The label of “ hired guns,” for lawyers means they are hired and paid to litigate a case in the benefit of their client. The term gun is utilized to symbolize the damage they can inflict through restitutions, fines, probation or jail time. However, the term “ hired guns,” carries a negative connotation since it compares lawyers to weapons, which furthers the idea that lawyers are immoral and awful individuals. It is not to say that a portion of lawyers does not operate as “ hired guns,” but categorize lawyers as “ hired guns,” taints the actions and reputations of lawyers who seek to help charities, non-profits, engage in pro bono and essentially seek law for justice over profits. The term“ hired guns,” is true to a certain extent because …show more content…
The idea of homicide by necessity must be furthered examined to properly understand the intent of their “ crime.” The murder of the young boy exemplifies the idea of “ necessity by murder,” considering the act was done out of desperation and total fright of life. The event occurred because the continual doubt facing the sailors prompted them to come to a consensus where the youngest would be sacrificed in an attempt to supply the already resourceless crew with food in hopes they soon reached land or were rescued.The murder of the child was not done to suffice personal malice or as a method of revenge, but rather an act of desperation by individuals who aspire to live past their present misfortunes. This idea supports Lord Bacon’s claim regarding the necessity to conserve life. He provides a written example that exemplifies whether homicide by necessity is justifiable. He states “ so if the divers be in dangers of drowning by the carting away of some boat or barge ,and one of them get to some plank, or on the boat’s side to keep himself above water, and another to save his life thrust from it, whereby he is drowned, this is neither se defendendo nor by misadventure, but justifiable,” (37). His claim follows the idea of homicide by necessity similarly found in The Queen v Dudley and Stephens considering in this instance the thrust was executed with the purpose of saving one’s life. It is, therefore, unfair to classify their actions as a homicide since such word carries a negative connotation and taints their ideas as cruel and malice. It is quintessential for the legal system to understand the motives and intent behind the actions occurred at sea by these men to properly determine their act was done to survive. Evidently, it is clear through their desperations that the crime executed in case
Imagine you are enjoying a trip and you find a person dumped in your yacht by gangsters . The involuntary stow-away is coming out of a coma and is now in need of your assistance to help him survive. The trip back home is 9 months, and you only possess enough food for one person. However, you are able to share your food and other resources with the stow-away and still survive, albeit you will barely survive . The question then becomes if you are morally obliged to share your food with the stow-away? Berry argues that it would be morally impermissible to let the person accidently trapped on your yacht starve to death rather than share your food. It appears that the difference between the ‘yacht example’ and the ‘violinist’ is that it requires less effort on our part to save the stow-away on the yacht compared the violinist. This is because the violinist requires use of our body, whereas the stow-away only requires the use of our possessions. The amount of sacrifice required in each case differs and it follows that this defines the extent to one’s moral responsibility to save the person in question. If we apply Berry’s reasoning to the foetus, then it is impermissible to perform an abortion simply because the sacrifice required during pregnancy is greater than expected. It appears that Berry is arguing that one is always morally obliged to protect a
The ‘Trolley Car Problem’ has sparked heated debates amongst numerous philosophical and jurisprudential minds for centuries. The ‘Trolley Car’ debate challenges one’s pre-conceived conceptions about morals, ethics and the intertwined relationship between law and morality. Many jurisprudential thinkers have thoroughly engaged with this debate and have consequentially put forward various ideologies in an attempt to answer the aforementioned problem. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate why the act of saving the young, innocent girl and resultantly killing the five prisoners is morally permissible. In justifying this choice, this paper will, first, broadly delve into the doctrine of utilitarianism, and more specifically focus on a branch
In Dan McCall’s essay, “From the Reliable Narrator,” McCall stresses that the lawyer/narrator should be viewed as a reliable and trustworthy source. His perspective on the lawyer a “distinct minority”, as he feels very few view the lawyer in that way. Many critics see the lawyer as the opposite of McCall, and inforce that the lawyer is unreliable and blameworthy. That he is a representation of ‘consumer capitalism” and the he ‘is simply incapable of recognizing-the political and economic forces that have made him what he is” (McCall, 272). McCall uses other critic’s perspectives in order to reflect light on his own. He explains that the lawyer is someone he trusts, when he first read it at the age of eighteen and even now, because the lawyer
By ruling the death of the attacker an accident, the murderer did not suffer consequences for his actions. Although Mr. Radley was defendi...
