning their goals which were perceived (by the delinquent) as unattainable within society. This he argues is the cause of crime and deviance. Cohen’s claim that lower class children are frustrated at being disadvantaged in society, that they have less opportunity to succeed, this indicates quite blatantly that society is not equal. Bernstein stated in Giddens that language differed according to class. Bernstein came up

FCC vs Pacifica Broadcasting Foundation

2002-12-09T13:00:00-05:00

In 1978 a radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation Broadcasting out of New York City was doing a program on contemporary attitudes toward the use of language. This broadcast occurred on a mid-afternoon weekday. Immediately before the broadcast the station announced a disclaimer telling listeners that the program would include "sensitive language which might be regarded as offensive to some."(Gunther, 1991) As a part of the program the station decided to air a 12 minute monologue called "Filthy Words" by comedian George Carlin. The introduction of Carlin's "routine" consisted of, according to Carlin, "words you couldn't say on the public air waves."(Carlin, 1977) The introduction to Carlin's monologue listed those words and repeated them in a variety of colloquialisms: I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss words and the words that you can't say, that you're not supposed to say all the time. I was thinking one night about the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves, um, the ones you definitely wouldn't say, ever. Bastard you can say, and hell and damn so I have to figure out which ones you couldn't and ever and it came down to seven but the list is open to amendment, and in fact, has been changed, uh, by now. The original seven words were shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. Those are the ones that will curve your spine, grow hair on your hands and maybe, even bring us, God help us, peace without honor, and a bourbon. (Carlin, 1977) A man driving with his young son heard this broadcast and reported it to the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]. This broadcast of Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue caused one of the greatest and most controversial cases in the history of broadcasting: The FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. The outcome of this case has had a lasting effect on what we hear on the radio. This landmark case gave the FCC the "power to regulate radio broadcasts that are indecent but not obscene." (Gunther, 1991) What does that mean, exactly? According to the government it means that the FCC can only regulate broadcasts. They cannot censor broadcasts, meaning, the FCC has the power to determine what is offensive in the matters of speech. Before this case occurred there were certain laws already in place that prohibited obscenity over radio. One of these laws was the "law

parliamentary sovereignty

2002-12-07T13:00:00-05:00

When we talk about 'Parliament' and 'parliamentary sovereignty' what exactly do we mean? Firstly we must take the word 'Parliament' to mean not the actual Houses of Parliament themselves but instead the Acts passed by Parliament with the consent of the Commons, Lords and the Queen. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is about the relationship between those who create the Acts (Parliament) and those who must apply them (courts). The argument we find ourselves trying to answer is who in fact has the supreme power? Is it the law makers or those who must apply the law? To present an analogy of the problem we could ask who has supreme power in a game of football or rugby. Is it the governing body who make the rules or is it the referee who must apply the rules in each game using his discretion as each situation occurs. The analogy may seem crude but judges find themselves in the exact position of referees. The question therefore remains, who is supreme? When Dicey published The Law of the Constitution in 1885 he identified parliamentary sovereignty as meaning that, 'Parliament has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.' To look at this much quoted statement in more detail we can find a lot of evidence to support his view. It has been shown over the years that courts are totally unwilling to question the legitimacy of statutes unless there is some question as to them not being passed using the correct procedure. As long as an Act has passed through both Houses and received the Royal Assent judges will not argue whether or not a statute should or should not exist but will merely try to apply the statute. One of many examples of this is the case of Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co. v Wauchope (1842) 8 Cl & F 710. In this case a man was appealing to the court against a private Act obtained by the railway company as it adversely affected him. The court however would have nothing to do with it and Lord Campbell pronounced, '...all that a court of justice can do is to look at the Parliamentary roll: if from that it should appear that a

Significance of Judicial Precedence

2002-12-07T13:00:00-05:00

Describe the Operation of the System of Judicial Precedent and assess its Present significance in the Law of England. There are many different sources of Law in England, which include statutes, case law, deligated legislation, custom and European Law. Each one of these sources has varying importance and this essay will be examining one of the major contributors to English Law, Judicial Precedent (or Case Law). Judicial Precedent can be seen as a process where by a judge must follow any decision that has been made by a higher court in a case with similar facts. “Precedent is the life blood of legal systems” and therefore this essay will follow how judicial precedent works within the various courts of England, and will be assessing whether it has a negative or positive impact on the Laws of England. Since 1865 Law reports have been published under the control of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting . These Law reports, as they are known, have priority in court as the judge who heard the case sees and revises the report before it is published. There are also other private reports such as the All England Reports which are also revised by the judges concerned with the case . These Law Reports make up the Case Law within the English Legal System. From these cases it is important to know what to take as precedent and what we can ignore in order to find the ratio decidendi. The ratio decidendi of a case is defined as principle of law used by the judge to arrive at his decision along with his reasons for doing so . A judge may also include statements that are obiter dicta which are statements that are said in passing. When a judge is deciding a case he does not usually distinguish between statements that are ratio decidendi and those which are obiter dicta, and therefore it up to subsequent judges to approve what the ratio decidendi of a case is. These decisions then form precedents which must be followed by other judges even if they disagree with them. Obiter dicta do not form precedents Within the system of Judicial Precedent there lies a hierarchy of courts meaning that lower courts are bound by decisions made by higher courts. The House of Lords is the highest appeal court (excluding cases concerning European Law) and all courts are bound by its decision.

