Assignment 10

Women should not be treated badly for exposing their breasts like assuming they are crazy or treated in a brutal or bad manner. I do not agree with this law, I agree with the fact about being completely comfortable with your body, but it is not comfortable for others to witness. If women are able to walk around topless then younger kid and teenagers can see that and it makes it uncomfortable for parents to explain or even witness it together. Such as you are with you family at a park and someone women are sunbathing topless this creates a very awkward situation. They might me comfortable with their bodies but others might find it vulgar or disturbing. Not only that but it can also be harmful to women if they able to walk around topless, it might arouse a sick person and they can hurt them or take advantage of them. Mill would not agree to this law, he believes in freedom but as long as it does not hurt others. By being topless it is hurting others by making it uncomfortable for kids and families. But women should not be treated badly for exposing themselves like they are animals. 

assignment # 9

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

Mill’s idea of a government consists that the interest of the people should be the interest of the nation; this was his theory of a democracy. In a democracy decisions are made on a majority vote, where the higher percentage of party will win. But this does not fulfill everyone’s opinion on what seek out of the government. Than the majority party makes decisions for everyone including the ones who were opposing them. Mill does not agree with that, he believes that if the majority wins then it should not mean that their opinions penetrates the one and only form of conduct. He thinks that the majority might have voted but there should be an opposing vote.

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?

Every law has a "justification" behind it, but don't think that means it is rational. I agree with Mill that not all laws are justified, because laws favors one party while taking away from the other. Not everyone is always satisfied with the laws made.  Laws are simply a government's attempt to enforce a moral code. Just as each person has their own moral code, so do each government and its culture. Nazi Germany had "laws" that they provided "justification" for, but now an insignificant minority of Germans shares those beliefs, and so the law has changed drastically.

I think the driving age in should be 18 and over not 16 and over. Because I believe 16 is to young to comprehend safe driving, at that age teenagers are irresponsible and not adults.

3.     How does Mill justify the freedom of expression?

Mill believes that we are entitled to our own freedom as long as we do not harm others.

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?

Yes I believe that Freedom of expression should be unlimited as long as they do not harm others. Such as freedom of press, when It comes to the truth everyone should

be able to enter where they please but not into people’s personal attributes or private properties. More political related freedom to educate the people even more and not hide the truth.

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?

I think this is unfair, because if minority religious groups are entitled to have religious freedom so should “mainstream” religious groups. Everyone should be allowed to the same benefits when it comes to freedom of religion.

Assignment 8 part 1&2

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

King believes that segregation laws are unjust because they degrades people of a certain race and color. Segregation laws are morally wrong and give one rights to mistreat them because of their skin color. It makes a particular race into a subject of a hate crime. This will give people legal rights to abuse a certain types of people, where it is also morally wrong. The outcomes will just be worse by making this into a law.

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

According to King disobeying laws is just when you are breaking unjust laws. And for him breaking the law is for the equality for all people. He defines law and the different categories of laws and then the difference between just and unjust. He says that an unjust law definition is that any law that degrades human personality. He believes that we should disobey unjust laws because it is going against ones of different color; race and such, all laws should be equal to all people.

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

Aquinas believes that a law is nothing else than an ordinance of reason for common good. Laws can be unjust in two ways according to Aquinas one is by “being contrary to human good”(Aquinas) such as acts of violence rather than laws. And laws maybe unjust “through being opposed to the divine good”(Aquinas). 

4. How would a Legal Positivist judge segregation laws?

A legal Positivist would not oppose segregation laws, because it is a written decision made by the government. They would considered it and since it’s a law they would want everyone to follow it.

Part # 2

Yes the fact King wound up in jail proved that unjust law however remains laws. You can disagree on something whether it is just or unjust, unless it is legally subjected to change it is still considered a law. This goes against what  Augustine  stated because even though King considered this law unjust the fact he ended up in jail for breaking the law because until proven otherwise it was still a law. 

Assignment # 7 Part 1 & 2

Part I

Jackson was the prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trail and was in support of the charter of London. Jackson believed that if war making itself could abolish, that would assuredly be the greatest honor man to pay human race. Jackson stated tat to initiate a war of aggression it not only an international crime but also it is a supreme international crime. He believed that the law must advance to meet the needs of a changing society. He believes that the Nazi soldiers are living representations of terrorism, hatred, violence, arrogance and cruelty of power. He stated that it is our jobs, humanly as possible to draw the line between the demands for just measured retribution. He supports the charter because he believes that the acts of the Nazi soldiers cannot be justify, it was morally and ethically wrong.

