Other states have something known as a Castle Doctrine, involving similar language to that of the Stand Your Ground Laws, except in the case of home invasion only. States that have this Doctrine include California, Michigan, and forty-four others. This lack of duty to retreat and an overgeneralization of when this situation can occur is part of what makes the Stand Your Ground Law so flawed. One must have perceived “reason to believe” that they might potentially be put in harms way, and it’s clear how easily this could transfer into racial
The Castle Doctrine and the stand your ground law are defenses for individuals charged with criminal homicide. The Castle Doctrine states,” that an individual has no duty to retreat when in his or her home, person may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend his or her property, person, or another “. Stand your ground law removes the common law requirement to retreat outside of one's property allowing an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat. Deadly force is reasonable under stand your ground laws in certain circumstances, such as imminent great bodily harm or death. There are forty-six states that incorporated the castle doctrine law and twenty states have the stand your ground law.
Was Hammurabi`s code just? By examining these three areas of law, family law, property law, and personal injury law, it is clear to see Hammurabi`s code was just. Examples of injustice can first be found in the area of family law. Hammurabi states “If a married lady is caught cheating with another man they shall be bind together and cast into the water (Doc. C).” I think this is unjust because you shouldn’t be drowned for wanting to hang out with another man.
Interstate restraining orders and common restraining orders are the necessary protective needs of many domestic violence victims. State laws vary, depends on the initial evaluation of victims fear and emotional distress to provide these orders(US legal, 2010). Courts may grant an ex parte restraining order in a family-violence case if it is necessary. This ensures prompt action where there is an immediate threat of danger from abuser. Governmental control over these laws ensures judges grant such orders only where there is an immediate danger of such abuse.
Strek. This case was somewhat ridiculous to me, but I felt it was important to the case that I observed in court. Filt, the plaintiff, sued Strek, the defendant, for a bad baseball card that cost him $17,750. Briefly summary the case, Filt bought the card from Strek for $17,750. When Filt brought the card to some sport-card grading services, they all said the card had been refinished and trimmed.
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee tells the story of Tom Robinson. A black man falsely accused of raping a white woman, Mayela Ewell, through the eyes of Atticus’ daughter Scout. Atticus Finch chooses to take his case and defend him. Although the case was lost from the beginning, Atticus masterfully used logos, pathos and ethos in an attempt to win over the jury so they would declare him innocent. Atticus used logos to attempt at logically convincing this racist jury that there was no way Mr. Robinson could have committed the rape.
Consent can be a defence to all non-fatal offences and possibly even to homicides, however a person cannot consent to their own death. In the majority of cases, it is assumed that all physical contact is an assault unless a specific defense is applied, whereas the minority state that you cannot consent to an assault. The approach differs depending on the theme of consent that is being investigated. In cases relating to sexual activity and sadomasochist behavior, the law tends to take a more paternalistic approach protecting individuals from themselves, as seen in Boyea where it was held that the victim could not possibly consent to such serious harm, even though she consented to the original act. However when it comes to married couples there seems to be a more laissez faire approach as illustrated in the case of Wilson where a husband branded his initials onto his wife’s buttocks, yet it was held that sexual activity between husband and wife in the privacy of their own home is not matter for criminal investigation.
A various amount of self-defense laws have changed over the years, but none of them have gotten as much attention as the "Stand Your Ground Statute." This law is a very controversial issue because it takes away the, "Duty To Retreat" prior to the use of deadly force for self-defense. This has raised concerns for the public who are not in favor of using deadly force in the first place. While many opponents want to abolish the "Stand Your Ground Statute", I believe that it is an essential law that should be kept in our society in order to protect the innocent people who have no other option than to exterminate the threat he/she, or the family have encountered. (A1): “Stand your ground law” provides protection for the victim who had no other choice than to use deadly force.
For example, “an insane murderer might slit another human’s throat, but in his reality he is slicing bread.” Now another approach to a criminal thought process is a criminal by chopping a human head and finding it funny for the victim to go looking for it.” I justify my first example by Einstein’s definition of insanity; “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_rules).” My second example coincides with insanity, because under the Manchester Rule; “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of the offense, the criminal conduct is the result of mental disease or defect, and the person lacks substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirement of the law.” This rule explains why Rodion Raskolnikov is not mentally insane; he was simply guilty even before the
In some areas of the world, people can be given severe punishments for what we would see as minor crimes. To protect against abuse of power, law enforcement also has to abide by the same set of laws as the general public. If we had no laws in place, and the general public were allowed to do as they please with no enforcement, human kind would descend into violence and disorder. If human kind didn’t develop laws, we would also not have many of the freedoms we currently enjoy as Canadians. For example, we have the right to freedom of speech, under the constitutional law of Canada.