Does the law relating to Obscenity and Blasphemy constitute too great a restriction on freedom of ex

2002-11-26T13:00:00-05:00

The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental right, which has not traditionally been prescribed by law, but can be considered more of a moral right. However the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, Article 10 of which creates a right to freedom of expression. Article 10 (1) states “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” However this right to free speech is qualified and not absolute as Section 10 (2) imposes a number of restrictions upon its exercise; “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.” Two of these “restrictions prescribed by law” are the criminal offences of Obscenity and Blasphemy, which abridge freedom of expression in order to protect individuals and in some cases the public in general, against harm to moral integrity and uphold standards pf public behaviour as well as protecting religious sensibilities. The extent to which they constitute a restriction on freedom of expression, however, is a contentious issue and will be considered in due course. The law on obscenity is aimed at protecting those who come to it willingly, against moral harm, which the obscene article is said to threaten. It guards moral integrity or protects some public interest in maintaining moral standards in a way, which overrides personal freedoms. Consequently any expression that contravenes accepted standards of social morality is potentially subject to restrictions. Such restriction on peoples expression is justified by the ‘harm’ principle as developed by John Stuart Mills whereby expressive material may only be restricted/interfered with if can be shown to cause harm to others. However there are divergent views on what constitutes ‘harm.’ Some attribute the narrower definition, limiting it to physical or psychological harm that is scientifically evaluable. Others, instead of concentrating upon material harm are prepared to include moral and ideological harm within the definition, which is less

European Union - When and to what extent are directives ‘directly effective’?

2002-11-26T13:00:00-05:00

The European Community has had a decidedly significant impact upon the legal systems of the Member States. It was established in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome, the main objectives being to develop stability throughout Europe by means of encouraging a closer union between member states. It has evolved a long way since having developed its own institutions and an autonomous legal system, with laws that bind each member state ultimately enabling it to regulate the rights and obligations of its members. It achieves this primarily through Treaties, a primary form of EC legislation that forms the basis of all other European Law. However the effect of EC treaties is unlike that of any other international agreement as the latter bind only states at an intergovernmental level and do not of themselves give rise to rights or interests which the citizens of the states can have enforced before their own national courts even if they are designed for the protection of individuals. Although the text of EC treaties do not indicate that their provisions will be any different, the ECJ has taken its own view as to the nature and effect of treaties known as the doctrine of ‘direct effect.’ This jurisprudential concept means that individuals are able to derive rights directly from community law, which can be enforced in their own national courts. It is a private species of enforcement, placing control in the hands of ordinary individuals as distinct from the public enforcement mechanism of community law as contained in Article 226 of the Treaty of Rome which enabled the Commission to bring proceedings against member states for breaches. This system was deficient in many ways as, not only was it unable to cope with the increasing work load and had insufficient remedies, it was political in nature. Direct effect, on the other hand, has allowed individuals to play a role and has potentially brought the community into the lives of every citizen. However despite its significance, it is important to put it into context of the many types of community law, not all of which entail direct effect or which can only be directly effective in certain circumstances, such as directives. The judicial foundations for direct effect were laid down in Van Gend En Loos (1963) a case which arose when the applicant was charged an import duty by Customs and Excise that had been increased to 8%

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the present defence of Insanity?

2002-11-26T13:00:00-05:00

It has been well-established feature of the English legal system that rules of criminal law are addressed to rational and responsible persons who have the capacity to control their actions and understand and comply with rules. Persons lacking such capacity should not be held criminally culpable even if some wrong may have been done, as it is believed that they are “sick rather than evil.” It is from this central concept that the defences of Insanity and, to some extent, Diminished Responsibility derive. Whilst the latter was more recently established by the Homicide Act in 1957, Insanity is stems from an 1843 common law authority and has perpetually been at the centre of controversy. Although in principle it plays an important role in both protecting interests of mentally disordered by providing means for their treatment and protecting public interests in subjecting such dangerous persons to restraint, the lack of clarity over its precise scope accentuated by its antiquity has led to absurd decisions which undermine its credibility. The extent to which diminished responsibility alleviates its inherent deficiencies and provides a better guide to kinds of mental disorders that should exempt persons from criminal liability is however questionable. The main difficulty for both lies in determining a dividing line between sanity and responsibility on one hand and insanity and irresponsibility on the other. The question of insanity may arise at the time of the trial if there are concerns that the defendant is unable to appreciate the significance of the trial and is thus ‘unfit to plead.’ Whilst prior to 1991, such an individual would be incarcerated in a mental institution without proof that the crime had been committed, the Criminal Procedure (Unfitness to Plead) Act holds that if a there is a finding of ‘unfitness’ the defendant may only be incarcerated after the definitional elements of the crime have been proved before a jury. This has strengthened the law and brought it more in line with human right requirements. More significantly, where the defendant is considered fit to plead there is the vital question of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the alleged offence. The rules that provide guidance in determining this issue were laid down in M’Naughton 1843 in which the House of Lords delineated the circumstances in which the accused cannot be held legally culpable for his conduct. Rules state that a person is presumed sane

The Notion of Crimes against Humanity as a Human Right

2002-11-15T13:00:00-05:00

"Inter arma silent leges" -Roman maxim War and law have had a constant relationship between each other ever since the existence of conflict as a collective phenomenon. The regulation of the state of war, whether stemming from tradition, custom, certain codes of conduct and, ultimately, law, has evolved throughout the centuries together with the notion of war. The idea of a "Crime of War", or war crime, is not new to the modern legal vocabulary. Unorthodox practices during a war have been branded as war crimes in many scenarios of conflict. However, these war crimes were not in themselves punishable in any international court (mainly due to the practical non-existence of such legal apparatus before the United Nations) and were very much a notion without a consequence, a general concept floating above the aftermath of wars , and not affecting individuals as such but rather relying on the concept of state responsibility. It is only since the development of a doctrine of Human Rights, of fundamental, documented universal principles, that such crimes have materialised into a legal cast due to the development of the notion of "Crimes against Humanity" and its derived breaches. The concept of "Crimes against Humanity" has been a product of very recent historical, political and social developments which has brought war crimes under a different light in international law, and very much under the scope of Human Rights, which have impregnated the law of war as an international, codified phenomenon in many ways. As a provision, it was the initial step which began a whole new approach from part of the international community towards certain abuses against civilians during periods of war and also during peace-time. Certain practices became theoretically "illegal" in a very broad sense within the international community, criminalising governments, collectives and individuals, whether military or civilian, and covering the commission of crimes both in an individual basis as well as in a collective sense. Conventions have arisen after the appearance of this idea, as well as resolutions and other relevant legislation emanating from international bodies and organisms (mainly the UN). The ultimate reason for these provisions to arise, in theoretical terms and laying aside political considerations, has been the protection of the human being as an individual, regardless of geographical, political or social factors and circumstances, and hence has become a "Human Right", so to say, in its own right. Crimes against Humanity as

