Do subcultural theories offer convincing explanations for group offending by young men and women today? Are there any other theoretical perspectives which you may consider to be useful and relevant?
Do subcultural theories offer convincing explanations for group offending by young men and women today? Are there any other theoretical perspectives which you may consider to be useful and relevant? Young people have always been targets from the criticism of their elders. Their alleged 'wild moral values' have resulted in the definition of young people as a social problem, 'particularly since the end of the Second World War with the adolescent working-class males, especially, being portrayed as a 'folk devil'' (Brake 1980: 1). The 1950s saw the start of what is now the one of the highest priorities on the political agenda: juvenile delinquents. Icons such as James Dean in his leather jacket were regarded as 'out of control'. American street gangs developed their own dress code, language, engaged in drug use and fight for turf. Britain has seen the Teddy Boys from the immediate post-war period, followed by the Mods, Rockers, Skinheads and Punks. Thus, a delinquent subculture can be described as a way of life that has somehow become traditional among certain groups in American society. These groups are the boys' gangs that flourish most conspicuously in the 'delinquency neighbourhoods' of our large American cities. (Cohen, 1955: 13) Chicago sociologists focused on the motivations of delinquents. They argued that there is nothing 'wrong' with delinquents - they simply
Does Britain need a written constitution?
Terry Heath Does Britain need a written constitution? A constitution is a broad set of rules or a body of fundamental principles by which a country is made up or governed. Ideally a constitution should achieve a solid framework within which people can work together harmoniously. It should also guarantee peoples rights and freedoms. It needs to lay down rules on how officials or politicians are elected including their length of time in office and the powers and duties elected to them. It also reconciles central and regional government. The value of having a written constitution is everyone knows where he or she stands. All the powers of officials and important bodies are laid down in black and white. Citizens clearly have a point of reference to see if their liberties have been breached. It would also stop one body becoming too powerful with a checks and balances system and this provides governmental stability. It could clearly define a definite period of a term in office. It would also delineate exactly the relationship between local and central government. These values come very close to the ideals set out in the beginning of my essay. A good example of a country where most of my ideologies work is in the U.S.A. The president has a set period of time in office no matter how popular he is.
Does the Uk have a constitution? Does it matter?
Does the Uk have a constitution? Does it matter? Constitution can be defined as the rules and practices that determine the composition and functions of the organs of central and local government in a state and regulate the relationship between the individual and the state. It is the document or documents embodying the most important laws. Thus we can say that in general a constitution allocates authority within a country, by defining the powers of government and the rights of the citizen, Most states have a written constitution, one of the findamental provisions of which is that is can itself be amended only in accordance with a special procedure. Does the United Kingdom have one? Indeed the United Kingdom does not have a documented constituion, but are the rules of the constituion documented in other places - legislation, judicial decisions, the law and practice of Parliament and so on. So the question may well be: Does the UK have a written constitution? There are written aspects to the constitution, so the term 'uncodifed' can substitute 'unwritten'. A codified constitution is one in which key provisions are collected together in a single legal document, this document would be regarded as the highest law of the land. Uncodified constitutions have a legislature with supreme authority having the right to make what ever laws it chooses. Braizier believes that the
The Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act1998 came into force with effect from 2ndOctober2000. It is regarded as the most important development in English Law. HRA sets out basic rights and freedoms every individual is allowed to enjoy. The European Conventions on Human Rights are incorporated into the HRA, which received Royal Assent in 1998. Before the HRA the conventions could only be binding in International law on the U.K Government, it didn't bestow rights which could be forced directly by the individual. Since 2ndOctober2000-13thDecember2001, 297 cases have been analysed by the European Court of Human Rights, 233 received no remedy and only 56 of the claims were upheld1. Everett identified Warkworth Hermitage and Castle in 1998 to host Thorsfest. Now within the last week, late 2002, an order is published prohibiting access. Question arises whether the order can be challenged by Everett using the HRA? Everett needs to prove Thorskinds are a recognised religion. In Mandla, Dowell Lee19832, the House of Lords established how to recognise a religious group. A religious group has to be regarded as a distinct community because of, certain characteristics. Two main characteristics are: . Having a long shared history 2. Having cultural traditions of its own and other characteristics including: > common geographical origin > common language > common literature > common religion different
The Judiciary.
THE JUDICIARY MRS CHARMAN A judge is a public official appointed to make life-changing decisions regarding the futures of members of the general public. So is it not reasonable for one to assume that a vital criterion for this responsibility is the need to be familiar with the lives of ordinary people and the situations they face? In the evidence it is submitted that in reality there is a coherent argument to suggest that Judiciary is in fact totally unrepresentative and out of touch with society. However, there have been recent attempts to resolve and improve the situation, but the principal point that remains is whether or not these endeavours have proven successful.There is a considerable difference in the number of male judges compared to female judges; this becomes increasingly evident the higher up the court structure. For example there are only eight female Lord Justices of Appeal compared with thirty-five males and no women at all in the High Court as Lord of Appeal in the Ordinary; this is quite obviously a disproportionate number in relation to society. There is a good deal of evidence demonstrating unsympathetic attitudes of male judges particularly in rape cases, a popular opinion is that women are 'asking for it´ through provocative dress or behaviour. The book 'Eve was Framed´, written by Helena Kennedy, expresses it's author's claims that the views of male
'The law in relation to misrepresentation drives a coach and four through the hallowed principle of caveat emptor.'
