The idea of legal paternalism in ethical reasoning is somewhat of a kind gesture from the Government to try to help individuals from themselves in the assumption that those individuals do not know what is best for them. But, forcing individuals to paternalistic laws in order to protect them is limiting their natural born rights and is unconstitutional. The Government must respect people's choices because respecting individuals choices manifest a respect for them as liberated individuals protected by the constitution of the United States. Government should not interfere with people's personal lives; because
However, there are a number of exceptions where, if it is your duty to act, an omission can make you guilty, the justification of this is for public protection, especially protecting vulnerable people. The question is, is the balance between public protection and interference in the law correct? In other countries, there is such thing as the ‘Good Samaritan’ law, this means that if you were to see a stranger in trouble, for example drowning, it would be your obligation to try and help them, England does not have this law. This law could give more public protection as people would be more conscience of their morals and more people would be saved. However, the ‘Good Samaritan’ law does not follow the legal principle, the state provides well-paid professionals to help people in need, if untrained people are attempting to help, then they could put the victim in more danger, if more harm does come to the victim then many people could be held liable, therefore, as well as protecting the public, this law could also cause more harm.
Alexander Hamilton thought that the judiciary review was the important factor of the checks and balance system and necessary citadel for protecting the public justice. He thinks the general liberty is the most important thing when considering the constitutional framework. Hamilton disagrees with the legislative branch exceeding its power as despotism but accepts the power of jurisdiction as a way to protect people, which is the more important. However, for Chief Justice Marshall, the judicial review was not a way to protect the people. It was a tool for political movements and to gain authority of the judicial branch.
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
Criminal Law Foundations Evaluation If laws were not in place, individuals could not hold onto their individual properties. Social life would be impossible without laws to help control the way people behave, think and treat each other while in public and private locations. Criminal laws were designed to reflect the accepted behavior in a community, such as morals and the criminal act itself, or Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Thus when people break the law and are caught, the accused are provided certain constitutional rights. Criminal law consists of bodies of regulations and rules that will specify and define the punishments for the wrong committed against society or the state.
This requires specific intention, which shows that the D must have been culpable voluntarily. Regarding its role in civil law, it is essential to prove fault in some areas, but not in others. For example proving fault is crucial for a successful claim in negligence. Here, fault is tested in breach, which states that D is at fault if they do not act like the ordinary, sensible individual. For example, the defendant in Paris V Stepney BC was at fault by failing to provide protective goggles when the ordinary, prudent employer would have.
Instead of trying to lie and cover up his unethical actions, I am choosing to do what is ethically correct according to my profession and deontological ethics. Although I could not fully control his actions, I do have full control over what I choose to do. Deontological ethics states that it is wrong to brake the law to try and accuse an individual of a crime that they might not have caused in the first place. Juveniles have many rights under the law. As protectors of that law it is our duty to respect those rights and follow the rules set forth before
The primary mission of the due process model is to protect innocent people from wrongful conviction. It is doubtful that many would argue against the fact that we must engage in significant efforts to protect those who may be falsely accused. However, many argue that while the due process model focuses upon the rights of the accused it ignores the rights of victims. due process model does not limit itself to the Fourth Amendment. The police must also consider the individual rights of the accused in respect to many of the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
We are responsible for noticing and monitoring our own emotions. Right to make sure that opportunities for lawsuits are minimized. (Incorrect) Because the legal process can be both properly used as well as abused, operating from a place of protection is not useful. We cannot guarantee what people will or will not do. Right to expect that processes will be followed.
To have total non-interference, regardless of religious beliefs would lead to wide spread acts of crime and cruelty. This theory is known as the J.S Mills “Harm Principle”. Mills, an English philosopher developed this principle to merge freedoms that were wanted by individuals but would also lead to the betterment of society. He believed that intervention was only necessary if the exercise of negative liberty caused harm to