Abstract This paper surveys the effect of corrupt judges on the public's perception of the legalsystem. It discusses the crucial role trust plays in the American justice system and how corrupt judges attack this sense of trust. The paper cites specific examples to qualify points made.
From the Paper "It is probable that the public perceives corrupt judges to be more widespread throughout the legal system than they actually are. But while the public might be wrong about the number of corrupt judges they are probably not wrong about the ..."
Abstract This paper investigates the medico-legalsystem in the United Kingdom in relation to the phenomenon of concealed homicide. The paper focuses primarily on England and Wales and concludes that deficiencies in the system facilitate concealment of murder.
From the Paper "This study investigates the implications in relation to the phenomenon of concealed homicide of medico-legal system in the United Kingdom, with a primary focus on England and Wales. The term concealed homicide as the term is used in this study refers to a death resulting from an unlawful action wherein the actual circumstances of the death are concealed to..."
Abstract This paper presents an examination of how natural law impacts the American legalsystem. The paper provides a general overview of natural law and then explores how natural law applies to the current legalsystem in the United States. It argues that the natural law helps to drive the current system and describes how this is true.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Natural Law
Natural Law and the American LegalSystem Conclusion
From the Paper "Natural law in its most simple form, is the unwritten law of mankind. It is a concept of principle morals and values that are, or at least should be shared by all of mankind because of the central goodness of their concept. (Horowitz, 2000)"
"Natural law is therefore distinguished from -- and provides a standard for -- positive law, the formal legal enactments of a particular society (Dolhenty, 2004)."
One example of this is the belief that killing is wrong. There are few humans or societies on earth that would disagree with the basic tenet that the murder of another person without reason is wrong. (Green, 2005) It takes a loved one from a family, it removes financial support from children, it takes someone out of society that may have moved on to contribute great things and if one is Christian, then the act of murder is something that God does not allow. It is not up to man to determine who lives or dies, it is God's choice and to kill is to try and play God."
Abstract It is not until very recently during this century that women have looked to the legalsystem for support and assistance in their struggle for equality. The legislative background, including the Civil Rights Act, has provided a foundation for women to look to the courts for redress of their grievances. However, there remain problems within the legalsystem, including problems in civil rights law, arbitration, and mediation.
This paper provides a descriptive study of the state of gender issues in the American legalsystem, with a specific look at the increased use of mediation and arbitration to settle such problems as domestic violence and child custody. This type of settlement has increased and many feminists contend that mediation and arbitration automatically place women at a power disadvantage.
From the Paper "One of the problems is that mandated mediation is beginning to be an important element in family law, specifically with domestic violence and custody disputes (Thoennes, Salem and Pearson, 1995). In these instances, feminist scholars contend that mandated mediation puts women in a one-down position. They are considered to be vulnerable in the mediation process and likely to lose power and position within it. Although the courts have not always empowered women who have suffered domestic violence either, the mediation situation is viewed as even more likely to lead to unjust results (Hart, 1990)."
Abstract This paper explains that, during the past four years, with the help of international aide, Afghanistan has worked towards the goal of justice for its people, but the outcome has created international and internal conflicts, which threaten the badly needed autonomy of the court. The author points out that the problem lies with the very vocal minority, the radical Islamic Shari'a, who are frowned upon by the majority of the Muslim population and the western countries offering aid but, in the past, have bullied and terrorized those who defied them. The paper relates that, although the Afghanistan government is determined to create a justice system that both strengthens the country and appeals to the populace, the fact that nothing has been resolved and that nothing is currently being done to close the loopholes in the constitution doesn't seem to be a big concern to the leadership of Afghanistan.