Just Outcomes in Australian Courts - Azaria Chamberlain and Walsh Street Cases

2002-11-09T13:00:00-05:00

The legal system aims to achieve just outcomes, however the perception of justice varies between individuals, the legal system and society in general. A ‘just outcome’ cannot be simply defined, so a working definition is developed instead. A just outcome is said to be “a result of any process or procedure on individuals and society within the operation of the legal system that is seen as fair or proper by the majority of society”. Justice can be procedural and substantive. Procedural justice is attained where the process for reaching a decision is fair and just. Substantive justice is where the final outcome is fair and just. A ‘just outcome’ is measured by four principles: fairness, equality, mechanisms and values. Fairness is achieved by the unbiased treatment of the accused and an independent judiciary. Equality is achieved by the accused being treated impartially and the law being applied to all people in the same way. Mechanisms are the facilities provided by the legal system to produce a just outcome. Values are ideals and opinions of society in general, formed from moral, social, economic or political beliefs. Conversely, the principles of just outcomes can be restricted by negative operational factors: structural, access and cultural/socio-economic. Structural factors like criminal trial procedure, rules of evidence and the role of the jury negatively affect the attainment of just outcomes. Cultural factors like media bias further hinder the attainment of just outcomes. The two outcomes being examined are the Chamberlain Trial (1982) and the Walsh Street Trial (1991). The Chamberlain trial involved the disappearance of nine-week-old Azaria Chantel Chamberlain from Ayers Rock Camping Ground on 17 August 1980. Alice Lynne Chamberlain claimed her daughter was taken from the family tent by a dingo. Police maintained that Lindy had killed Azaria in the family car and when new evidence was uncovered a second coroner’s inquest was held. Subsequently, Lindy was placed on trial for murder in the NT Supreme Court. The jury unanimously found Lindy guilty of murder and sentenced her to life imprisonment with hard labour. Her husband, Michael Chamberlain, was found guilty of being an accessory after the fact and given an 18-month suspended sentence. The Walsh Street Trial involved the murder of two police constables in South Yarra on 12 October 1988. The police alleged that Trevor Pettingill, Victor Pierce, Anthony Farrell and Peter McEnvoy plotted to kill two officers after their associate, Graeme Jensen

Australian Gun Reform Laws

2002-11-09T13:00:00-05:00

The Firearms Act 1996 (Vic.) was passed by the Victorian Parliament on October 31st 1996 in accordance with the National Agreement on Firearms which aimed to create uniform gun laws Australia wide. The Act repealed the Firearms Act 1958 (Vic.) and the Firearms Act (Amendment) 1983 (Vic.) and established prohibitions on certain people and guns. Under the Act, a ‘prohibited person’ was defined as anyone who had served a jail term for an indictable, assault or drug related offence or subject to a domestic violence intervention order. New categories for guns were created and gun owners had to pass certain requirements and demonstrate genuine reason for owning a firearm as well as provide appropriate storage for the weapon. Strict fines and jail sentences were established for offenders, but owners of newly prohibited guns were able to surrender their weapons and receive compensated under the national guns amnesty. Categories C and D guns (including semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pump-action shotguns) were prohibited unless the applicant could prove a specific use for the weapon such as professional farming or hunting and that Category A or B weapons was insufficient. Category E included machine, teargas and shot guns and rifles shorter than 75cm. Category E license applicants had to prove the firearm was required for police or military duties. Handguns, were classified in their own category and had tighter requirements for ownership. The reasons behind the change in gun laws were both social and political. Between 1987 and 1996, 136 people were killed in gun massacres alone. After the Hoddle and Queen Street massacres of 1987, great public concern arose and the Victorian premier tried to tighten gun laws. The Strathfield massacre of 1991 intensified the debate in Sydney and subsequently importation of semi-automatic weapons was banned nationally. As Australia became more urbanised, 90% of the nation realised the need for stricter gun laws to assure their safety and security by restricting the availability of high powered weapons and banning convicted criminals and domestic violence offenders from owning guns. In 1996 the Australian Institute of Criminology found that the majority of people killed with guns were killed in states with relaxed gun laws. Furthermore, gun deaths dropped 30% after tougher Victorian gun laws were introduced in 1987. People saw this correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer gun related deaths, exemplified by the Port Arthur massacre (where Bryant was able to own a

