Abortion and Ethics Ethics of Abortion: Is it Moral or Immoral to Have an Abortion? Abortion is a Serious Ethical Issue: Usually debates about abortion focus on politics and the law: should abortion be outlawed and treated like the murder of a human person, or remain a legal choice available to all women? Behind the debates are more fundamental ethical questions which aren't always given the specific attention they deserve. Some believe that the law shouldn't legislate morality, but all good law is based upon moral values. A failure to openly discuss those values can obscure important discussions. Is the Fetus a Person with Rights?: Much debate about the legality of abortion involves debating the legal status of the fetus. If the fetus is a person, anti-choice activists argue, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. Even if the fetus is a person, though, abortion may justified as necessary to women's bodily autonomy - but that wouldn't mean that abortion is automatically ethical. Perhaps the state can't force women to carry pregnancies to term, but it could argue that it is the most ethical choice. Does the Woman have Ethical Obligations to the Fetus?: If a woman consented to sex and/or didn't properly use contraception, then she knew that pregnancy might result. Being pregnant means having a new life growing inside. Whether the fetus is a person or not, and
The doctrine of precedent is based on the need for certainty in the law
The doctrine of precedent is based on the need for certainty in the law. It means that lawyers can properly advise their clients on the basis that like cases will be treated alike, rather than judges making their own random decisions which nobody could predict. This helps people plan their affairs. According to Lord Denning, 'It is the foundation of our system of case law'. However, Denning was 'against is its too rigid application - a rigidity which insists that a bad precedent must necessarily be followed'. It is the doctrine's rigidity that can prevent developments to meet the changing needs of society. However, this was recognised in the House of Lords 1996 Practice Statement. In addition, judges in the lower courts are adept at avoiding the doctrine's rigidity. A judge may distinguish the awkward precedent on its facts - arguing that the facts of the case under consideration are different in some important way from those of the previous case and therefore the rule does not apply. A precedent may be distinguished on a point of law; by arguing that the legal question answered by the precedent is not the same as that asked in the instant case. Courts may distinguish a precedent by stating that the precedent has been superseded by more recent decisions, and is therefore outdated. Courts may give the precedent a very narrow ratio decidendi or argue that the precedent
Part-time judges in the Magistrates Court.
There are about over 30,000 sitting as part-time judges in the Magistrates Court. They sit to hear cases as a bench of two or three, while a single magistrate could issue search warrants and arrest warrants. There are also District Judges (formerly Stipendiary Magistrates) who are qualified lawyers and sit on their own to deal with the cases. The history of magistrates goes back to the 12th Century and they have been a very important part of the criminal justice system. The important things to remember is that magistrates are lay people i.e. the majority are legally unqualified, must be between the ages of 18 and 65 and generally be of good character and judgement. Lay magistrates do not have to have any qualifications in law. There are however, some requirements as to their character, in that they must be suitable in character, integrity & understanding for the work they have to perform. Lay magistrates must live within the commission area of the court or within fifteen miles of the boundary of that area. They will have to give a commitment that they will sit in a court a minimum of 26 times per year and that they will do the necessary training. Approximately, 500 new magistrates are appointed each year. People in the community who want to become lay magistrates can also reply to advertisements or otherwise be selected after a recommendation because of their contribution to
"Within the present system of precedent in the English legal system, judges have very little discretion in their decision making."
Judicial Precedent Past year examination questions Zone A 2001 Question 2 "Within the present system of precedent in the English legal system, judges have very little discretion in their decision making." Judges have always been relied upon to interpret and apply the law. Therefore, their decisions should be fair and consistent so as the individuals seeking legal remedies would have more faith in the judicial system of the state. AS the UK has not a very complete and/or codified constitution, this doctrine is very much relied on as contrasted with other countries which seemed to have provisions for virtually any kind of offence, like France or the US where judges had only to refer to legislation. The doctrine of Judicial Precedent operates based on the principle of Stare Decisis, inter alia, to stand by past decisions to establish certainty, fairness and consistency as well as predictability. The rationale of this doctrine was made by Parke J in the early case of Mirehouse v Rennell , where Parke J had stated that for the sake of uniformity, constancy and certainty, judges are not at liberty to reject or abandon precedents even if they feel that those rules were not as convenient or reasonable as they would have liked them to be. Till today, the reasons for its use are still valid in most cases, thus, the doctrine is regarded as a general rule in the UK. An
Law - Resulting trusts
Peter Gibson L.J. began his judgment in Drake v Whipp: "Yet again this court is asked to rule on a dispute between a man and a woman, who cohabited but were not married to each other, as to their respective beneficial interests in a property which they purchased to be their home but which was put into the man's name only. The usual lengthy litany of authorities as well as more recent additions have been recited to us and, as is notorious, it is not easy to reconcile every judicial utterance in this well-travelled area of the law." The above indicates just how frustrated the courts have become with the area of resulting trusts. The years when men did the work and women stayed home and cooked have gone but yet the law still has not changed, women now considered equal as seen in Article 5 Protocol 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights which requiring the law to treat husband and wife equally. This paper will consider the judgments made and reform offered and whether the current general law is adequate. In Re Vandervells Trust No 21 Megarry J. described what a presumed resulting trust was: "The first class of case is where the transfer to B is not made on any trust ... there is a rebuttable presumption that B holds on resulting trust for A. The question is not one of the automatic consequences of a dispositive failure by A, but one of presumption: the property has been
History of Witchcraft
