Assignment 9

1) According to Mill, the major problem for a democracy was the government opposing the social liberty, or the individual's power and rights. Representative democracy had the problem of the ruler opposing the ruled, when the focus of the rulers should be on protecting the liberties of the ruled. The interests of the majority override the needs and interests of the minority under a democracy, in which individuality would be compromised.

2) Not all laws are justified. Laws are of course made by other humans and are susceptible to error and misjudgement. According to Mill, sometimes individuals have more effective ways of dealing with their situations and laws can end up interfering with a person's ability to deal with problems. Also, law can compromise one's privacy during the rectifying of his or situation, which can create more interference depending on the situation.

Although this is often a controversial topic, the seat belt law is justified because it is implemented in the justification of one's safety. Seat belt laws force people to take care of their safety before driving a car.

3) Mill justifies the freedom of expression by emphasizing the importance of revealing different perspectives. The inclusion of the voices of all of the individuals in the society, including the voiceless, or the under-represented individuals, can help to open people's eyes to different points of view. For example, so called conspiracy theorists are criticized and known for being crazy, but they remind everyone to always reconsider their own established truths. I believe that realizing how much we don't know about our own society and everything else in general is a good direction for becoming wiser and finding ways to truly reach our goals and happiness. The availability of different opinions can keep our society open-minded, humble, and in the right direction of progression and enlightenment.

4) Types of freedom of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment are ones that truly pose a danger to others in society (such as blackmail!). Freedom of expression should be unlimited as long as they do not directly harm others. We live in a very censored society. When important details of policies such as the Monsanto Protection Act go unnoticed, people should have the right to inform others who may not be aware of policies that can greatly affect their health, especially when people don't have the time to inform themselves of the news. I always believe that the truth will prevail, and in due time, all behind-the-scenes corruption and lies will be exposed. While many people are uninterested in many seemingly corrupt acts happening around them (because they believe that these issues will never affect their lives), I also see many brave people with integrity that don't hesitate to voice their opinions and tell what they believe to be the truth. Unlimited Freedom of Speech is so important in a dishonest society because it represents hope and the battle against ignorance.

5) I believe that is a fair criticism. All groups have the right to equal freedom of expression. There should be no favoritism shown for a religion just because it is more established and mainstream in western society. Otherwise, this would be the case of the faulty majority of opinion expressed by Mill in his problems with democracy.

Assignment 8

Part I:

How does M.L. King argue that segregation laws are unjust?

 M.L. King argues that segregation laws are unjust on the basis of moral responsibility. He believed that one had the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. Unjust laws should be disobeyed in a nonviolent way to set an example for gaining civil rights. This tied into natural law, which gives authority based on moral merit. Segregation implied a moral injustice in its implications of placing one race above another based on a superficial trait such as skin color. Therefore, segregation laws are morally unjust.

Why, according to King, should we disobey unjust laws?

 According to King, we have the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. Similarly, he approved of obeying just laws. This goes back to the response to the first question where he felt that unjust should be disobeyed nonviolently because the main interest here lies in moral standards.

How does Aquinas determine if a law is just or unjust?

Aquinas determines if a law is just if it: is established for the common good (intention is to uplift and protect rights), does not goes beyond the authority of its creator (is not designed to give the creator of the law more power than he/she originally had, and does not put any unfair burdens on the ones affected by the law. He emphasized the higher form of eternal law (as opposed to human law) that should override a human-made law on the basis of morality and reason (such as opposing segregation laws).

 How would a Legal Positivist judge segregation laws?

A Legal Positivist would probably validate the segregation laws during that time frame. The Legal Positivist values the way the laws is established over the actual morality of the law. The Legal Positivist may see how naturally the historical events have progressed up to the segregation laws and validate them based on the seemingly existent progress of society from slavery to segregation. This is applicable in today's society, where marijuana (especially recreational is still illegal/decriminalized in many states). A Legal Positivist may judge the laws as valid because of the legal circumstances surrounding medical and recreational marijuana over the past few decades. An advocate of natural law may be less patient and demand faster legalization of marijuana because he/she may argue that it is our right as humans to use/grow a plant (which of course is a product of nature) if we so choose to do so.

Part II:

Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes Saint Augustine’s famous remark that “an unjust law is no law at all.” It has been objected that this claim is plainly false. How can something fail to be “law” simply because it is unjust or in some other way immoral? King, himself, critics point out, was punished and put in jail for, as we would say, “breaking the law.” Assuming that King was right and the racially discriminatory statutes and practices of the South were unjust, does the fact that King wound up in jail prove that unjust laws nonetheless remain laws? Does that fact in itself refute Augustine? If not, why not?

