In the case of the Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884), was a case that decided if two seamen, Dudley and Stephens, were guilty of murder for the killing of another seaman, Richard Parker. This case presented special circumstances in that the murder occurred at sea, some 1000 miles from land, and after a shipwreck (Brody and Acker, 2010). The defendants and the victim were all in a life boat, and after several days without food and water, Dudley and Stephens decided to kill Parker so that they could use his body for food and water, in order for them to survive. After considering the special circumstances, the court found them to be guilty of murder, and sentenced them to death. This sentence was later commuted to a term of six months in jail (Brody & Acker, 2010). …show more content…
To start with, as was stated in the testimony, it was not known, by the defendants or anyone else, whether or not a rescue vessel would appear, or when one would arrive on the scene (Brody & Acker, 2010). With this in mind, the argument that the defendants took an action to save their own lives, by sacrificing the life of the victim, who was in a weakened condition, and would possibly survive much longer, is a valid point to consider. Another point would be after 20 plus days at sea, with little to hope of rescue, the defendants were probably not in the best mental state possible, and that the very real possibility facing them, that of their own demise, would bring into question of whether or not they were capable of making a rational decision at the time in question. It is with these factors in mind, that I would suggest that the defendants should have been found not guilty on the grounds of temporary insanity, and confined in a sanitarium or mental
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
In the case of Canada v. Bedford, three sex workers in Ontario Canada, Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, challenged the Charter as they stated that the following sections in the Criminal Code violate the rights promised and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; CC s 210, CC s. 212(1) (j), and CC s. 213(1) (c). These sections “make it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy-house, prohibit living on the avails of prostition, and prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution,” (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6-3). The women claimed that these restrictions did not, in fact, prevent but implement more danger for anyone in the field of work. The women claimed that these restrictions went against their rights protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter as it disabled them from their right to freedom of expression (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6). As the provisions were set to prevent “public nuuisance” and “exploitation of prositutes,” they in fact go against the rights in s. 7 of the Charter. Thus, being under declaration of invalidity. This in fact brings upon question on whether it is the right decision to allow prostitution without any regulation in order to impose that the the Charter is not being violated, or whether to suspend the declaration until a proper method has been developed (while infringing the rights of those in the field of work). Ultimately, all of the laws were struck down by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On September 12th, Carmela Buhbut, a battered wife who shot her husband to death 31 times from a close range, was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. She then appealed to the Supreme Court against the severity of the sentence. No less than three different justices held the complicated appeal- Bach, Kedmi and Dorner. All three of them, agreed that there is no doubt, that taking a person’s life is a crime which Buhbut should be punished for. However, only of them, justice Kedmi, thought the appeal should be dismiss in limine.
This assignment will cover a fictitious name of Mary Cooper a woman accused of harboring a fugitive, and illegal stolen equipment. The police attempted an illegal search and seizure in her home without a search warrant. This violates her Fourth Amendment rights. Cooper held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the exclusion of evidence found though an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the state a rule that previously applied onto to federal law enforcement.
Bowers, W, Pierce, G., and McDevitt, J.(1984), Legal Homicide: Death as Punishment in America, 1964-1982, 333
In colonial America, the court structure was quite different from that of their mother country, Great Britain. The system was a triangle of overlapping courts and common law. Common law was largely influenced by the moral code from the King James Version of the Bible, also known as moral law. In effect, these early American societies were theocratic and autocratic containing religious leaders, as well as magistrates. Sometimes these men were even one and the same. The criminal acts in colonial America were actually very similar to the crime prevalent in our society today. However, certain infractions were taken more seriously. Through the documents provided, we get a look at different crimes and their subsequent punishments in colonial
By ruling the death of the attacker an accident, the murderer did not suffer consequences for his actions. Although Mr. Radley was defendi...
Sloan, I. The Right to Die: Legal and Ethical Problems. London: Oceana Publications, Inc. 1988.
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
(Baude, 21). This quote provides details of why the finality in the decisions regarding death may not accurately represent the justice the accused deserves. It augments the ultimate overarching point made by Scheck and Rust-Tierney that we should not determine death. Despite the strong points made throughout the debate, there were key issues that Schneck and Rust-Tierney adequately refuted. The first was their failure when they lacked a counter to Scheidegger’s point on how inmates are often treated in the facilities themselves.