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.