This is a prime example of unjust laws remaining laws. In my opinion and based on Aquinas' three criteria for a just law, there is no doubt that our current society is governed by many unjust laws. History has shown time and time again that laws can be unjust.

I do think King's imprisonment refutes Augustine's statement. Legal positivism opposes his idea, especially because one cannot expect all the laws the entire system to be morally just in today's corrupt society. Laws are laws, and whether they are morally just or not is a separate issue.

All laws should be just. But they are simply not, which is why Augustine's statement is refuted here. However, this can be a subjective issue, because one can simply view the unjust laws as rules that are forcefully pushed upon us, and not laws. Therefore, in my opinion, unjust laws do remain laws in many situations. If this wasn't the case, then someone breaking an unjust law should not be arrested or fined.

Assignment 7

Part I

1) Jackson's arguments in support of the Charter of London were based on giving Nazi defendants the fair trial and opportunity in court. Also, the Charter had three main charges to try the defendants with: crimes against peace (the conspiracy of waging war against peaceful states), war crimes (starvation of others in occupied states, stolen materials/property and torture of prisoners) and crimes against humanity (the mass murder and all other crimes against humanity that took place during the war). (London Charter, 1945, Art. 6a, 6b, 6c)

2) Wyzanki was against the legality of the Charter because he was against the use of the Ex post facto, which can criminalize actions that were legal during the time they were committed. Thus, he believed the soldiers had the right to follow their orders during wartime. Eventually, Wyzanki agreed that justice should be upheld and generally condemned acts should be discouraged and criminalized. He said. "...failure to criminalize...universally condemned conduct....would be more likely to promote arbitrary and discriminatory action..." ('Crimes against Peace and International Law, Stellers 136). This is an example of a higher purpose overriding a lower purpose (which in this case, is the challenging of Ex post facto). This served the higher purpose of the international law and community and its safety.

Part II

          I think that a less harsh sentence should be made for Charles Graner. The problem here seems to lie in the larger punishment system of Abu Graib, including the intelligence agents. I believe that controversial cases like this can end in the blame being burdened on one person to keep the rest of system in tact, when that seems to be the wrong idea. However, what was done to the prisoners was morally unjust and there must be punishment given in order to seek retribution and deterrence.
         To uphold the principles of higher justice, yes Graner should be punished (to a much lesser degree), but so should everyone else even remotely involved in the incident. When there seems to be a corrupt system at hand, we cannot isolated one part of the incident without thorough investigation, unless there is an unfair interest in maintaining a corrupt system. These type of situations can easily hint at a much larger scheme or many more similar corrupt situations underneath the surface.

Assignment 6

1. What is the difference between criminal law and tort law?

2. What are the conditions for strict liability and negligence?

3. What does it mean that an event A caused another event B? Give an example.

4. What is legal causation? Give an example.

5. What were the reasons for the court's decision in Lynch vs. Fisher? Do you agree - why or why not?

6.What were the reasons for the court's decision in Palsgraff vs. LIRR? Do you agree - why or why not?

1) Criminal law is focused on the wrongdoer him/herself and how the criminal should be punished. Tort law focuses on how the victim should be compensated, such as a financial compensation.

2) The conditions for strict liability can cover a situations where legal responsibility is given whether or not the the person held responsible is actually at fault or not. It is a situation where someone has to be held responsible. Strict liability usually applies in a scenario involving product liability (in tort law), where a possible defective product might have caused an injury to the plaintiff.

Negligence involves the harm done to a victim as a result of carelessness, usually as a breach of duty, or absence of a job/favor that the defendant should have done for the plaintiff. Duty, standard of care, breach of duty, cause-in-fact, and proximate cause are included in the conditions for negligence.

3) When one says that "event A caused event B", it is meant that event B could not have occurred if event A did not occur first. Event A had to have happened to bring about event B. For example, event A could be someone spilling oil into a healthy, thriving ecosystem that had no other source of potential contaminants besides the spill. Event B would encompass negative effects of the oil spill in the ecosystem that occurred has a direct result of the oil spill.

4) Causation covers the circumstances between action and result. Factual causation is considered before legal causation. Factual causation consists of using the logic mentioned in the previous question, whether event B would have occurred without event A occurring first. If the answer is no, then a conclusion is reached. There is a direct relation between the action and the harm done to the plaintiff. If not, legal (proximate) causation is considered, where the harm is done to the plaintiff indirectly. For example, a principal makes the mistake of giving a child a time out when it wasn't the child's fault. When the child walks back to his class, he slips on a spill that occurred while he spent time in the principal's office. If he had not been mistakenly called to the principal's office, he probably would not have been at the site of the spill later that day. This is a case where the proximate act of the principal's mistake affected the probability of the child slipping on the spill, even though the principal did not mean to harm the child at all.

