LECTURE 1 ON ARGUMENTS BY Jonathan Lang Most people think of arguments as heated debates wherein parties to the argument get highly emotional, even riled up to the point of coming to physical if not verbal abuse. In philosophy we pride ourselves on being cool and rational. What does this mean? And how can we think of arguments so they become less abstract or ethereal and more down to earth and accessible as logical reasoning in the defense of a perspective, position or idea? A convenient way to conceive of philosophical arguments is to envision the arrangement of a Criminal or Civil Court.
The tutorial discussion this week was essentially discussing how the system operates and some of the flaws within the system such as false convictions which come about through human error or in extreme cases racial bias (Alberto F. Alesina, Eliana La Ferrara, 2011). There was also discussion about the members of the jury and if they are qualified or competent to decide he guilt or innocence of an individual based on their opinions and perceptions of the trial. My view on the criminal justice system is that overall the system is adequately effective in terms of providing a fair trial for the accused and well suited to punish individuals based on viable evidence and the judgment of experienced judges and magistrates. These issues reflect the interests of the JSB173 unit because the unit focuses on a fair trial through either the
Each side presents their case. Each side will also attempt to discredit their opponent’s evidence. The judge or jurors in the case will then decide the outcome of the case. In this process, tradition says the truth will be found through this process. ("Federal Judicial Center", n.d.) The Dual Court System In 1789, the United States Constitution required the formation of the Federal court system.
In ‘The Concept of the Political’ we are informed by the very first sentence ‘the concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political’, his decision to firstly note the importance of defining the political can be linked to his legal training, having dealt with lawyers. For Schmitt the state defines the political, and the political is defined by his distinction of friend and enemy. This antagonism between friend and enemy is uses to suggest the impossibility of perpetual peace, and political actions can be distinguished via this antagonism. The enemy is not ones moral enemy, the enemy is ‘the other’. Important for Schmitt’s, is that one understands that today’s enemy could be tomorrows friend, thus there is no internal enemy.
tion Prosecutor vs Defense Counsel Tammie Matthews CJS 220 September 7, 2012 Thomas Lawrence Prosecutor vs Defense Counsel The Prosecutor and the Defense counsel play very different roles in the courtroom but both roles are vital in the outcome of the accused on trial. They both are responsible to display their legal skills and are responsible for using these skills to protect, defend, and uphold justice. The contrast is that these attorneys manage their responsibilities from very different perspectives (The Writers Office Online, 2012). The Prosecutor seeks justice above the importance of obtaining convictions. They are required to balance the interest of the community against the interest of defendants
The Differences between a Civil and Criminal Case Have you ever noticed that there are more criminal cases being mentioned on the news as opposed to civil ones? Or know that there is even a difference between the two? It is a common misconception that civil and criminal cases are one of the same. In our legal system they are two completely different cases, civil and criminal. A civil case is when the plaintiff decides to sue another person, organization, or a business, the individual being sued is also called the defendant.
How can he help it?” Judges in the UK do develop the law through both the operation of the doctrine of judicial precedent and statutory interpretation. In precedent, judges were thought to not make new law. However, it is now recognised that they do use precedent to create new law or extent old principles in various areas. In criminal law, judges have played a major role in developing the law on intention (Vickers 1957 – intention for murder includes intention to cause GBH, later was confirmed in Cunningham 1982; or Moloney 1985, Nedrick 1986 and Woolin 1998 and the law on foresight of consequences in relation with intention). Judicial decisions have also effectively created new crime as in Shaw v. DPP (1962) – offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, or R v. R (1991) – rape within marriage is a crime.
[2] Indeed, this seemingly plainly written text is much more than just a narrative piece of work due to its inherent influence at the sentencing stage. There exists an inherent tension between the two schools of thoughts: one view among the legal academy is that such statements are no more than some maneuver to elongate criminals’ sentences or even encourage votes for death penalty in some extreme cases by evoking unnecessary emotionalism, while some argue that they undeniably convey essential information to sentencing judges and possess other advantageous effects. A literary analysis of a victim impact statement thus becomes essential – exploring the camouflaged narrative techniques as employed to explain their role in court. In this essay, I shall discuss the narrative dimension of victim impact statements in light of Booth v Maryland, followed by an analysis of whether the court should admit such statements in the sentencing phase of cases. II.
Both the person accused of the crime and the accuser would give speeches based on their sides of the story. The individual with the best argument and delivery would determine the outcome of the case. This origin is the source of the two modern usages of the word forensic – as a form of legal evidence and as a category of public presentation. In modern use, the term "forensics" in the place of "forensic science" can be considered correct as the term "forensic" is effectively a synonym for "legal" or "related to courts". However the term is now so closely associated with the scientific field that many dictionaries include the meaning that equates the word "forensics" with "forensic science".
The media cannot be allowed freedom of speech and expression to an extent as to prejudice the trial itself. The print and electronic media have gone into fierce and ruthless competition, as we call them ‘aggressive journalism’. The problem does not lie in media’s exposing the lacuna of a bad investigation by police, or mal-performance of the duties ordained to the civil servants but the eye-brows start to raise when the media ultra-vires its legitimate jurisdiction and does what it must not do. The media trial has now moved on to media verdict and media punishment which is no doubt an illegitimate use