Table of Contents
The Challenge in Afghanistan
The Shari'a
A History of the LegalSystems of Afghanistan
The Modern Reformation of the LegalSystem A Test of the New System Conclusion
From the Paper "Warlords continued to fight each other until the mid-1990s when the Taliban took control of the country. The Taliban brought back the Shari'a, only this time in an extreme form, as the law of the country, partly in response to support from Pakistan. Their interpretation of Islam was enforced by religious police known as the Ministry of Virtue. They oversaw the implementation of radical Shari'a that included amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, banning of television, music and sports. The Taliban framed the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, 1,800 year old statues carved into the side of a mountain, as an extension of the Shari'a law prohibiting idols."
Abstract This paper looks at how Australian law is very closely linked with legal positivism, since it revolves around the concept of power. It explains that the sovereign order is treated as the final word, which cannot be altered or amended. While the same is the case in the United States, the writer points out that there is some flexibility towards modern interpretations of law. The United States gives its judiciary enough freedom to interpret law according to the circumstances. The same is, however, missing from the Australian legalsystem where modern interpretations are often met with disapproval. It concludes that this is the essential difference between legalsystems of the two countries, a difference that has turned Australian law into a more rigid and positivistic form of law.
From the Paper "A law must be resistant to change for that is the whole purpose of implementing laws. However they must also be flexible enough to allow modern interpretation, which is unfortunately not the case in Australia and this, is what makes Australian constitutional law positivist in nature. In other words, when a law is so rigid that it cannot allow modern interpretation and fails to keep pace with changing times, it is said to be positivistic in nature. In such laws, the interpretation is rigidly limited and the original law cannot be molded to suit modern conditions and circumstances. While then United States constitutional law is also highly resistant to change, it is nonetheless flexible enough to allow Supreme and High Courts to seek modern interpretation. However that is not the case in Australia where constitutional law is the final word of authority and to allow the law to keep pace with changing times is seen as a threat to the constitution. A very apt example of this kind of rigidity of law can be seen in Bulun Bulun case of 1999.
In this case, the copyright Law of Australia was under consideration and it was found that the rigid interpretation of the law was closely connected with legal positivism. The painter John Bulun sought Court's help in combining customary law with the Copyright Act. Mr. Bulun Bulun wanted one of his paintings "Magpie Geese and Water Lilies at the Waterhole", to be seen as a work of co-authorship. He wanted his entire community to be the owner of this property since it was more in line with his customs and cultural beliefs.
Judge Von Doussa however refused to combine customary law with Copyright Law and decided to stay with strict interpretation of the law thus taking a positivistic approach as Bowrey (2001) explains: ?It is difficult to ascertain whether or not von Doussa grasped the cultural implications that flow from his endorsement of these precedents about joint authorship. At key points in the decision closure to consideration of the indigenous point of view was achieved by using legal positivist interpretative practice. He identified the appropriate legal rule concerning joint authorship without reference to any discourse about the meaning of the terminology. Copyright law is "entirely a creature of statute"."
Abstract This paper discusses the fluid nature of law and most legalsystems and then relates this characteristic back to healthcare. Various aspects of healthcare such as palliative care and healthcare's ethical framework are examined in light of the nuances of an inexact legal framework. This paper concludes that the healthcare industry cannot and should not function off the interpretive method that the legalsystem does.
From the Paper "The nature of law has been a hotly contested subject ever since Hammurabi first had his code carved in stone circa 1775 B.C. Since then, law has been subjected to myriad interpretive analysis, written, rewritten and canonized in various ways: the common law of England, precedent or case law in America developing out of England's common law heritage and even religious law as of Islamic law commonly called Shari'ah. The only common dialectical thread through all these historical bodies of law and legal systems, both current and past, is that law is not an exact science. "
Closely examines whether or not Australia should adapt a Bill of Rights in their Constitution, looking at current protection of human rights in the legalsystem.
Abstract This paper looks at the current ability of the Australian legalsystem in protection of human rights. It includes an examination of the Constitution, High Court, Implied Rights, Common Law, The HREOC (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission), international law, and federal and state laws in Australia. The paper questions whether or not current protection is adequate, and whether a bill of rights is needed.