Wyzanski in his statement did not justify the acts and actions of the Nazi soldiers, but he justified their acts as part of their job. The reason he is against the Charter of London is because he believed that the soldiers were doing as they were told by their leaders, and were just following orders. What they did was wrong and was not right but they cannot be blamed for doing their jobs.

Part II

I agree with the sentence that Charles is receiving. He stated that he did not know that it was unlawful at that time, which is not a reasonable statement to defend him. Humiliating others and doing such disgracing acts just because a superior said so does not justify his acts. Something can be recognized lawful or unlawful, how could he think that was lawful at all? I understand that he did not want to go against his superiors but he should have stood up for what is right or wrong. Being in the Army are respectful jobs where you have to protect others not humiliating them. He should have known better, and his acts cannot be justified. 

Assignment # 6

What is the difference between criminal law and tort law?
The difference between criminal law and tort law is that, a tort law is to amends a wrong done to a person, usually by awarding them financial costs as compensation. Criminal laws prohibits certain actions and execute prison sentences, fine, probation and such depending on the violation that the have committed. When it comes to tort laws individuals that been harmed by action, are the ones who file the charges and in criminal laws only the government can bring such charges depending on the crimes committed.

What are the conditions for strict liability and negligence?
Strict liability is a tort law perception that executes liability for harm suffered without requiring proof of negligence. Strict liability is the legal responsibility for damages and injuries even if the person found strictly accountable was not at fault or negligent. Negligence is involved when harms caused by carelessness.

What does it mean that an event A caused another event B? Give an example
This means that one event could lead to a another event such as if I am getting late for class and I want to make it on time I will take another route. But not knowing that the new route put be behind schedule more than my regular route. So this one event caused another event to occur.

What is legal causation? Give an example.
Legal causation requires that the harm must result from a guilty act. Example would be that a truck is traveling more than the speeding limit but after a wile it slows down and carry on with the legal speeding limit. But while the truck is traveling it hit the car in front. Even though the cause of the accident was not because of the truck speeding but it could have been avoided if the truck was not speeding because it would have not came this far into the road where it meet in the accident with the car.

What were the reasons for the court's decision in Lynch vs. Fisher? Do you agree - why or why not?
Fisher was at fault for the crimes that he had committed. The court decision was that Fisher was liable for Lynch’s injuries. It was fisher’s fault for stopping the truck on the highway, which led to Lynch’s injuries and that, is why I agree with the court’s decisions.

What were the reasons for the court's decision in Palsgraff vs. LIRR? Do you agree - why or why not?
The court decision was that the LIRR were not responsible for the injuries of Palsgraff, which were not physical. I agree with this because the this was not on purpose, the employees of the LIRR were trying to help a passenger, which is their job, not knowing that the passenger’s package contained fireworks. The injuries that Palsgraff faced were not physical so the court decision was right.

Against Clemency

Stanley Tookie Williamas showed a who was the leader of the gang "crips" showed a change in character while servering his sentence. He was sentences to be excecuted and while in jail he did many nobel cause, which included becoming an anti-gang activist as well as writing children books.

But by changing himself, he did not change the past, or the lives that were runined while he ruled the gang. What about the lives that were taken, how can he change that. He is changing himself which is a good thing but what about the families that were laready distroyed by his sinful actions. As well as the people that are part of the gang that he started, how can he change that.

Wendigo

My client who is a Native American in Northern Canada is charged with manslaughter. Yes my client has fired but in his defense he was trying to protect him and others. The tribe that my client is from, they believe in an evil spirit call “wendigo” who is supposed to eat humans. Based on his belief he took that man for this evil creature and in his defense and for his safety and the safety of other he fired at him. My client not knowing mistook the man for this creature causing him to react this way. My client shouldn’t be charged with manslaughter because he didn’t mean to harm an innocent but he had meant to protect him and other from this evil spirit who he believed to eat humans. At that moment those thought arose in his mind and being horrified of the outcome that the evil spirit may have cause he took matters into his own hands. Not knowing that he had mad a mistake.