Boy Scouts v. Dale

2002-05-19T14:00:00-04:00

James dale first joined cub scouts in 1978 at age 8, following in his families scouting tradition. He then became a boy scout in June of 1981. He was the model of a perfect scout. He was delegated to the National jamboree, a summer camp staff member, and a dedicated fund-raiser for the BSA. During High School he was even a member of naval junior ROTC, where he served as a company commander. In June of 1988, he earned the rank of Eagle Scout, which is awarded to just 2-3 percent of all scouts and is the scouts highest honor. After his 18th birthday, in August 1988, Dale applied for a adult membership and was asked to become an assistant scoutmaster of his former troop. Dale went on to go to college at Rutgers University where he came out of the closet about being gay. He soon joined then became co-president of the Rutgers University Lesbian Gay & Bisexual Alliance. In the summer of 1990he attended a conference for high school teachers, guidance counselors, and principals about reducing the risk f suicide by gay teenagers. While at the conference a local newspaper interviewed Dale, who openly admitted that he was gay, on the needs of lesbian and gay youth. After BSA officials saw the coverage Dale, they sent Dale a letter in the mail saying that his adult membership had been revoked. They gave no reason, it was only after writing them back that dale found out that the reason that his membership had been revoked was because BSA “specifically forbid membership to homosexuals.” Dale sued the BSA for reinstatement in 1997, the appellate division of New Jersey ruled in his favor. The states highest court unanimously upheld the verdict in August 1999; it ruled that the BSA like other large organizations holding themselves out as open to the public, is a public accommodation subject to the stat Law Against Discrimination. Both courts cited BSA’s size, it’s self-presentation as “open to all boys” and privileged relationship with local, state, and federal government. BSA is chartered by congress, receives benefits and special access from the military, state agencies, municipalities, police and fire department, and even public schools, which sponsor 20% of the troops. The BSA took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on April 26, 2000. In addition to the two briefs, one BSA and one from James Dales attorneys. There were 21 amici

Granger v. Gough [invitation to treat v. offer]

2002-05-05T14:00:00-04:00

"The transmission of such a price-list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity of the wine described at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity. If it were so, the merchant might find himself involved in any number of contractual obligations to supply wine of a particular description which he would be quite unable to carry out, his stock of wine of that description being necessarily limited. I entertain, I confess, a very clear opinion that the Solicitor-General was quite right in arguing the case on the assumption that no sales were made in this country." Lord Herschell Just over one hundred years ago the above ratio-decendi was given in what was at the time a case concerned with alleged back taxes owed by Grainger & Son. Grainger & Son (henceforth referred to as G&S) were British wine merchants who as a side venture passed on the price lists of a French wine producer to their customers. G&S received a commission on any orders placed with said producer and paid tax on this commission. Gough claimed that tax was payable on the whole value of these sales not just the commission element. Monsieur Roederer (henceforth Mr R) was a wine producer located in France. He decided whether to accept orders the orders gathered by G&S or not. The reason for this being that the wine was shipped out ahead of any payment being received and Mr R wanted to vett his customers credit worthiness. The wine was shipped directly to the customer in the UK from France. Most customers settled their accounts directly with Mr R. A few customers instead made payment to G&S who would pass on to Mr R any amounts in excess of the commission they happened to be owed. In summary the flows of events are: Mr R, located in France, sends price list to G&S in Britain G&S distribute price list Customer places, for want a better word, an order with G&S for wine produced by Mr R G&S forward order to Mr R Mr R dispatches wine to customer Mr R dispatches bill for said customers wine to G&S for onwards transmission G&S forward bill to customer Customer sends payment to Mr R – occasionally made to G&S who forward this to Mr R Mr R sends receipt to customer G&S pay tax on commission received G&S maintained that they entered

Does trail by jury need reform?

2002-05-05T14:00:00-04:00

Question: How far do you agree with the proposal that trial by jury should be radically reformed? (note this is an English law essay)

In the last year a number of legal reforms have been proposed by the current government. Firstly there are the Mode of Trial Bills, currently No. 2 is going through it’s readings. No.1 failed to make it through the hose of Lords. Then there is the Auld report that recommends a radical restructuring of the court system and cutting down on the number of cases that are tried by the Crown Court. One area that all of these projects seek to reform is trial by jury as it is claimed to expensive, open to abuse and time consuming for all parties involved. There is no historical right to trial by jury. The Magna Carter makes no reference to it, popular misconception not withstanding. Its first occurrence in a recognisable form can be seen the twelfth century, during the reign of Henry II. Here the jury consisted of the accused friends and neighbours rather than today’s dozen randomly selected adults. Previous to this the jury was a Norman convention made up of 12 men prepared to swear on oath as to the persons innocence. Failure to get the dozen men confirmed guilt since oaths then had a religious zeal and no one would run risk of eternal damnation by lying under oath. Trial by ordeal ceased in 1215 after it was condemned by pope innocent III. Trial by battle, to the death between accuser and defendant, existed by statute at the same time and was not repealed until 1819. A important and unique part of the English legal system is that of summary trail by magistrates. In this a panel of, usually, three lay people hear the case and decide on fact, guilt and any punishment. Magistrates account for upwards of 97% of all judicial hearings today. In 1855 such was the workload of indictable cases coming before the common law courts that an act was passed allowing such cases to be settled without a jury if the parties agreed to it. This attempt to speed up the wheels of justice created the “either way” cases that are now being blamed for slowing the same wheels down. Over the next 150 years more offences were added to the either way list and more cases lost their entitlement to trial by jury most

The Criminal Law of People's Republic of China - What are the guiding principles and characteristics

