assignment 10

i do agree that women should be able to walk around topless if that is what they choose to do. my opinion on this is that just as mill, i believe in freedom of expression. No one is getting harmed by women choosing to walk around topless. Although others may think it is inappropriate, who are they to judge. Mill would agree with this law and he would defend it by stating that there is no harm being done therefore women should feel free to expression them selves how ever.

Assignment 8

Part I

1. M.L King explains the reality of segregation and what happens to those who get segregated. He states that the laws are unjust because allowing segregation to be legal makes those who aren't of dark skin feel as if they have the rights to treat "negros" unfairly. It allows the police to feel as If they can physically abuse of them. 

2.In M.L King's opinion, we should disobey unjust laws because he does not agree with mistreating people due to what they're race, culture, skin color or religion may be. He says that weather it is legal or not, he would never treat someone one poorly or mistreat anyone.

3. Aquinas determines that a law is just due to what the moral  outcome would be. If it comes off as immoral then the law is unjust. According to Aquinas "we ought to obey god rather than men." Therefore he believes that is a law does not provide happiness nor "human good" than that law shall be considered unjust.

 

4. .  Legal positivism is based on rules are rules. They do not focus in any way on what might be moral or true. A legal positivist would say that segregation is a law and with that being a law it must be obeyed

Part II

The point that King and Augustine were trying to make was that some laws are unfair and shouldn't have become laws to begin with. For examples the racial laws that make it okay to abuse others are unjust laws. King wound up in jail for breaking laws that he felt were not just. This does in fact prove that unjust laws are still laws and should be followed by all means. However I still believe Augustine was not incorrect in his statement. The fact do refute Augustine's statement because unfortunately the law is the law and if broken at any time the one who broke the law will be punished for it. The law must be followed if one wants to stay out of prison. My personal opinion is that unjust laws should not be broken but depending on the situation sometimes they shouldn't be followed off one feels it is immoral. I always wouldn't treat others harsh because its a law.

Assignment #7

Part I

What are Jackson’s arguments in support of the charter of London?

Jackson supports the charter because he thinks that this is the Germans "last hope".  They will be judged and at the same time have a chance to speak on their own behalf and defend them selves. Jackson believes that the charter will make international law stronger and make People grow to respect and follow the law. 

What are Wyzanki’s arguments against the legality of the charter?

Wyzanski believes that the defendants at Nuremburg trial should be punished. Although he may feel that way, he is against the charter because he does not think it is completely fair considering the fact that the soldiers were not wrong for taking orders from their superiors. Wyzanski says that there is no such thing as laws for war crimes. There was no law there was nothing to obey besides your superiors. He argues that what they did was wrong but they did not do it because they wanted, instead they did it because they were merely obeying orders, which was their job. 

Part II

I do agree with the sentence that was given to Graner. There is no excuse for sexually humiliating hundreds of people. Although he was told to do it, I do not believe him when he says that he believed it to be lawful. He still chose to do it. Just because he was told does not mean he had to do it. He could have refused and dealt with the consequences. Ultimately it was his decision to go along with the abuse.

In favor of clemency assignment #5

My Defendant, Stanley Tookie Williams has been convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. In my opinion I believe death penalty is not the proper conviction for this case. Being a leader of the gang “crips”, Stanley Williams has a lot of fault to crimes that have been committed. Gang associated crimes where the crips have assaulted and killed many people. Although he is partially to blame, I do not believe that killing this man will make any difference. Justice is when someone is punished for a crime they do. Death is not a punishment. I see it as nothing more then putting an end to this mans misery. Freeing him from pain and guilt. Allowing him to escape from reality and no longer exist. If the justice system wants this man to be punished the best way to punish someone who has done so much harm would be to have him or her live with regret for as long as they live. This man is human and he should be given the opportunity to be sorry and try to make good out of whatever life he has left. Why kill someone and let them leave earth with a biter soul. Someone’s life shouldn’t be taken because they took another’s life because the constitution authorizes the death penalty. For example if someone kills my mother and I take it upon myself to kill them will that be okay? Will I be punished for making him pay with his life? What good will it bring anyone?

