Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Literal statutory interpretation
Doctrine of statutory interpretation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Literal statutory interpretation
On February 4, 2015, attorney Brian Ellison on behalf of petitioner, Gary Debaun and Jeffrey Geldens on behalf of the respondent, the State of Florida stood before the Florida Supreme Court to argue under section 384.24 (2) of the Florida Unlawful acts statute, whether the definition of “sexual intercourse” is limited to sex between a man and a woman or if the statute extends beyond the conduct of penile-vaginal intercourse. Following the review of this case, I will begin by presenting the key facts, followed by a summary of the petitioner and respondent’s cases, and finally my analysis and thoughts concerning the case. In 2011, the State charged Gary Debaun for violating Florida Statute § 384.24 (2) which asserts, it is unlawful …show more content…
The basis of his argument is this, his client’s conduct does not fall under the narrow definition of sexual intercourse referred to in Florida Statute § 384.24 and therefore not prosecutable for his supposed violation. The petitioner’s argument relied on the definition that sexual intercourse, based on to the Florida Supreme Court’s determination of 1926 as well as the legislature’s use of the term, as the “actual contact of the sexual organs of a man and a woman and actual penetration into the body of the latter”. Mr. Ellison argues that the legislature used this definition when adding HIV to the venereal disease law and did not include other forms of sexual conduct because at that time the sodomy law was still in effect and covered all other sexual activity outside of sexual intercourse. His client’s conduct of oral and anal sex with a male partner falls outside the sexual intercourse defined in section 384 and applied more appropriately to the misdemeanor Sodomy law. Subsequently, the 2003 case of Lawrence v. State out of Texas found the misdemeanor Sodomy law unconstitutional, creating a gap in the current prosecutorial system. Mr. Ellison likened the State’s inability to prosecute his client for this violation to the 1971 case of Wilson v. State predicament that left a similar gap in felony prosecution for same-sex rape. The Florida Supreme Court declared the felony sodomy statute …show more content…
The State’s case is straightforward, the defendant is being prosecuted for penalties under a public health statute, not a criminal one and with that understanding, the statute does not require any interpretive analysis. In 1986, the legislature repealed the venereal disease statute and created the sexually transmissible diseases statute with the exception of HIV. Moreover, in 1988 the legislature added the AIDS program to the statute, which included the provision of consent. Again, the provision within the law requires anyone known to be HIV positive and educated about the risk of transmitting the disease to another must inform the person of their positive status and receive consent before engaging in sexual intercourse. The context in which the legislature composed this law was twofold, one to educate the public on the consequences of high-risk behavior and two, to enforce penalties on those who endanger unwitting victims by not properly informing them of the risk and obtaining their consent prior to engaging in the high-risk behavior. The case before the court epitomizes this sediment, the victim and petitioner engaged in behavior known for spreading this disease and due to Mr. Debaun’s deceptive behavior, put the victim at risk of contracting the disease. The statute’s purpose is not to punish those for doing something unlawful, but to protect
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
A summary of the case details (provide the circumstances surrounding the case, who, what, when, how)
The opinion of the court was held by Justice Kennedy, in that the Colorado amendment was held unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued the amendment singles out a specific group in which, it would make it so only homosexuals cannot receive the protective rights that are available to anyone else. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not guaranteed the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination though the use of legislation. Additionally, Kennedy claims “In and ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632) By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a ...
