An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
Likening such statements to fraud, defamation, or lies to government agencies, all of which can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment, the dissenters argued that the government should have a free hand to prosecute those who lie about having earned military honors. The dissenters recognized that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech, but argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because the subject matter of the lies does not relate to any protected
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
Therefore, the general will of the people requires that laws be amended to reflect morality and justice. Only through civil disobedience can this be achieved; blindly obeying unjust laws will only enforce unjustified public opinion. Although some argue that the general will of the people can be accurately portrayed by a government entity without
was against the traditional views and unjust laws, which discriminated against him and his fellow people. He felt that the only way that these unjust laws and traditional beliefs would ever change would be by protestesting. He also felt that without protest the laws and traditions would remain the same forever. Along with encouraging protest, King's letter was also a justification of his actions. By taking the time to answer his critics (or persecutors, as he is in prison) with patience, logic and intelligence, as opposed to retaliating, King was also able to justify his actions.
When a law does not seek to understand the circumstances, it is difficult to ascertain if a person is guilty of breaking the law. By flexibility one must not misunderstand that laws enforced will be subject to change depending on who the individual is, rather it will remain same for everyone. But the nature might undergo change subject to the right understanding as to why the law has been over ruled and if the reasoning is a plausible one, to be forgiven. By flexibility, one must not misunderstand that the enforcement of laws will be subject to change depending on who the individual is. The laws will rather remain the same for everyone but the
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
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.