From the Paper "Human rights refers to those rights described as "basic and essential to the existence of human beings". These include a range of rights such as the right to life, freedom and security of person; the right to free speech; the right to a fair trial. Pressure for a bill of rights in Australia has been considerable over the last 10 years due to increased awareness of existing laws and to their inability to protect human rights, uncertainty about the High Court and interpretations of implied rights, and embarrassing challenges to the existing Australian laws. The Australian legal system has to be examined closely in order to conclude whether human rights are adequately protected. There are many means of protection in the Australian legal system, yet the actual effectiveness has to be examined as to what extent "little protection" is offered. There are many arguments in favor of the introduction of a bill of rights, however, if this would actually be appropriate for Australia in protection of human rights, and if the need is warranted, needs to be looked at in greater detail."
Abstract This paper provides an account of a Russian student learning about American's faith in the American legalsystem. The paper is written in the narrative form and describes some of the difficulties that the author's fellow Russian students faced in America. The paper then looks at ways that the author attempted to help her Russian friends and if she was successful.
From the Paper "For example, consider the trouble that Russian students have with some of the more commonly assigned books on major legal cases. One such book is Gideon's Trumpet, Anthony Lewis' Pulitzer Prize winning account of the case which established the rule that a person charged with a felony who cannot afford a lawyer will be appointed one. To a Russian student, the very notion that the Supreme Court would be interested in considering a rule such as this is baffling. I once discussed Gideon's Trumpet with a Russian student, whose first question was why the Supreme Court would want to cause so many problems for itself. If people accused of crimes have lawyers, they are more likely raise legal issues. "But what if the person is innocent?" I asked. The question stopped the conversation. The Russian student realized that he viewed the judicial system as carrying out a purpose which is generally quite different from the (ideal) purpose of the American judicial system. To him, the legal system exists to control dissent, of any sort, whether it is classical political dissent, or social dissent as represented by criminals. In a legal system that exists to control dissent, providing lawyers for "dissidents" increases difficulty and impedes efficiency. In a legal system determined to resolve questions of guilt or innocence, providing attorneys increases the effectiveness of the system."
Abstract The paper explores human rights and equality legislation, sentencing options and the key principles of restorative justice. The paper explains how the conceptions of social and criminal justice differ in the way they conceptualise both the criminal and the crime. The paper then shows how in its present form, therefore, the legalsystem has largely negative consequences on the establishment and maintenance of social justice. The paper also points out, however, the many possibilities for allowing social justice to flourish.
From the Paper "The purpose of the legal system is to effectively administer the national law. Due to its very nature, the law aims to avoid ambiguity and thus offer a clear and set collection of rules and codes that are capable of universal enforcement. Although for decades there have been protracted attempts to include the ethos of social justice within this legal framework, the two concepts have often come into conflict with one another. The basis of social justice is that all aspects of society afford just and fair treatment for all, including that beyond the auspices of the law (Jordon, 1990) As such, the idea of social justice is capable of transmission to areas unavailable to the law."
Tags: human, rights, equality, legislation, sentencing, restorative, justice, social, work
Abstract This paper discusses the history and philosophy of Belgian law, significant features of criminal and procedural law, how judges and attorneys are educated and attain their positions, sentencing philosophy, and levels of jurisdiction in terms of subject matter and territory. The paper concludes with a comparison and contrast of these features with the American legalsystem.
Abstract This paper looks at the doctrine of judicial precedent in the process of adjudication and legal reform in the legalsystem in England and Wales. Judicial precedent is an important element of the Western legalsystem, but it is not in continental civil law systems. In particular, it discusses how the judiciary has received much criticism in the procedure of precedent.
