After much deliberation ultimately the Supreme Court unanimously voted 9-0 that euthanasia in fact did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Although patients are able to refuse lifesaving treatment, the Court held that there is a clear difference between treatment refusal and criminal intent and that the states have the authority to determine the constitutionality of physician assisted suicide, not the federal government. Physician assisted suicide is when a doctor or a trained medical professional assists, in the form of “information, guidance”, or action, someone to kill themselves (National Right to Life Association). Many terminally ill patients rely on doctors when suffering has reached their limit, cognizant of their powerful drugs and medication that will make dying easier. The main constitutional issue within Vacco v. Quill involves the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, which states that no state can deny any persons “equal protection of the laws”.
→Court said examiner does not act as counsel, but as fact-finder. →Court says P has due process rights; didn’t USE subpoena power to cross examine witness. **Lesson is due process is really only about opportunity to participate. →Differed from Wong case because it was NOT an adversarial proceeding; fact finding body not dealing with adversarial claims, so examiner roles were not in conflict. →**take home: If you want to make a due process claim, need to make the argument that it is an adversarial proceeding wherein prosecutorial and judicial roles are being conflated.
Analysis and Application: Legal Rights Afforded to the Accused By Kimberly Fleetwood CJ227: Criminal Procedure January 31, 2012 The police were not required to take any procedural steps even though John had made incriminating statements. If they had made the decision to question him on what he was saying, then they would have been obligated to read him his Miranda Rights. It would seem to me though that the police would not stop him to ask questions. The statements he was making would have surely been admissible in court. The only thing the officers needed to do was to take John’s statement down in their report.
When she if first encounters V, he is rescuing her from getting rapped and killed by police and he takes her to his home in the shadow gallery. There she recieves a sense of culture with V's variety of books, music, and paintings, things the government had abolished. Evey makes a statement saying, " IT'S UNBELIEVABLE! ALL OF THESE PAINTINGS AND BOOKS. I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WERE THINGS LIKE THIS" (moore, 18).
The line drawn between negligence and gross negligence is undefined and many times is left up to a jury to decide. Negligence can easily escalate to gross negligence if a health care professionals actions, or omission of an action, leads to a person’s death. The line between negligence and malpractice is defined and much easier to determine (Huxley-Binns, 2009). Negligence According to Guido (2010) negligence is a tort, a civil wrong, which is not a criminal offence. Most nurses will not have an issue with committing a negligent act as long as they stay within the confines of standard practices, recognized hospital guidelines, and protocols.
But there was no time to stop for water. She was in a hurry. She had broken into her ex-boyfriend Max’s apartment and he had been home the whole time. She hadn’t realized it given how stupid she was. The poor thing had to jump out the window and fall on the city dump.
The coaches, players and others then tried the legal route but ended up in court. The judge ruled that despite the lack of evidence that metal bats are more dangerous than wooden bats, the decision to ban them is nonetheless constitutionally sound. Again, the council really had no safety-related basis for banning metal bats as a result. Vecsey, George. "The Danger From Supporting Metal Bats."
Thomas More poised a strong opposition to the legal system in 16th Century England that was centred on capital punishment. More believed in laws of morality and fairness in the legal system. He expressed this opinion by promoting that the abundance of specific laws and regulations in the English legal system be replaced by “very few laws, because, with their social system, very few laws are required… its quite unjust for anyone to be bound by a legal code… too difficult for him to understand”. More also opposed the adversarial system of trail and legal representation in the court. His ethics suggested that “they have no barristers to be over ingenious… and think it better for each man to plead his own cause” in an inquisitorial system that is free from the manipulative nature of lawyers.
However, the decision only related to the government but not the army, such as the First Opium War between China and Britain, the reason for the beginning of the war only due to the interest concerned by the British’s government. As a result, all people are innocent and the torture cannot be justified in these cases. On the other hand, there are different situation in today’s life as we are protected from precision law. The self-defense statute helps us against the culpable aggressors and protects innocent defenders. As it states that torture is acceptable if someone makes imminent threat towards their life and there is no duty to retreat from aggressors before defending even there may have the opportunities to do so.
In English law you cannot commit murder on a foetus or a corpse because neither are considered as human beings. As Peter was alive and breathing this element does not present a problem. The killing must also be shown to have taken place within the Queen’s peace. This means that killing enemies during war is not criminal homicide. Again, this is not a concerning matter.