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
The one thing about this argument, though, if it were valid, it would not show that capital punishment is never proportionate and just, but only that it is very rarely so. The implication of this argument is not that we ought to do away with capital punishment altogether, nor that we ought to restrict it to those cases of murder where the murderer had warned the victim weeks or months in advance of what he was going to do, but we ought to reexamine the procedure of carrying out this kind of
Paralegals have become an essential part of today's legal system, and as the profession becomes one of the leading and fastest growing occupations in the U.S. economy; these individuals perform delegated tasks under the supervision of attorneys. Education has played an important part on this matter; it has facilitated this development by allowing lawyers to use these skills professionals as agents to delegate specific tasks such as legal research, gathering of information and the drafting of specific legal documents under the supervision and final approval of their principals. This has been very significant because now; we can enjoy a speedy process in a cumbersome legal system. From en economic standpoint, it has also been beneficial by decreasing the substantial amount of the legal cost a firm could incur if only lawyers were allowed to perform this kind work.
... adequate support for the controversy that all killing is morally wrong and that valuing the innocent over the guilty is devaluing human dignity and humanity itself. Moreover, if not all killing is morally wrong, and some quite acceptable, then it stands that death penalty may also be acceptable. In this way, the abolitionist contradicts himself or herself by asserting equal human dignity and worth between the innocent and the convicted that ultimately led to devaluing one human being (the innocent) to another (the guilty). As such, it would only be rational and just to offer aid to the innocent than “to those who are guilty of squandering aid” (Mappes, Zembaty, and DeGrazia 141).
Miller, Roger LeRoy., Meinzinger, Mary. Paralegal Today: The Legal Team At Work. Clifton Park, NY : Delmar Cengage Learning, 2010. Print
Weiss, M. S. (2005). A Study of Public Defender Motivations. In Public Defenders: Pragmatic and Political Motivations to Represent the Indigent (pp. 1-10). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/
Throughout modern civilization, the American republic is widely known for its dependency upon the realm of business. Equally as vital, looms the ever-present hand of the American law system. “All beings have their laws: the Deity…man his laws” (Montesquieu,1), this statement serves true in founding that law is consistently a necessary portion in society because all society desires law. As a consequence of the continual presence of law, careers aimed to interpret the crevices of laws, and to defend them, are synonymously as necessary in society. Absolutely, the gain of America’s economy is a direct reflection of the lawyers who protect them. Lawyers are a necessity to the nation; serving their purpose as defenders of the law. The system of corporate law is undoubtedly the cornerstone of corporate finance, and as citizens begin to thrive more immensely in a capitalistic nation, legal representation will be the trailblazer to the continuation of the American system of corporations. As I embark upon the journey of excellence into the world of corporate law, I endeavor to change the way business is defended, upheld, and represented.
'Lawyers are all right, I guess - but it doesn't appeal to me,' I said. 'I mean they're all right if they go around saving innocent guys' lives all the time, and like that, but you don't do that kind of stuff if you're a lawyer. All you do is make a lot of dough and play golf and play bridge and buy cars and drink Martinis and look like a hot-shot. How would you know you weren't being a phony? The trouble is, you wouldn't' (Salinger 172).
...t to aid their client. Lawyers are by no means evil. They are simply doing their job. Unfortunately, the majority of them do it very well. And so long as criminals break the law, there will be lawyers to fight for them and defend them.
The goal of this paper is to examine John Harris’ experiment of the “Survival Lottery.” Specifically, I want to argue that the lottery makes too high a demand on us to give up our lives. Especially, when I’m pretty sure everyone wants to live. Prior accounts show that Harris proposes that if the argument of the distinction between “killing” and “letting die” is properly contrived, then killing one person to save two could happen on a regular basis. It would be an exception to the obligation not to kill innocent people in regards to the argument that there is a distinction between "killing" and "letting die.” The difference between killing and letting die presents a moral difference. As far as this argument we are obligated not to kill. I
The mother-son case illustrates that there are more factors in play than just the two that Thomson presents in her thesis. Thomson’s conditions by themselves cannot explain every situation. The relationship between the people involved can also affect whether a decision is morally permissible or not. If that relationship entails that one person is emotionally bound and ethically responsible for the security and well-being of the other, the first cannot knowingly contribute to the death of the second. Thomson’s thesis must be modified to include this condition as well.