2002-04-29T14:00:00-04:00

Criminal Law is enacted in accordance with the principle of combining punishment with leniency. The Law governs Tasks, Basic Principles, and Scope of Application of the Criminal Law, Crimes, Punishments, The Concrete Application Of Punishments, Crimes of Endangering National Security, Crimes of Endangering Public Security, Crimes of Undermining the Order of Socialist Market Economy, Crimes of Infringing Upon the Rights of the Person and the Democratic Rights of Citizens, Crime of Encroaching on Property, Crimes of Disrupting the Order of Social Administration, Crimes of Endangering the Interests of National Defense, Graft and Bribery, Crimes of Dereliction of Duty, Crimes of Violation of Duty by Military Personnel Supplementary Articles. Criminal Law was Adopted by the Second Session of the Fifth National People's Congress on July 1, 1979 and amended by the Fifth Session of the Eighth National People's Congress on March 14, 1997. Criminal Law, in 452 articles, comes into effect on October 1, 1997. In the PRC ideology has infected its understanding of the cause of crime. Instead of being connected to human nature or malfeasance as in the West, the prevailing view has been that crime is a result of a class society. The thesis is that in a truly socialist and classless society the causes of crime and immorality would be rooted out and thus there would be no need (or at least only a minimal need) for an elaborate apparatus of social order and management of criminal activity. Of course, since 1949 when the PRC established, it has become increasingly obvious, even to the officials of the PRC that crime has continued and that many crimes have no plausible or traceable class-based explanation. So the socialist theory of crime eradication has been quietly dropped. What this means ultimately is that Chinese moral culture will have a continuing need to control crime and minimize its occurrence and effect in the society. PRC was also affected by a series of political events and class struggle. Such political events made the situation became worse and because of the chaos of political atmosphere, the rule of law is totally impossible in China for the period 1950-1980, until the end of Cultural Revolution. In the PRC, especially in its anti-crime campaigns of the 1980s persons who engaged in criminal or illegal activity were considered "enemies of the people". In fact, not all anti-social behavior is handled by the courts. There are matters handed by the

Andrea Yates

2002-04-26T14:00:00-04:00

Charged with five horrific murders, Andrea Yates faced the death penalty. Believed Satan controlled her, Mrs. Yates was convinced her children were not developing correctly and they needed to die to be saved. Andrea Yates admitted to drowning her children one by one after two years of contemplating this psychotic act. People cannot imagine the horror of what Yates did to her children, drowning them in the bathtub, one by one. Even chasing down the oldest one in order to do it. I believe that the enormity of her crime caused a cynical nation to shudder. These articles lend themselves to children who are murdered by their mothers, in light of the trial of Andrea Yates. Andrea Yates admits to the drowning of her five children. Mental illness is often the reasoning behind this uncontrollable violence. Statistic shows that these deadly acts go back in time and are extremely common today. “In 1999, 485 children under the age of five were murdered. Their parents committed Fifty-six percent of the killings. Sadly, a mother kills one of more of her children at least once every three days in America”. (Mothers and Murder) There are many motives that a severely depressed mother may endure. Women will sometimes kill their children through abuse and/or neglect that have gotten out of hand. Sometimes mothers murder in order to seek revenge on a spouse or lover, while others will kill a newborn after an unwanted pregnancy. A very high percent of these women are found to be mentally ill. In other cases, postpartum depression, which affects a minimal percent of new mothers, has been known to attribute to many ill-fated actions. In the Yates’s case, according to testimony, Yates believed she needed to murder her children because they were “tainted”. These thoughts or beliefs reflect profound mental illness. Some mothers suffering from this type of psychosis may also believe they are marked by the devil or believe death free the children’s souls from other evils. No one has doubted that Mrs. Yates is insane; the psychiatrist who interviewed her the day after the killings called her “one of the most severely mentally ill people she had ever examined.” (A dark State of Mind) Andrea Yates knew her actions were wrong when she called for help to the operator. A jury may convict her on this action alone, Yates was considered to have been both suicidal and

Main Functions of the Law

2002-04-02T14:00:00-04:00

“Ideally, a legal system should reflect the needs and aspirations of its society at any given time.” What do you consider to be the main functions of the law in our society? To consider this question, you have to define exactly what ‘law’ is. My definition of law is ‘rules to live by.’ The two main functions of the law are to

Prior Restraint Can Be Accepted

2002-03-15T13:00:00-04:00

Some people believe that there are no circumstances under which prior restraint of the press, either print or broadcast, should be accepted or tolerated. I disagree with that statement and do believe there are certain times when prior restraint should be accepted or tolerated. This is not an issue that is or should be taken lightly because I am in strong agreement with protecting the First Amendment, however in specific and special cases I can understand the government feeling the need to intervene. First of all, I agree with Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes during the case of Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S.697 (1931)., when he says that it is appropriate that the government can stop publication of material when it incites violence. I mean, it is possible for publishers to produce articles with highly debated arguments without being offensive or without using fighting words. In this case of starting violent acts, how is it possible to be in agreement with the argument that punishment of the press after publication is good enough censorship? I cannot see that it is good enough censorship when the violence has already begun. I believe in not letting the problem begin as opposed to trying to correct it once it takes place. But this is where people may say --well, where do we draw the line between what may or may not incite violence? To this I answer, we have seen what has incited violence in the past, and if we begin with that we have a good starting point. Then go from there, and take into consideration the possibility that some of the concerns from the past may not still be highly debatable currently. I also believe prior restraint is acceptable when the national security is at stake, for example, during time of war or when it could cause harm to the nation. I believe there are things that the government does and knows about that should not be revealed to the general public. Therefore I believe it is fair for the president to have the right to classify documents as top secret. In the case of U.S. v. Progressive, 467 F. Supp. 990 (1979)., Progressive was attempting to publish an article about the hydrogen bomb. The government said the article presented "immediate, direct and irreparable harm to the interests of the United States" (Pember 2001). In this case I agree with the courts decision