5) The court decision was that the truck driver was at fault. This was a case of proximate cause. The truck was poorly parked out of negligence. Of course he did not intend to do any harm, but Fisher parked his truck in a dangerous spot, which was enough for proximate cause, which is why the court found him liable. I do agree with this decision because the shot fired from Lynch and the surrounding events would not have occurred had Fisher not been in position in the first place. This is a solid example of a case of proximate cause.

6)  The court ruled that the LIRR (Long Island Rail Railroad) was not guilty. I agree with this because this case seemed to be an example of an intervening cause, which was the third party. The third party was the men with the box of firecrackers. In my opinion, Palsgraff sued the wrong party. The intervening cause rightfully took the blame away from LIRR. There was no negligence, or breach of duty owed to the plaintiff, on the side of LIRR. I agree with the decision that Palsgraff was not determined to be in a foreseeable zone of danger, unless, every train station was required to check every single parcel for potentially dangerous items brought into the tracks before this court case happened.


 

Against Clemency

I immediately recognize why some would be in favor of clemency. What sort of example would it send to society as a whole when a man who has clearly changed his ways is still denied clemency? Giving him clemency may seem to advance society in a way that encourages correcting your mistakes and promoting what is morally right. Giving Williams clemency could be seen as an opportunity for him and others to advance society in anti-gang awareness.

However, capital punishment for Williams can be seen as the stronger example of utilitarian punishment, or punishment that is allowed if the harm to be afflicted on the person being punished is overridden and justified by the overall positive results following the punishment. Williams made a complete change in his character and made significant strides in the anti-gang movement for the youth. However, the fact that he was sentenced to capital punishment in spite of his great efforts demonstrates just how unforgivable the act of murder is. It completely eliminates any hopes of a potential murderer of sliding his way out of death sentences. It makes many criminals think twice before committing murder. It sends a very strong message to ignorant criminals/murderers who plan to commit such atrocious acts, a message of a no tolerance policy towards any type of intentional murder. This message is the social benefit that is gained from capital punishment of Stanley Tookie Williams, which makes it a strong case for utilitarian punishment.  It should go without saying that this capital punishment is also a strong example of retributive punishment, where the convicted receives the punishment that he or she deserves. The decision to sentence Stanley to execution covers both sides and benefits of punishment, on the benefits side and the realm of morality.

It can be seen as a harsh decision to a man who is no longer same criminal that he once was, but the message that it sends out to dangerous gangs is a great benefit to the whole of society. It is not just about him, it is about the safety of the society as a whole.

Rebuttal Argument

Rebuttal to Danny's Argument

You made a very good point in regards to the context in which the man committed manslaughter. The man acted out of self defense because of his tribe's knowledge and history with Wendigos. There is proof of this.

However, I believe that this context serves as a justification only to a certain, and possibly minimal extent. This is mainly because the tall human he killed was not directly attacking him at that moment. He had to chase him from a distance. If the victim was innocent, of course the man should be held accountable.


Overall, I do agree that there has to be further investigation before a decision is made. We need to know more about the person that was killed and exactly what about him that convinced the Native American to kill him. What are the tribe's defined characteristics of disguised Wendigos and how did they fit the features of the victim? What made the Native American so sure that the man was a threat? How far away was he? With what we know right now, the Native American went out of his way to kill someone who has not directly threatening him at the time. Even if he had reason to believe that he was going to be attacked later on, there are other less extreme precautions he should have taken before resorting to going after the human and killing him. Therefore, he should be held responsible for his actions until further information is released.

Case of the Wendigo

The Native American is responsible for his act despite the given circumstances. He went out of his way to chase and challenge a human that was at a significant distance from him. The human was not attacking him directly in any way, so it is difficult to make the case that the Native American was fighting for his life and had absolutely no choice but to kill the other man. Respecting the culture and knowledge of the Native American's tribe, the Native American did not take the proper precautions in verifying that the runner was actually a Wendigo. Unless he can provide the proper and morally acceptable protocol that he used to verify if the runner was a Wendigo or not, there is good reason to believe that he acted too quickly before murdering someone, even by his tribe's standards. It is important to respect the Native American tribe's knowledge of the occult, but there is no excuse for making a rash decision that ended a harmless person's life.

Overall, the runner (Wendigo or not) had to be attacking or threatening the Native American for him to go completely out of his way to chase him and kill him with a gun. If there is no evidence that the runner was a threat to the Native American, then he should be charged with manslaughter.