Assignment 10

I do agree with that because it is freedom of expression. I dont believe the government should restrict the rights but rather women should have choice to do so. Mill believes that the government should only intervene when someone is causing harm. The government job should only be to protect us. He believes that people should have the freedom to do what they please. Government shouldn't restrict people on how much to drink or whether they should or shouldn't be topless because it doesn't cause harm. It is freedom to express.

Assignment 9

1. What, according to Mill, is the major problem for a democracy?
John Sturt Mill believes in Utilitarianism; make many people happy as possible and equal compromise. He argues that the problem with democracy is that not enough right are given to people, such as voting. He claims that the higher class will have majority power than lower class. He also wanted social Liberty so people can limit the government power, so that no harm can be done to the people.

2. Mill believes that not all laws are justified. Why not? Can you think of any existing laws that violate Mill’s principle? Do you agree or disagree with Mill? Why?
I do believe that not all laws are justified such as driving on different side of road to avoid an accident. To shoot someone, the law is justified, but to break the law such as avoiding the accident, than not all laws are justified.

3. How does Mill justify the freedom of expression?
Mill claims that Freedom of expression is needed because he claims that not all statements are true and not all statements are false, the best way for it to be refuted by is seeing the statement through different perspective. He believes that it will solve problems better if freedom of expression is given.

4. Freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment; are there any cases of free expression, which are not protected by the First Amendment? Do you think freedom of expression should be unlimited?
Freedom of expression is protected by the first amendment but in situation where you yell “fire” in a crowd, and there isn’t fire is not protected by first amendment. Of course it is a freedom of speech but it cause harm to many other people. I think freedom of speech should be limited, there are many people who take the statement “freedom of speech” to an extent, which cause emotional damage to others and cause more harm.

5. Some scholars have suggested that the cases in which the courts have permitted states to limit religious freedom nearly always involve activities important to minority religious groups: the use of peyote by Native Americans, the practice of polygamy among Mormons and Muslims, the refusal to salute the flag among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on. These critics contend that the courts would not be likely to permit similar restrictions if they impacted “mainstream” religious groups in America, such as Christians or Jews. Is this criticism fair?I perceived this situation unfair because if one religion is permitted with a restriction than all religion should have the same restriction. There are many different types of religion and to claim that “mainstream” religions group will not likely to face same restriction is not a valid argument. It is unfair.

Assignment 8

M.L. King used an example about a  law being enforced when Nazis captures the Jews.  For instance: It was illegal to hide Jews in one’s home from the Nazis. But, if one hid a Jew although it being illegal, one saved a life: Jews that would get caught would be send to and imprisoned in camps or even a death camp. M.L. King stated that a law such as that is an unjust law he explains. For different reasons: It demoralize the individual, it makes a distinction between different ‘groups’ of people. He considered it to be the moral responsibility of people to ignore such law.   
M.L. King also argues about the Legal Positivist segregation laws  and stated whether a law is or is not a law is separate question from whether a law is good or bad. The only source of law is “positive law” which is simply "man made laws" and denies the concept of Natural Law.M.L. King imprisonment refute Augustine's statement because Augustine state "Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. " Whether the moral of the person is right, law is a law even if it is unjust.

Assignment 7

1. Robert H. Jackson supports Charter of London which had three parts of crime. War crime, Crime against peace, and crime against humanity. Robert Jackson was a prosecutor for Nuremberg Trial and believed that the Nazi soldiers should know what is humane and the morals of what is right or wrong. Jackson also stated that they should be punishable for all the death of the Jews.

2. Charles Wyzanski’s claim that the Nazi soldiers were given an order and has to follow whether it is moral or not. Wyzanski in a way implies that when a person becomes soldier, he is fighting for  his people and his country. Nazi soldiers were following their order and it was their duty. Their morals cannot interfere with their command from the leaders.

