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
"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
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
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
Distinguish Criminal law from Civil law in the English Legal System. Outline the jurisdiction and composition of the courts of trial dealing with these two different types of cases.
Distinguish Criminal law from Civil law in the English Legal System. Outline the jurisdiction and composition of the courts of trial dealing with these two different types of cases. FIRST YEAR BA (HONS) ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE PATHWAYS LAW - ASSIGNMENT ONE Distinguish Criminal law from Civil law in the English Legal System. Outline the jurisdiction and composition of the courts of trial dealing with these two different types of cases. To what extent is it possible to appeal against decisions of the courts of trial? One of the main differences between criminal cases and civil cases is that they are held in different courts, this is because there is a significant distinction between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. Crimes are considered to be a type of wrongdoing, however civil wrongs tend to have only and impact on the parties involved in the case. For example: a breach of contract. Where as criminal wrongs tend to have an impact on society itself. For example: a murder, theft or rape. Criminal law is dealt with in the Magistrates court and if very serious in the Crown court. It is said to be more difficult to win a case in the Magistrates court and Crown court than in a civil court as in a magistrates and crown court the evidence has to be proved beyond doubt and in a civil court evidence can be proved on a balance of probabilities. Criminal and civil cases are dealt
Stages of a Bill to become an Act of Parliament
Stages of a Bill to become an Act of Parliament Green Paper This is a consulation document for Law reform. Whenever the government wishes to introduce a bill, it publishes a Green Paper. Then the Labour Government introduced it in 1967. The interested parties send comments to the relevant government department, so necessary changes can be made to the government's proposals. White Paper Following Green Paper, the government will publish a White Paper which is a draft Act of Parliament, with its firm proposals for new law. First Reading This is a formal procedure when the name and main aims of the Bill are read out. The in the House of Commons MPs can vote for this is two different ways - Verbally by shouting 'Aye' or 'No' or formally by each member of the House walking through a special chamber. Second Reading This is the most significant process on the entire Bill in which MPs discuss the main principles behind the Bill. The speaker of the House control the debate to ensure all MPs who wish to speak can do so. At the end of the debate the MP will vote the same way as for the First Reading. They walk through the 'division lobby' where commons officials called 'tellers' will physically count them. Committee Stage At this stage a standing committee which will range from sixteen to fifty MPs, the members will usually be those with the special interest in or
"What are the advantages and disadvantages of electing for a Summary trial as opposed to trail by jury?"
"What are the advantages and disadvantages of electing for a Summary trial as opposed to trail by jury?" There are many advantages to electing for a summary trial as opposed to trail by jury. One advantage of electing for a summary trial is that magistrates know more about their local area as they are members of the local community appointed by the Lord Chancellor. This means that their views could be more conclusive and would most likely consider the needs of the community and the major problems it faces. On the other hand, magistrates' courts deal with smaller incidents and magistrates may have a more 'conviction-minded' attitude as they wish to look out for their local community. As the magistrates court represents the local community then if the defendant has been accused of committing a crime in his or her local area then the trial would be held in the local magistrate's court and this could lead to embarrassment for the defendant and the defendant being segregated form the local community. Where as if the trial was held at the crown court it would be further from home and the defendant would be less likely that the defendant would be in the public eye. Magistrates Courts are faster in finishing cases as opposed to Crown Courts, which may take up to several months and this is an advantage electing for a summary trail as it often avoids long periods on bail or in
In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not be abolished, we need to know what it is that we are dealing with and what viable alternative or alternatives there are to it.
In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not be abolished, we need to know what it is that we are dealing with and what viable alternative or alternatives there are to it. I will take a brief look at the history of the jury trial. I will examine the function of the jury; look at what is good and bad about the jury system. Finally I will examine the proposed alternatives to trial by jury that are currently in fashion. The jury system first arrived in Britain after the Norman Conquest. The earliest jury was a body of neighbours summoned by a public officer to give oath as answer to some question1. The sworn inquest was used to enable the recognition on oath of a number of upstanding members of the community to testify to facts which they had personal knowledge. Those called were not judges of fact, but witnesses. By the end of the twelfth century, a person accused of a crime could, on payment obtain the right to obtain a trial by jury. (I will return to this point later when I look at the government's proposals to remove the right to elect jury trial in either way offences) When Pope Innocent III abolished trial by ordeal in 1215 and compurgation (the accused sought to clear himself by his own oath backed up by the oaths of friends and neighbours, who testified to his character rather than to the facts) fell from favour a need arose to find a new