From the Paper "The historical power struggle began in the 17th century between the legislature and the Crown (Stuart Monarchy) and ended with Parliament becoming an independent in the power of making law in the name of the Crown. Nowadays, the ultimate power of making new law lies with the primary legislature (Parliament). Parliament has the capability of authorising and altering laws and as Parliament is an elected house, the power is given through democracy, but this is not so in the House of Lords because they are not an elected chamber. The House of Lords has received proposals for reform and those proposals are to modify the traditional form of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the Peerage Act 1963. "
Abstract This paper discusses three major legalsystems. The legalsystems discussed are: The Common Law system, the Civil Law system and the Islamic Law system based on Shari'ah. The Common Law system is discussed in relation to the United States and England while the Civil Law system is discussed in relation to the European continent. Finally, Islamic Law is discussed primarily in terms of its application throughout Islam.
From the Paper "The nature of law has been a hotly contested subject ever since Hammurabi first had his code carved in stone circa 1775 B.C. (Deffains & Kirat, 2001, p.19). Since then, law has been subjected to myriad interpretive analysis, written, rewritten and canonized in various ways: Islamic Law associated with Shari'ah, the Common Law of England and the United States and the Civil Law structures found across most of Europe. The only common dialectical thread through all these historical bodies of law and legal systems, both current and past, is that law is not an exact science."
Abstract This paper examines the current Anglo-American judicial system and its history while also considering some of its drawbacks. In response to these short-comings, the author suggests alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as arbitration and impartial investigation. These methods are discussed in light of their use in other legalsystems around the world. The author concludes that a reform of the adversarial systems currently in use in the Anglo-North American world would be desirable because reforms might increase the availability of true justice for large segments of the population.
Outline:
Introduction
The Development of the Adversarial System The Adversarial System vs. Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution: The European Civil Code Example
Possibilities and Problems Relating to the Implementation of Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom
Conclusion
From the Paper "The justice system of the Anglo-North American world is an adversarial one. A lawyer is an advocate - he or she represents the case and the views of his or her clients. The rightness or wrongness of the arguments of the opposing side is of no concern to counsel. It is the duty of the lawyer to represent the client's case to the best of his or her ability; to make use of whatever legal arguments, statutes, precedents, etc. will advance his or her client's cause. In essence, the judicial system of the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, and other nations that follow the English legal tradition, is one of a debate between two sides. It is the responsibility of the judge and jury to decide the case based on the relative merits of the arguments for each side. In contrast to the usage of many other nations, there is no independent attempt made to determine the correctness of either argument. Neither judge nor jury possesses the authority to actually investigate the claims made. As well, Anglo-North American law does not require that actionable cases strictly match the provisions of some pre-established code. Precedent is of great importance having, in the absence of positive law to the contrary, the force of law. In this sense, the law is quite malleable. Through careful research, an attorney might discover a useful prior decision that could lend weight to his or her arguments. Again, since there is no adherence to a strict code of laws, as say the Roman Law, or the Code Napoleon, it becomes possible to manipulate existing laws and precedents to suit the situation. Of course, a major difficulty of any system that relies upon the best presented argument is the danger that such an argument may not actual to be correct. Rather, it only appears to be correct. As a result, many have begun to question the utility and fairness of the adversarial system. "
Abstract Discusses decline of public trust & confidence in the legalsystem. Asseses basic issues. Public perception of legalsystem. Basis of U.S. rule of law. Principle of judicial independence. Challenges t the justice system. Importantce of a strong & independent judiciary. Ideals of American judicial independence related to rest of the world.
From the Paper " While a decline of public trust and confidence in the legal system may appear to be of recent origin, it has a long history. In an address to the American Bar Association delivered in August 1906, Roscoe Pound, then Dean of the Law Department of the University of Nebraska, observed:
Dissatisfaction with the administration of justice is as old as law. As long as there have been laws and lawyers, conscientious and well.meaning men have believed that laws were mere arbitrary technicalities, and that the attempt to regulate the relations of mankind in accordance with them resulted largely in injustice. But we must not be deceived by this..."
