Whether Charles meant to do what parliament had claimed he had done is another story that shall be explained in the course of this essay. From 1629 until 1640 Charles ruled without parliaments input. It is unclear whether he planned on ruling on his own for the rest of his life, but what we do know is that Charles forbade anyone to mention the recalling of parliament, he raised taxes without any sort of consent using methods that were questionable on the legal side of things, imposed a ‘thorough’ government on Ireland, attacked puritanism, silenced critics, gained loyal subjects through propaganda, distanced himself from the people, caused a war against Scotland through arrogant and short-sighted decisions and generally violated his people’s rights and the laws of England. In this essay, I shall debate whether Charles really was trying to be absolutist or not and express my views on each side of the argument. The root of the problem may lie with the fact that Charles was very out of touch with his people.
Richard’s reign was successful in 1483-1485 as he had a stable reign only calling parliament once, he was able to keep law and order in the south. He also kept control of finances and money quite well and got rid of taxes introduced by Edward IV and rebuilt key historical buildings. However he was unsuccessful due to the fact people and nobles supported Henry Tudor who had the strongest claim since 1470, he neglected people and their personal grievances and instead spent money on an expensive war. This made him unpopular and meant there was a potential for a rebellion. Richard’s reign was successful in some ways as he only called parliament once.
Second, Creon abused his power by thinking that he can change or break the laws of the Gods and not allowing other people to break his laws. He did not want to burry Polyneices' body because he believe a traitor who fought against his home land doesn’t deserve the sane burial as a son who died defending his homeland , but one of the God's laws is that every
The Five Knights’ case judgement, however, was not a general right for Charles to imprison without showing good reason but only in that particular case. It became known however that Charles had allowed one of his leading legal officers, his attorney general health, to falsify the legal records in the five Knight’s Case judgement to state that the King had a general right to imprison people without the need to show good reason. In theory, with this judgement, Charles could arrest anyone without indicating any reasons and not need to put them on trial. Any critic of the King, let alone opponent, would therefore be in very real danger of disappearing into the Tower of London simply when Charles felt like it. In response to this, MPs were united in demanding action to prevent anything like it happening again.
I myself lean more anti-authoritarian but when it comes to inhumane acts; I believe balance must be put in effect. This does not discard however, the due process violation the punishment undergoes thanks to the Fourth Amendment; meaning equal treatment of genders. From a very powerful Polish political incumbents perspective however, human rights is the last thing they should be entitled to. Poland who also became the 1st country to make chemical castration forced for certain offenders in 2010 according to the Economist. In the article “No Sympathy” was a quote by Prime Minister David Tusk stated two years before as he replied to a human rights group as said “I do not believe that we can call these individuals -- these creatures -- human beings," he added.
After the case was reviewed, The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the police couldn’t use the confession because they had failed to inform Miranda of his rights to consul and against self-incrimination. This case really changed the Criminal Justice system because it keeps people from being able to abuse the system. Also people don’t always know all of the laws, so having counsel present is very important, having an attorney keep people from self-incrimination because the lawyers can tell them when to stop talking about whatever they may have been involved in. An attorney is very important in cases like these where people who have no educational back ground and aren’t mentally stable have someone to represent them. In the Law & Order: SVU case, the boy was 17, and although he waived his right to being questioned
The British system is too complex and harmful, and that the monarchy is granted far too much power. The British system pretends to offer a reasonable system of checks and balances, but in fact, it does not. Then we argue in general, the works of monarchy and hereditary succession. People are born into a state of equality, and the distinction between king and subject is not natural. The world was created without kings, but ancient Jews decided they wanted a king.
Can these events be seen as honourable and great, even though revolutionary refers to a forcible overthrow of a government or social order? Some historians could suggest that, in fact, these events were not glorious or revolutionary, when James II left England no one really knew whether he had denounced the throne and therefore whether he was still king or not. This does not really support the view that this period of history was honourable and subsequently glorious. This is reinforced by the fact once William had arrived in London he had to summon an advisor council on the 18th December and then a Convention Parliament in January 1689, to help decide who should reign and whether James was still King or not. This is also supports the idea that it was not revolutionary because William did not immediately assume Kingship, and instead called an assembly and a Parliament to sort out lawfully who should be King or not.
Another cause of process loss seen in the movie was the failure to share relevant information. For the opening stage of deliberations Mr. Davis says nothing of the doubts and theories he has on why the boy is innocent; the other jurors share the information that leads them to believe he is guilty and all come to the conclusion that he should be convicted. A very important aspect of group interactions closely related to process loss is groupthink. It is actually a cause of process loss where the cohesiveness of the group becomes more important to its members than actually considering the facts. This is incredibly applicable to the characters in the film because the very conditions that lead to groupthink are those that characterize a jury; the group must be cohesive,
The quote by Martin Luther King “…freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” is saying that a ruler will not willing give freedoms to those he is oppressing, unless a large enough disturbance is caused throughout his victims. I find this quote compelling because it not only was true during the time Martin Luther and his companions were facing, but still have meaning today. Martin Luther King uses two main topics that stood out to me in his explanation of the oppressors, over the oppressed; the fact that the people who are not being victimized do not notice anything else around them, making them voiceless, and concern free for the torment surrounding their neighbor, and secondly, the fact that