Describe three major philosophical theories of law. The principal objective of analytic jurisprudence has traditionally been to provide an account of what distinguishes law as a system of norms from other systems of norms, such as ethical norms. All forms of natural law theory subscribe to the Overlap Thesis, which is that there is a necessary relation between the concepts of law and morality. According to this view, then, the concept of law cannot be fully articulated without some reference to moral notions.The Conventionality Thesis emphasizes law’s conventional nature, claiming that the social facts giving rise to legal validity are authoritative in virtue of some kind of social convention. The Separability Thesis, at the most general level, simply denies naturalism’s Overlap Thesis; according to the Separability Thesis, there is no conceptual overlap between the notions of law and morality.
Module 1 Case Analysis Assignment Chapter 3 Question 1 (pg. 65) Q: Explain the two types of jurisdiction that a court must have to hear a case and render a binding decision over the parties. A: Original Jurisdiction involves parties that present evidence and witnesses to testify. With the original jurisdiction the courts have the power to hear a case as soon as it enters the legal system. Appellate Jurisdiction is the ability to review the transcripts of trial courts and see if they may have made an error in their decision.
An eyewitness is an individual who was present during an event and is called by a party in a lawsuit to testify as to what he or she observed. Eyewitnesses cannot be intoxicated or insane at the time of the controverted event occurred will be prevented from testifying, regardless of whether he or she was the only eyewitness to the occurrence. Recent DNA exoneration cases have corroborated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness misidentification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of these innocent people, especially those who are in death row. There have been many wrongful deaths because of misidentification testimonies and men/women have lost many years in prison due to eyewitnesses misidentifying them. How can the government assure us that they found a better way of sentencing the right people and not making mistakes?
Strict Constructionism, on the other hand, is a distinct legal philosophy that limits or controls some judicial interpretation. A judge who uses strict
Defenses and Due Process Kylee Rivers CJS/220 Defenses and Due Process According to Gardner and Anderson (2011), an individual is only charged for a crime he/she committed intentionally. He suggests that such a crime must be without defense so that an individual is declared guilty. Defenses are situations that can stop or lessen the guilt in a case. Presentations of evidence for such situations ensure an accused person is defended from guilt. According to Gardner and Anderson (2011), the common elements of defense include insanity, entrapment and self-defense.
Running head: Armington / Double Jeopardy Armington / Double Jeopardy Paula Ahl Kaplan University LS311: Business Law 1 Professor Allen January 20, 2013 Armington / Double Jeopardy In the case of Armington who while robbing a drugstore, shot and injured Jennings, the drug store clerk, was convicted in criminal court of armed robbery and assault and battery. Later Jennings filed a civil tort suit against Armington for damages. Armington stated that according to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution he could not be tried again for the same crime because this would be double jeopardy. As stated in our text “double jeopardy is defined as being tried twice for the same criminal offense” (Miller & Jentz, 2008). However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137).
Strengths and weaknesses of the courts as law makers The courts have a number of strengths and weaknesses in their ability to make laws A strength of the courts is that they have the ability to give meaning to legislation. Courts are able to apply relevant law to the cases brought before. This application of the law sometimes requires courts to interpret the wording in the Act and give them meaning. An example of a case where courts were required to give meaning to the words of an Act was the studded belt case (1996). In this case a man had his studded belt taken off him and seized as a weapon under the Controlled Weapons Act.
United States. Brandon Mayfield was detained for being falsely accused of involvement with the 2004 Madrid train bombings due to an erroneously read fingerprint (Mayfield v. United States, 2010). Authorities jumped the gun when they thought Mayfield’s fingerprint was an 100% match to the fingerprint on the bag containing explosives in Madrid. Once Mayfield was found to have no involvement in the bombing he was released and offered monetary compensation for the distress caused to his family and himself. However, no monetary amount could correct the trauma that was brought upon this man by his own government.
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
We will then, with specific reference to three key cases, look at the compensatory approach of damages and look at the key principles brought about by these cases and the current standing of the law, with the aid of cases and academic writing. In order to tackle this question, we must first define what a contract is. The term contract does not have a solid and/or rigid definition in English law; however, the English legal system, like many other legal systems, is reliant on the Latin “Pacta sunt servanda” – promises are made to be kept; contracts are made to be performed, when looking at the law of contract and contractual obligations. Hence, contract law is a branch of private law based on promises which are made by one party to another and the enforceability of these promises and it is by this assertion that the separation of contract law from that of the law of tort and the law of restitution rests to a large extent. In keeping a contract, it is said that the parties are executing a contract.