            Mr. Williams had changed his life and chose to do good. Why not use him as an example for young gang members or even just young teens that may consider joining gangs one day. Mr. Williams became an anti-gang activist. I believe that being who he is would mean a lot for him to speak to teens and explain to them the real deal of living life in violence and being a leader to a gang. By killing Mr. Williams

The only example being shown is that gangs can get you killed. The youth will take his words into consideration. He is someone that the youth will look up to. Having much to relate to being that he had a troubled life and may have not been raised in a safe environment. I am against capital punishment because I do not think that will solve any problems. I believe what should be done with murders is a process of fixing them internally. Effectively changing their way of looking at life and regretting their actions toward other innocent lives.

Assignment #4 defense

I am defending a man who is part of a Native American tribe in Northern Canada. In this tribe they believe in an evil sprit clothed in human form. Which they  called a “Wendigo” My defendant killed a man. Assuming this human was the evil spirit who is known for eating humans and not aware that this was in fact an actual human being he shot and fired. My defendant has a valid excuse for his actions. Being in his tribe he has been taught him that they must defend and protect one another. I do not see reason as to why my defendant should be convicted for a murder charge. His intensions were to protect others from harm. Killing a human is not something that should be taken lightly but my defendant made an accident. The Native Americans in this tribe believe that evil sprits do exist and if they come encounter with one they must kill it or they will be eaten. Anyone with natural human instincts would most likely defend themselves and their families in a moment of need if felt threatened or in danger. My defendant saw the “Wendigo” and acted as he was taught. He acted in defense. He acted out of nature, fear and he acted on what he believed in. I am positively sure that if my defendant would have known that this was no an evil spirit but a regular human instead, he would have never done any harm. With this being said I believe my defendant has justification for his actions, which should lead to a lesser sentence or even have his murder charge dropped.

Peterman/Prosecution

Steven Peterman was told by an acquaintance that there would be a 10-year-old girl in her apartment, which he could have access to. Steven Peterman came to the woman’s house with all intentions on taking sexual advantage of the little girl. Evidence shows that he was into child pornography. Arriving with sex toys to an apartment where being told he could have a 10-year-old child proves that he infact intended on using the sex toys on the little girl. Although the 10-year-old girl was an invention and she didn’t actually exist; he was not aware of that. Mens rea is an expression, which his actions collaborated with. It is clear to see what his intension was, had there been a little girl in that apartment. There is no justification or explanation for what he did and obviously intended to do. Steven Peterman is guilty of attempted rape of a child. Peterman having history on being involved in a child pornography ring is a valid reason to believe he has the potential to commit the crime of taking sexual advantage of a child. Attempting to commit a crime is wanting and choosing to do something against the law. Peterman made his way to the woman’s house with muscular movement. Not being forced to arrive with sex toys or child pornography. If given the opportunity there would have been a 10-year-old raped on the day that he arrived to the woman’s house. Allowing this man to walk free would be taking the innocence away from any child that may come across his path. 

“ Life Boat”

1.    Do you think that the defendants in this case are guilty of murder (see the penal code on p. 2) or were they justified in their action? (See definition on p. 2). Why or why not?

The defendants that are guilty of cold-blooded murder are the men who pushed the swimmers off the boat and the mate who ordered them to be pushed. Although they may have not intend on killing them I would still consider their actions wrong. They didn’t have to listen o the mate. Unfortunately going by the penal code there is in fact much possibility to expect their actions to be considered justifiable. The crew member can argue in a court room that they felt allowing the swimmers aboard would be harmful to them by making the boat heavier and possibly sinking them down. Either way they made it their choice to push them away from the boat where their lives would be jeopardized

2.    Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? Why or why not?

The circumstances in this situation make the story very controversial. Some may

Say the crew had no other choice. In my opinion they were wrong. It is understood that in a moment of life or death most people would chose to save their own lives, but to push two swimmers off the boat when trying to survive is cold hearted.  Someone with morals would feel the need to help them even if they do not make it. Pushing those swimmers off the boat was choosing their fate. Choosing weather someone lives or dies is not a choice any human should make on another human. Especially when they are all in the same situation: trying to survive an accident and make it home to their families. I believe that allowing the two swimmers on to the boat is something that should have been done or at least attempted.