History of Witchcraft Early-European Witchcraft The earliest historical records of witchcraft in Europe [such as law codes, poems, heroic tales] reveal that it was divided into two distinct traditions of magical belief. In the far north, from Iceland eastward to the Baltic lands and Russia, magic was the preserve of specialists, the shamans, who drummed, danced, and chanted their way into trances in which their spirits left their bodies to accomplish the necessary work. Every tribe or clan needed to have one, and misfortune was blamed on hostile shamans. Most were male, but a female shaman was acceptable if no man with the necessary gift was available. Across the rest of Europe, among the Greeks, Romans, Germans, and Celts alike, a different system prevailed. Men were regarded as able to learn magic, and to read omens, explain unusual events, and work sorcery. Women, by contrast, were treated as repositories of powerful and primeval natural magic. They were brought in to give advice, as seers or prophets, whenever normal social structures broke down. They also featured prominently as natural healers; conversely, they were especially feared for their ability to use that innate power for evil purposes. Hence to most ancient Europeans witches were usually female. Hence, also, the pagan peoples of Europe regularly executed people for the alleged crime of witchcraft. This
Law of Evidence - R v Kearley
Law of Evidence - Assessed Work (No.2) by Simon Wolman R v Kearley Essentially this piece concerns whether the House of Lords correctly decided the case of R v Kearley1. The majority decided allowing the appeal, that the evidence concerned in this case was either irrelevant, and therefore inadmissible (unless part of the res gestae) or was inadmissible as hearsay in the form of an implied assertion. The facts of Kearley will be discussed, followed by an analysis of the decision by their Lordships, finally considering the issues of relevance and implied assertions in relation to the decision in Kearley. The facts of Kearley are well known. The disputed evidence was that the police officers whilst on the raid answered a number of callers to the flats, both by telephone and by visitors. The police officers testified that the callers were seeking to buy drugs in place of the original callers who were unwilling or unable to attend court. The appellant objected to the evidence on the ground that it was hearsay, but this was overruled. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and certified a question to the House of Lords. Condensing the certified question, it was whether a person not called as a witness, for the purpose of not establishing the truth of any fact narrated by the words, but of inviting the jury to draw an inference from the fact that the words were spoken ? 2 On
Describe the powers the Police have to stop and search and arrest individuals
Part 'A' Law Essay- Describe the powers the Police have to stop and search and arrest individuals Stop and search and arrest powers allow the police to combat street crime and anti-social behaviour, and prevent more serious crimes occurring. A Police officer can stop and search and arrest an individual, when they are not in uniform; however if they are not wearing uniform they must show you their identity card. Under CODE A (part of a simplified version of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, that puts 'stop and search' into understandable language) the Police must not stop an individual because of their age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion or faith, the way they look or dress, the language they speak, or because they have committed a crime in the past. The Police have to treat individuals fairly and with respect. If an individual is unhappy with how the Police treated them, they can complain. If they feel they were treated differently because of their race, age, sexuality, gender, disability, religion or faith, they can complain of unlawful discrimination. Advice can be obtained from, or complaints can be made to: a Police station, local police authority, a Citizen's Advice Bureau, local Race Equality Council, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality, or a solicitor. If people have difficulty understanding
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NATIVE TITLE
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NATIVE TITLE The debate about native title issues has tended to see issues from idealistic perspectives ignoring the practical realities that native title poses to governments, industry and indigenous people. The implementation of the Native Title is an appropriate and significant aspect of Australia's common and statute law, which effectively strives to develop a fair outcome for all Australian citizens. The Native Title Act 1993, like the court Mabo decision in 1992, transforms the ways in, which indigenous ownership of land may be formally recognised and incorporated within Australian legal and property regimes. The process of implementation, however, raises a number of crucial issues of concern to native title claimants and to other interested parties. These issues will need to be settled in court however, despite the many disputes between opposing stakeholders, the Australian Native Title effectively reaches the best and fairest possible outcomes for all Australian citizens. The decision of the Mabo case in 1992 resulted in the adoption of the Australian Native Title, which recognises the traditional connection aboriginals have with the land and gives them the right to a say in the development and use of certain sites. There was a great lead up to the establishment of the native title, which began when the Europeans invaded Australia, claiming the
Discuss the essential differences between Civil and Criminal Law particularly in relation to their aims and objectives.
Discuss the essential differences between Civil and Criminal Law particularly in relation to their aims and objectives. Justice should be the upholding of rights and the punishment of wrongs by the law. Any society has a duty to its citizens to do the best it can to provide them with laws, which, if obeyed, will give them a reasonably safe environment. These laws will also form a framework in which to live our lives. Whether in criminal or civil law we each have a responsibility for our actions towards others. Criminal law is the upholding of standards and punishing those who break laws and offend against society. Civil law is concerned with compensating the victims of injustice- " The Criminal Justice System exists to help protect us from crime, and to ensure that criminals are punished. The Civil Justice is there to help people resolve their disputes fairly and peacefully"(Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Chancellor, Modernising Justice 1998) One main difference between Civil and Criminal law is their sole purpose. Both Civil and criminal law has main aims however they differ quite substantially. Criminal law can be seen as a set of rules and regulations which, if broken, will result in a punishment of either loss or liberty or a fine. In a Criminal case an offender is found guilty of a criminal offence, and he/she may be sentenced by the judge. In a Civil case there is no