Recklessness and Criminal Liability

2001-11-14T13:00:00-05:00

Explain the role of recklessness in determining criminal liability. In everyday language, recklessness means taking an unjust risk. However its definition in law is different to its ordinary English meaning and careful direction as to its meaning in law has to be given to the jury. There are two types of recklessness, which exist, subjective recklessness, also known as Cunningham recklessness, and objective recklessness, which is also know as Caldwell recklessness. (Caldwell recklessness only applies to criminal damage). For a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness he must have consciously undertaken an unjust risk. He must realize that there is a risk involved but if he continues to carry on with his conduct, then he is reckless. A case to illustrate this is R v Cunningham – Cunningham pulled a gas meter of a wall in a house intending to steal money. He broke the main gas pipe, releasing gas into the rest of the house which was inhaled by the old lady that lived there. The C/A quashed the conviction due to a miss-direction by the trial judge as to the word ‘malicious’ under S.23 O.P.A 1861-maliciously administering a poison “we wish to make clear that the test is subjective that the knowledge of appreciation that the risk of some danger must have entered the defendants mind even though he may have suppressed or driven it out”. This case defined this type of recklessness therefore called Cunningham recklessness. Caldwell recklessness is different, firstly it only applies in cases of criminal damage. The case of MPC v Caldwell created new and much wider tests for recklessness. Caldwell was an ex-employee of a hotel and nursed a grudge against its owner. He started a fire at the hotel, which caused some damage and was charged with arson. This offence is defined in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 as requiring either intention or recklessness. On the facts there was no intention and, on the issue of recklessness, Lord Diplock stated that the definition of recklessness in Cunningham was to narrow for the Criminal Damage Act 1971. For that act, he said, recklessness should not only include the Cunningham meaning, but also go further. He said that a person is reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged if: 1. He does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk that property would be destroyed or damaged and 2. When he act he has either

Administrative Law - Europeanisation and Proportionality

2001-11-11T13:00:00-05:00

What is ‘Europeanisation’? With regards to the principle of proportionality is this europeanisation a valid idea? What is ‘Europeanisation’ and what effect is it having on our British administrative system? In the last 50 years with the introduction of the European Union there has been a massive impact on both the changing of law in the UK and the way in which powers are focused. Because of the influx in European cases, the law that has followed has affected the English Administrative legal system dramatically. A key issue that is relevant here is that British law must conform to European Union Law1, therefore every issue that is assessed in Europe, every case or change in legislation and then maintained in law, must be taken in to consideration, and must not be overlooked by the British government. The underlining factor here is that, regardless of whether one desires such a change in law,European Union Law is affecting the power delegated to public and private bodies in the UK. More specifically with regards to administrative law it is the way in which a public and both private body can affect the citizens of our country. It is the concept of ‘Proportionality’ that bleeds nicely into the europeanisation of our British Administrative system. In a number of European countries there is this principle of proportionality that expresses ‘administrative measures must not be more drastic than necessary for attaining the desired result’2. It is through an application for judicial review that the principle of proportionality has been used in Europe. It was Lord Diplock, in the G.C.H.Q3 case that classified four types of reasoning why an application might come to light. We know already that three of them; Legality, procedural propriety and rationality are strong in argument. It is this forth controversial theory of proportionality that causes writers the most problems. Proportionality is by no means a novel subject and has been gradually accepted into the ranks of other European countries for some time. However philosophical one might be in explaining what exactly it is, it will always embody a basic principle of fairness. At present it is not really what proportionality does that is an issue, it is the intentions of the theory, and in attaining a fair trial it creates a balance for both parties that should in theory resolve with a fair and reasonable conclusion. In many of the cases such as R v Intervention Board for

Living Wills

2001-07-09T14:00:00-04:00

Living Wills, sometimes called Advanced Directives, are legal documents accepted in all 50 states. They clearly define a person’s wish to decline life-support or medical treatment in certain circumstances, usually when death is imminent. Generally, a living will takes effect when a person becomes terminally ill, permanently unconscious or conscious with irreversible brain damage. A living will also allows a person to state with particularity the forms of treatment are wanted and not wanted. For example, if a one does not want artificial life support, then sign the living will stating that desire. It is also important to discuss your beliefs and wishes with you family, spouse and other people whose opinions you respect, such as clergy, physicians, attorney or an accountant. Living wills are recognized in every state, but each state has different requirements. If someone is interested in making a living will, contact an expert in the state that you live in, such as a hospital, local agency on aging or local bar association. To help ensure that the living will be honored, give copies to family members, physicians, lawyer and other involved in caring for the person’s welfare. Federal law now requires most health care facilities (hospitals, nursing homes, HMOs and home health agencies) to ask patients if they have a living will or would like to complete one. Can Medical Care Legally Be Stopped If There Is NO Living Will? When there is no written document, a spouse or close family member may still request that treatment be withheld if the patient cannot do so, but the request could be denied. The way states and health care providers handle such cases varies widely. Typically, a doctor or hospital representative will meet with a person’s family to discuss what that person’s wishes were. In some cases a health care facility may want to withhold or provide life support against a family’s wishes. In some cases a formal hearing may be held to determine how to proceed. How To Make A Living Will The rules for preparing a living will vary from state. Some states require that the document be signed with the same formalities required for execution of a will, but many state recognize the effectiveness of more informal declarations. Generally a living will:

Should Be in Writing.

Should Be Signed and Dated.

Should Be Signed Voluntarily

Should State Specific Treatments It is evidence of the patient’s wish, and it is the patient’s wish that

Constitutions Abroad

2001-04-21T14:00:00-04:00

The Constitution of the United States of America is unique in many ways. It is also has various similar qualities from the constitutions of other countries around the world. The constitutions of Switzerland, Poland, and Germany have commonalties with that of the United States’ constitution because they all talk about freedom and personal liberty, use the separation of powers as an effective way to run the government, and the elections process. Article 2 of the Swiss Constitution states that, “The Swiss Confederation protects the liberty and rights of the people and safeguards the independence and security of the country.” This article is very similar to that of the First Amendment of the United States’ Constitution. This amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Freedom and basic personal liberties such as these are widely exercised in many worldly constitutions. However, this is not the only shared characteristic that the U.S. Constitution shares with those of the rest of the world. Other countries such as Poland have the effective system of the separation of powers working with them, as does the United States. We all know that the separation of powers was established so that no one specific group in the government would be able to dominate our country. This concept is very much like Poland’s way of keeping the power out of one single unit. Article 10 of the Polish Constitution states: The system of government of the Republic of Poland shall be based on the separation of and balance between the legislative, executive and judicial powers. Legislative power shall be vested in the House of Representatives and the Senate, executive power shall be vested in the President of the Republic of Poland and the Council of Ministers, and the judicial power shall be vested in courts and tribunals. Because more than one country uses this method and has been successful for quite some time, it is safe to say that this particular way of running the government is fair and effective. Other effective measures have been taken by the U.S. to ensure a smoothly operated government. Much like the Constitution of the United States, the German constitution holds the law of fair, free, and secret elections.

