• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Balancing Competing Interests

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Balancing Competing Interests Everybody would want to be sure that their interests are protected by the law and that the law achieves this through various sets of rules. Inevitably the interests of one individual and the interest of the majority may sometimes fall into a conflict. The law needs to ensure courts and tribunals that if conflicts of interest arise there is a means of settling them in a way that tries to balance the opposing views as fairly as possible. The sociological school of jurisprudence see law as a social phenomenon that is best discussed in terms of functions, roles, classes and so on rather than in such terms as powers, rights and duties. Rudolf von Jhering saw laws as a means of ordering a society in which there are many competing interests. All interests need to be satisfied. The law therefore acts as mediator assessing the value of each of these interests and determining the proper balance between them. ...read more.

Middle

Ronald Coase proposed a theorem. Its preconditions are that all negociations take place between rational people each desiring to maximise his wealth and each fully seized off all relevant information. Under these conditions and if no transaction costs then the most efficient outcome will occur no matter what legal rules are adopted. Chase saw this question in purely economic rather than moral terms. Calabresi saw that the aim of tort law should be to achieve the optimum number of accidents. Aim to achieve a level of such that the combined costs of prevention and compensation are as low as possible. An area in which there is conflict between public and private interests is the protection of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act that would point out the private over the public interest. On the other hand relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights have derogation clauses especially so that public interest take procedure. Criminal Penalties have been attached to undesirable behaviour form the individual self interest towards the interest of society as a whole to tip the balance away. ...read more.

Conclusion

The Criminal Justice System was introduced and criticised because although it tried to achieve balance by making fines more equal it was seen as unfair. However the Crime Sentencing Act that introduced the mandatory sentences is an attempt to protect the public was criticised by judges as it prevented them from being fair to individual offenders. Negligence is a tort that we all know is based on proving a duty of care, so our rights are interfered with when the D fails to prevent his negligent acts or omissions which he should contemplate will lead to foreseeable harm. It tries to balance the two by limiting liability in respect of the consequences regarded as remote or unforeseeable. As conclusion, it can be seen that achieving balance isn't easy. In many areas it can be argues that the law was effective in achieving balance but in others especially public interests are in conflict with private interests and the law hasn't been as successful in achieving a equal balance. ?? ?? ?? ?? Alexandra Popovici ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. Notes on Sentencing in British courts

    shoplifter to certain shops. o Up to 2 yrs for 16+. Up to 3 months 15-. Drug Abstinence Orders o Only made if have dependency on drugs or they tend to trigger the crime they commit. o Must abstain from specific A class drugs.

  2. The Canadian Justice system towards aboriginal offenders

    The conflict of sentencing ideologies between the aboriginal and Euro- Canadian justice systems provides the impetus for instituting alternative sentencing mechanisms for aboriginal offenders. The above analysis reveals substantial differences between the Euro- Canadian and traditional aboriginal concepts of justice at every level.

  1. Describe the different aims of sentencing.

    serious that imprisonment is justified, or where the offence is a violent or sexual offence and only such a sentence would be adequate to protect the public. This type of custodial sentencing mainly combines the two aims of retribution and incapacitation.

  2. Principles on which sentencing decisions are based

    Deterrence is an obvious aim of sentencing. The idea is simply that if a penalty is imposed for committing a crime this should deter both the particular offender and others from committing that type of offence. This may involve the imposition of exemplary sentences: a sentence to make an example

  1. Explain the ranges of sentences available to the judge or magistrate.

    From the time we are children we are conditioned to expect this relief through punishment. The view that has gained support, whilst theories of punishment such as deterrence and rehabilitation have come under increasing attack, is that we punish criminals primarily because they deserve it.

  2. Expert Testimony and Its Value In the Justice System

    Having a system which scrutinises the evidence brought forward by the prosecution but doesn?t look at the evidence from the defence is clearly unjust. This leaves the court system open to abuse by the defence as they can provide evidence to the jury even if it clearly should not be allowed.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work