People would want their interests to be protected by law, through various sets of rules. In this case interests can be referred to as a person’s rights. Therefore the law is there to protect a person’s rights by imposing a corresponding duty on the other party so that they are bound in law not to interfere with those rights. Interests and rights are not always easy to define so inevitably, the interests of an individual and those of the majority may sometimes become conflicted. Rudolf von Jhering, a German jurist recognised law as a means of ordering society in a situation where there are many competing interests, not all economic.
Sharing with you today I hope gives you a better understanding of a court and its purpose, the dual court system, the role that early legal codes, the common law, and precedent played in the development of courts, and the role of courts in the criminal justice system today. Court and the Purpose A court is a function in the judicial system that is in place in case someone is accused of some wrongdoing to another person or something they have done illegally. It is in place to protect and interpret the laws of American society by keeping the peace. The American courts, individuals within the society, and a judge will be ones that make a decision as to whether someone has committed a crime or any other wrongdoing. They then will decide on what the punishment of an individual is, yet also as to how severe the punishment will be for the crime they have done.
Established laws are also implemented to safeguard citizens from harm, possible inequities and illegal behavior. Laws are also associated with a series of consequences for the individual and parties involved and on the flip side justice. Laws in essence make matters fair. Laws play an important role in maintaining and sustaining order in society and establish regulations in business. Although citizens must by law follow the law does not necessarily mean that the citizen’s belief system supports the legal system.
Morals concern what is right and wrong. Right and wrong usually vary depending on what is normal in a specific culture or society. Many people would agree that what is “right” is moral, but it is James Rachels that explores what makes something right. Rachels argues that it is the cultural normality’s of a society itself, that makes an action morally right, while others would disagree and claim that there is a set of “universal moral codes” that people should live by. In different societies and cultures what is morally right and wrong can be determined only within the individual mind of a person.
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories such as Utilitarianism and Natural Law. Some people believe that ethical language is extremely meaningful as they argue it is essential to be able to define terms such as “good” and “bad” before we can even begin to discuss ethical theories. However others disagree with this and argue that moral statements are subjective so are meaningless, as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are not meaningless as they are about facts, and can therefore be proved true or false. Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of meta ethics which holds the belief that
In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice. The next discussion involved civil disobedience and we found that we agreed that civil disobedience has been helpful historically to help change the laws and improve our society. However, the general consensus on civil disobedience was also that the acts of disobedience must be done in a peaceful manner for the acts to be effective. The final acts of crimes among professionals had another anonymous decision. Our team found that we did not agree with those professionals who chose to commit crimes.
Week 1 Discussion Question 1 Michael Evans AJS/502 Thursday, April 4, 2013 Steven L. Cook, J.D. Week 1 Discussion Question 1 In my office at work we have a quote hanging on the wall, that I believe came from the Department of Justice. The inscription reads, “The common law is derived from the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people, framed by mutual confidence and sanctioned by the light of reason. I took this to mean our communities want police officers who are willing to fight for those who can’t. However, our communities want police officers to use reason and the law when fighting this fight.
In our society today, our everyday lives are governed by a set of laws and rules inwhich we view as the correct way to act. Our daily lives are based on this, and even the effect how we act around one and other. However, those who step away from these 'Norms' are viewed as weird, strange and different by the conforming majority. These individuals who break away from these social nomalities risk being prosecuted, but why do they do this? What compels them to resist these pressures and follow there own independant path?
He believed that the government had an obligation to protect the citizens natural rights. But that was the only reason that the government existed, and if the people believed that the government was not fulfilling this task, they could overthrow him and find someone new. John Locke believed that good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational human being. These are the guidelines by which all
It would be absurd to think that there is a need to criminalize a conduct if an individual’s feelings are hurt or an individual is offended by another’s actions. The harm done must be towards protected interests and conduct that are not just offensive in nature. In response to the Report, Devlin argued that criminal law was not just for the protection of individuals but also for society as a whole. The society, Devlin felt, was a community of shared ideas about how people should live their lives. As such, the law is entitled to create laws that protect the society even if it means infringing on an individual freedom to make his or her own decisions.