The Australian Constitution and the Use of Convention

2001-03-16T13:00:00-04:00

The Constitution of Australia is a written document, which came into effect when the six colonies federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. It consists of eight chapters and 128 sections and lays down a set of laws or restraints by which the Federal Government must operate. It establishes the composition, procedures, functions, and powers of government, government authorities, such as the Governor General and other essential institutions. The Constitution is the basic framework for a civilised and well-governed Australia. However in the recent past, reason for parliamentary and federal concern has been thrust into the limelight. In addition, there has been a growing need for judicial interpretation and the ever-present reliance on convention. The Australian Constitution has several primary features. Such aspects include the preamble and covering clauses; Chapter one which establishes the Federal Parliament and the respective roles of each house; the Federal Executive Council and provisions for the Governor General are outlined in Chapter 2; Chapter 3 covers the Judiciary and establishes the role of the High Court; in Chapters 4 through 7 other issues of the constitution are founded, particularly those pertaining to the economy; and Constitutional change in outlined in Chapter 8. The preamble is an introductory statement that outlines the sources of authority and the mission, objectives and scope of the constitution. Chapter one states that Federal parliament shall consist of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives (sect 1). The Senate is designed to act as a States house, while the House of Representatives performs as the Peoples House. Exclusive and residual powers are fore grounded and the procedure for overcoming conflict between the two houses is also outlined. Chapter 2 focuses primarily on the Federal Executive wing of government and the Governor General. Executive power is vested in the Governor General as the Head of State; there is no mention of the executive role of the Prime Minister. The composition and procedures of the Federal Executive Council are founded in this chapter also. The Judiciary are the chief concern of Chapter 3. In this the role and foundation of the High Court is inaugurated, as well as issues surrounding appeals to the Privy Council, dealt with. Chapters 4 through 7 are written in regard to the Australian economy and trading, preservation of the states and conditions by which a new state may be started. Chapter 8, the final chapter,

How a Bill becomes a Law

2001-03-02T13:00:00-05:00

The road a bill takes to becoming a law is a long and tedious process. First, the proposed bill goes through the House of representatives. Once the bill has been approved by the House, it is then begins its journey through the Senate. After the bill has been endorsed by the Senate, the houses of congress then meet in conference committees to prepare the bill to be sent to the White House. To summarize, the path the bill takes to become a law is a fairly complex impediment. Now to begin, the bill must primarily go through the obstacles of the House. First, a sponsor introduces the bill by giving it to the clerk of the House or placing the bill in a box called the “hopper”. The clerk numbers and gives a title to the bill and is then entered in the House journal and in the Congressional Record in a procedure called the first reading. Immediately following the first reading, the Speaker of the house assigns the bill to a certain committee. The House has about twenty standing or permanent committees of which each has jurisdiction over bills in a specific area. The committee then studies the bill by hearing the testimony of experts or other interested people. In some cases, a subcommittee (140 in the House) conducts the study. The committee may revise and release the bill by reporting it out, or lay it aside so that the house cannot vote on it by tabling. Because the standing committee only chooses what they think is worthwhile, most bills die in committee, this is called “pigeon-holed”. Before the bill goes to the floor for consideration, a bill reported by a standing committee is placed on one of five specific calendars: union calendar, house calendar for public bills, private calendar, consent calendar (no opposition), or a discharge calendar. The Rules Committee may call for quick action on the bill, limit debate, and limit or prohibit amendments. otherwise, a bill might never reach the house floor. The consideration of the house begins with the second reading of the bill. The third reading by title only, comes after any amendments have been added. If the bill passes a simple majority of only one more then half the votes, it goes to the Senate. This stage of how a bill becomes a law is very fair in the fact that there are limitations

The Four Fundamental Freedoms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada

2001-02-07T13:00:00-05:00

Ignorance, pride, hatred and a disregard for the wellbeing of others in society. These are the seeds allowing the roots of activities promoting racial discrimination to sprout. Out of that, comes the growth of a fearful social epidemic, in which uneducated persons put their destructive thoughts and viewpoints into action. These criminal activities have been dubbed “Hate Crimes” and have plagues society as far back as one can remember. Hate Crimes, in varying degrees, can consist of something as minute as a derogatory comment, to something as serious as an act of murder. The common thread is that the offence was committed because of the victim’s ethnicity or race. Hate Crimes violate the human rights of society, and rob minorities of the dignity and respect they deserve. Everyone is entitled to live free from discrimination and harassment. However, this entitlement is infringed upon when Hate Crimes are committed. (Mandel, 11) The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a controversial approach to protecting the rights of citizens. Section 2 outlines the fundamental rights and freedoms of all peoples in society, in an attempt to ensure the protection of all civil liberties. However, in many cases, these freedoms can act as loopholes, clearing offenders of the hate crimes they continue to commit, posing a threat to the livelihood of minority communities in Canada. (Dickinson,146) 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. The freedoms, as stated above serve as a controversial ‘gray area’, in which Section 2 of the Charter can be manipulated and ‘bent’ to serve as both offence and defense in the judicial reasoning of crimes based on racial prejudice. Freedom of Association and Freedom of Assembly are two closely related rights. Both liberties, provided by Section 2 of the Charter, “protect the freedom of individuals to join together to form a union” and the right to gather together for the purpose of lobbying peacefully, in the hopes of reaching a common goal (Coombs, 27). In British Columbia’s past, Nazi Fundamentalist groups have attempted to gather publicly and demonstrate against ethnic integration, and spout their views on how the White (Aryan) race is superior to all other minorities. Much of this activity is not tolerated by authorities because “the good of the many outweighs