'The law in relation to misrepresentation drives a coach and four through the hallowed principle of caveat emptor.' The principle of caveat emptor is a doctrine that was dominant in the English legal system pre-19th century. Its literal translation means 'let the buyer beware.' The common law maxim is as the translation suggests, that the courts will not offer any protection for consumers who have entered into a contract which is a bad bargain. Only in circumstances where there is actually illegality or undue unfairness would the courts find in favour of the consumer. However, since the late 19th century the courts and more recently, government legislation have attempted to move away from the old traditions and move towards a more consumer protective atmosphere. This consumer protection comes, in part, in the form of Misrepresentation. Misrepresentation can be defined as "a false statement of fact that does not become a term of a the contract, made either before or at the time of the making of the contract by one part to the other which induces that other to enter into the contract."1 In basic terms this means that a representor cannot make a false statement to induce the representee into the contract. Professor Atyiah notes the move from the old system to the new by saying, "The older notion that a man could say what he liked to a prospective contracting party, so long as he
The law of contract
LLB Year 1/ BATL Year 1 The law of contract recognises that an agreement is dependent on consent and this, therefore, implies that an agreement obtained by threats or undue persuasion will be insufficient. Many contracts in practise involve a degree of 'arm twisting' and this raises the question as to what level of pressure is acceptable to exert over another contracting party? This problem is dealt with by the common law doctrine of duress and the equitable doctrine of undue influence. The courts have developed these doctrines over a long period of time and since the Judicature Act 1873 it has been the duty of all courts to administer both doctrines concurrently. Both common law and equity agree that a party cannot be held to a contract unless he is a 'free agent'. A party who is subject to duress or undue influence is said to have had his will 'overborne' so that he is incapable of making a free choice or even acting voluntarily. It has been argued that the way in which these doctrines have been developed has meant that not enough importance is placed on whether the contract is fair or not. It is the aim of this essay to analyse the development in the law of duress and undue influence and determine the validity of this argument. The common law doctrine of duress allows a party to avoid any promise extorted from him by terror or violence. A contract that has been made under
Intellectual Property Law.
Intellectual Property Law Q: 'The conception of authorship in UK copyright law in no way presupposes that the author of a protected copyright work is a genius, but it does presuppose that the author is an individual, whether this individual is a human being or a legal person such as a company.' Discuss, paying particular attention to the following questions: Is this an accurate description of the author in UK copyright law? How, if at all, is collective creativity encouraged by UK copyright law? Could or should the law enforce the notion - advanced by commentators such as Jaszi and Woodmansee - that creativity is inevitably collaborative in nature? In copyright law to date, the author acts as the centralising point around which the rules and concepts of the law are organised. With this in mind, deciding upon an accepted notion of authorship and a definition of who or what an author is, is crucial to any further understanding of what exactly copyright law seeks to do. The law is not silent on the definition of an author. Section 9(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the 1988 Act) states that the author means the person who creates a work. It is further defined in s. 9(2) who the author for the purposes of a sound recording, a film, a broadcast, a cable programme and a typographical arrangement shall be taken to be. Despite this statutory elucidation, yet more
Judgment at Nuremberg
The role of the judge is seen by many as being very clear cut and simple. However, if you look at it in more detail, it becomes evident that it is not as simplistic after all. To begin with not all judges carry the same role. There are some noticeable distinctions to the role of the judge in common law jurisdictions to the role of the judge in civil law jurisdictions. It is important to consider the way in which the law is developed in the two different jurisdictions to enable the role of the judge to be apparent. In a civil law jurisdiction the law comes from a civil code which provides a consolidation of the law of the country. Whereas the law in common law systems is developed on a case by case basis and it is also held in various statutes. Civil law jurisdictions also pay a great deal of attention to the theory of natural law, which is said to be God's law. This looks at the inner morality of law and is said to be superior to manmade law. Lon Fuller stated how "the legal system as a whole must conform to morality" in order for the two to be successfully linked together. "The continental judge treats the code more liberally than the English judge treats statute"1, this is because common law judges depart from statutes more freely to what civil law judges do with the codes, as in civil law jurisdiction the code is used more generously and is given a greater
Judicial Creativity
Judicial Creativity Model Answer Within England, Parliament is the sole law making body. It is sovereign. The question then, as to whether judges should make the law is inevitably deep and extensive. According to William Blackstone's declaration theory, judges no not create the law, they merely discover and declare the law as its always been. To quote Blackstone himself, 'it has always been an established rule to abide by former precedent where the same points come again in litigation a well as to keep the scale of justice even and steady and not liable to waver with every new judges opinion.' This traditional view has been adopted by many judges who, on the grounds of policy, do not believed that they, an unelected body, should be the creators of law. Lord Salmon in R v Abbott is quoted having said 'Judges have no power to create new criminal offences, nor in their Lordships' opinion, for the reason already stated, have they the power to invent a new defence to murder'. Lord Slynn argued, in the case of Brown, that law making in sensitive areas of public policy should be left to Parliament. However, as the R v R case illustrates this is not always reflected in reality. In this case the contemporary factors to consider were that men and women are now viewed as equal in partnership within a marriage. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that a man should dictate to his lawfully