Part II

3. I do agree with the sentence of Graner. His act shows no remorse or empathy against another human. We simply don't know how many prisoners he had commit this heinous act. To take picture and smiling shows he had done this several times. His duty is to serve for a country, but that does not mean to demoralize humans and treat them in an animalistic manner. Graner’s action made himself seem that is was righteous by grinning. How does making those men humiliate themselves a part of a job? What do Graner or the captain earn for doing such act? They have abuse the power and the superior leaders should also be held accountable.

Assignment 6

1. The difference between criminal law and tort law is that tort law brings the suit who is directly injured. The punishment is usually payment for the damage done to the person. In Criminal law, the prosecution is by the government. The punishments may be fine or jail.
2. Negligence is failure to care for the safety and welfare for others. Strict Liability is a liability without the proof of the fault. The person engages the activity that carries risk of injury. Strict liability offences are those that do not require proof of mens rea.
3. Causation is the relation between an event cause and a second is effect. One of the example is that Rinaldo V. McGovern, the defendant hit a golf ball but does not say “fore”. The ball hits the plaintiff’s car even is the defendant didn't give the warning the plaintiff would not hear the warning the plaintiff would not hear the warning the plaintiff would not hear the warning that is not the cause of the plaintiff injuries.
4. Legal Causation is similar to cause and effect of an act or omission and damages alleged in a tort or personal injury action. Causation can be established if the damages or injury would not have caused but for the conduct of the defendant. For example, the driver drove 30 miles over the speed limit in a residential neighbourhood for 2 miles. The driver began to drive at a proper rate of speed. Few minutes later, he hits a pedestrian who was crossing the street. Was the driver’s conduct in driving aver the speed limits a cause for the pedestrian’s injury? Yes, because if the driver obey the speed limit he would not be there in that time to hit the pedestrian.
5. Lynch got injure because of Fisher parking the truck dangerously. The court ruled that Fisher is at fault for Lynch’s injuries. I agree with the decision because if Fisher hasn't parked the truck that way, Lynch would not be there in that time or place to get shot by Gunter.
6. In the case Palsgraff vs LIRR, the court ruled that LIRR was not guilty for the injuries of Palsgraff. I agree with the decision, if the firework was not there, Palsgraff would not be injured. The man bringing the firework should be held accountable for injuries because he has brought them to the train which cause the explosion. 

Stanley Tookie Williams/Favor of Clemency

Stanley Tookie Williams was a gang leader for “crips.” He was convicted for murdering 3 people. There is truly no evidence if he really did murder the people. Though he had founded a gang, he did not deserve a death row. There are many cases of innocent people going to jail. After they have still found no evidence that he had commit the murder, he was still sentence to death row. Mr. Williams had wrote several books and help organization to keep gangs from spreading/expanding. William didn't deserve a death row, he realized his mistake and had tried to better not only himself but the society. 

In the utilitarian theory of punishment states that if the punishment does well to the society than the person deserves the punishment. Williams help many people by making the positive choice. Giving Williams the punishment to death row does not make society a better place. It would only justify the things he did wrong but in the future consent of the society. Deterrence theory is preventing crime from exceeding. William didn't further his crime, He not only prevent his crime from exceeding but he helped many others avoid making the mistake. 

Wendigo Case (Defense)

Native American is charged with manslaughter in Northern Canada. The Native American was thought to believe that the man he killed was an evil spirit clothed in human form. In the Native American tribe, they believed to eat human beings and felt that the best way to save his tribe was to kill the evil spirit

My defendant has no intention of killing a human being. What will my defendant get out of by killing an unknown human being? Nothing. My defendant has no reason to kill a man. If my defendant wanted to kill this man, would he still be here on this trial? Wouldn't he just escape and avoid this? The reason my defendant did kill this man is because he was believed that the man was an evil spirit. He was protecting his people and himself. My defendant, in his thought does not believe that it is a human. His thought is that this will harm others and he believed that the right choice was to kill this evil spirit.

In my defense, my defendant was protecting himself. He felt threaten. My defendant had been feed various stories and tales about the evil spirit. His tribe believe in such things. Is it his fault for believing this part of his culture? My defendant was protecting himself and the other Native American because in my defendant’s mind, he was not seen as human but rather an evil spirit.