Petty Lawsuits

2000-11-15T13:00:00-05:00

Are we Sueing for a Purpose? People today are not sueing to rectify matters. There is no purpose in lawsuits today. I believe everyone is out to get an easy buck through the judicial system. It is almost inevitable if people spill hot coffee on themselves that they will win a lawsuit against the company that served them that coffee. People believe that nothing is their fault and that someone (the defendant) should pay. The problem with the judicial system today is that people are sueing all the time and winning in court with ridiculous cases. Take this case in North Carolina for instance. A Dallas couple is sueing Kmart for $23 million dollars because some Kmart employees harassed and accused the Dallas couple of going through their garbage. The employees were fired and the Dallas couple sued for $23 million. Fortunately the couple didn’t receive all that money, there is a state law capping punitive damages which forced the judge to reduce it to $250 thousand dollars. The plaintiffs feel that they have been mistreated and that Kmart should reconcile with them by paying them off. The couple states at the end of court that “they believe us. That the most important thing, they believe us.” Obviously that is not the most important thing to them for they are trying to appeal the state law which caps their $23 million. And if that’s not greedy enough, the week before the jury awarded them $18,985 in compensatory damages. So the couple was awarded $268,985 for being accused over something as petty as going through a stores trash. Anyone can differentiate one fraudulent case from another. I understand that the Dallas couple is trying to clear their name from shame. But trying to appeal the already huge sum of money and going for more shows just how greedy these people really are. They got what they wanted, for the people to believe them. Everyone believes them now, and on top of that, they were awarded a nice some of money. There are people out there who really do deserve some kind of compensation for negligence, harassment, or anything else that might have gone wrong. For example, a Gastonia man who already has enough appeal to pity has yet another problem to deal with. He is a paraplegic who awoke to find a rat eating at his leg to the bone. Due to

Law: Gideon vs Wainright

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

The framers formed this country with one sole document, the Constitution, which they wrote with great wisdom and foresight. This bountiful wisdom arose from the unjust treatment of King George to which the colonists were subject. Among these violations of the colonists' rights were inequitable trials that made a mockery of justice. As a result, a fair trial of the accused was a right given to the citizens along with other equities that the framers instilled in every other facet of this country's government. These assurances of the citizens' rights stated in the bill of rights. In the Sixth Amendment, it is stated that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." A first reading of this phrase one might be think that this right, that which gives a person accused of a crime to have lawyers for his defense, is common knowledge being that it is among the most basic rights given to the citizenry of the public. However, the simple manner in which this amendment is phrased creates a "gray area", and subject to interpretation under different circumstances. The legitimacy of the right to mount a legal defense is further obscured by the Fourteenth Amendment which states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." As a result, many questions begin to arise which seek to determine the true right of the accused to the assistance of counsel. Should legal counsel be provided by the government if the accused lacks the funds to assemble a counsel for his defense? Or, on the other hand, does this amendment set the responsibility of assembling a defensive counsel on the accused even if he or she lacks the funds to do so? Also, do the states have the right to make their own legislation regarding the right of the indigent accused to have counsel appointed to them in the state trials, or does the Fourteenth Amendment prevent this? The Supreme Court was faced with answering these questions in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. In June of 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon, a fifty year old petty thief, drifter, and gambler who had spent much of his life in and out of jail was arrested in Panama City Florida. He was charged with breaking into a poolroom one night

The Anti-Trust Case Against Microsoft

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

Since 1990, a battle has raged in United States courts between the United States government and the Microsoft Corporation out of Redmond, Washington, headed by Bill Gates. What is at stake is money. The federal government maintains that Microsoft's monopolistic practices are harmful to United States citizens, creating higher prices and potentially downgrading software quality, and should therefore be stopped, while Microsoft and its supporters claim that they are not breaking any laws, and are just doing good business. Microsoft's antitrust problems began for them in the early months of 1990(Check 1), when the Federal Trade Commission began investigating them for possible violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts,(Maldoom 1) which are designed to stop the formation of monopolies. The investigation continued on for the next three years without resolve, until Novell, maker of DR-DOS, a competitor of Microsoft's MS-DOS, filed a complaint with the Competition Directorate of the European Commission in June of 1993.(Maldoom 1) Doing this stalled the investigations even more, until finally in August of 1993, (Check 1)the Federal Trade Commission decided to hand the case over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice moved quickly, with Anne K. Bingaman, head of the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, leading the way.(Check 1) The case was finally ended on July 15, 1994, with Microsoft signing a consent settlement.(Check 1) The settlement focused on Microsoft's selling practices with computer manufacturers. Up until now, Microsoft would sell MS-DOS and Microsoft's other operating systems to original equipment manufacturers (OEM's) at a 60% discount if that OEM agreed to pay a royalty to Microsoft for every single computer that they sold (Check 2) regardless if it had a Microsoft operating system installed on it or not. After the settlement, Microsoft would be forced to sell their operating systems according to the number of computers shipped with a Microsoft operating system installed, and not for computers that ran other operating systems. (Check 2) Another practice that the Justice Department accused Microsoft of was that Microsoft would specify a minimum number of minimum number of operating systems that the retailer had to buy, thus eliminating any chance for another operating system vendor to get their system installed until the retailer had installed all of the Microsoft operating systems that it had installed.(Maldoom 2) In addition to specifying a minimum number of operating systems that a vendor had to buy, Microsoft also would sign contracts with