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
Texas can be attributed to the angle from which the defendant and justices approached the case. Instead of focusing solely on due process, from which the petitioners’ right to “engage in their conduct without intervention of the government” is derived, attention was also given to equal protection under the law. By criminalizing “sodomy” and thus homosexuality, Texas made it “more difficult for homosexuals to be treated in the same manner as everyone else,” thus legally sanctioning “discriminations against [homosexuals] in a variety of ways unrelated to the criminal law.” [footnote O’Connor, concur] The fear was that the law would set a precedence for discrimination in various fields of everyday life, ranging from family to employment and housing. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor points out in her concurrence, although the criminalization of sodomy (most broadly defined in American law as non-procreative sex) itself may not be unconstitutional, the way the law is implemented was, as only homosexual sodomy was banned (as opposed to heterosexual sodomy). Therefore, under the Equal Protection Clause, the law represents a “bare desire to harm the group.” [footnote ibid] Although Texas invoked the moral argument, as government had done in the past when regulating marriage and family and other forms of intimate relationships, O’Connor found such arguments to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, (judicial) government
Facts: The plaintiffs, eight same-sex couples, were denied marriage licenses and brought action against the state and local officials. The plaintiffs made a claim stating that the state statutory prohibition, § 46b-38nn, against same-sex marriage was a violation of their right to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The Connecticut Superior Court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which resulted in an appeal from the couples.
Facts of Case: Mr. Hendricks suffers from a disorder called pedophilia, which is a psychosexual disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child of the same or opposite sex. During trial, Mr. Hendricks admitted to having this disorder but he was never treated for a cure. As a result, he continued to have desires for children. His desires worsened and became uncontrollable when he was stressed out. (Caselaw, 2009) The jury ruled him to be a sexually violent predator. Mr. Hendricks had an extensive history of child molestation, so the state of Kansas felt they should petition under the sexually violent predator act, which outlines that, the civil commitment of persons who, due to a “mental abnormality” or a “personality disorder,” are likely to engage in such acts. (Caselaw, 2009)
According to Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent College of Law, John Kelly, acting on behalf of New York residents receiving financial assistance either under the federally-assisted program for Families with Dependent Children or under New York State's home relief program, challenged the constitutionality of procedures for notice and termination of such aid. Although originally offering no official notice or opportunity for hearings to those whose aid was scheduled for termination, the State of New York implemented a hearing procedure after commencement of Kelly's litigation.
Harry Hopkins gained the attention of the White House because not just because he was out spoken, but because he was preforming the work he wanted to see. He raised his own private dollars to form the Emergency Work Bureau. As a Social Worker assisting homeless women and children I would want to channel government funding towards affordable housing in rule communities. To gain support I would have to build a portfolio of what I have enacted, either though community based supports or private funding. By proving what was implemented on a smaller scale would uphold in my request for government funding. Hopkins was persistent and did not back down from his cause. His drive and to see people move from unemployment to employed, showed great compassion
Perhaps most indicative of the law's blatantly homophobic basis is the fact that the state has no restrictions on using gays and lesbians to relieve the burden on the foster care system. The state frequently uses gay couples to provide homes for disabled and terminally ill children, but refuses to recognize that thi...
According to Bennett-Alexander & Hartman (2015) in order to determine the severity of the sexual harassment, the perspective must be obtained from the reasonable person standard (usually a male or gender neutral) or reasonable victim standard, which is viewing from the victim’s perspective (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). The reasonable victim standard was issued as a policy by EEOC in order to be fair and obtain the woman’s perspective or reasonable woman (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). Both of the standards mentioned are not intended to favor one gender more than the other, but rather create a gender-conscious examination of sexual harassment (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). Thus, it is the employer’s responsibility to make the
According to Charles Scott, author of the journal The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Outline, sexual victimization of children and adults is a significant treatment and public policy problem in the United States (Scott, 2003). In addition, the journal explains that in order to reduce sex offender recidivism, nine states in the United States have passed legislation authorizing surgical castration. Even though it might cause arguments in the future in t...
Same-sex marriage inequality is an issue that has been troubling American society since the birth of our country. More recently, the United States Supreme Court has tackled some frequently raised arguments that deal with same-sex marriage and our constitutional rights. In the case US vs. Windsor, the legal question: “Does the Defense of Marriage Act [...] deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?” The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman”. The ultimate ruling of the case US v. Windsor declared that Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The social and economic effects of the decision was not universal in effect, and unfortunately, since states retain power to allow or deny same-sex marriages, over nine-million Americans are still being stripped of their rights.
In the California elections of November 2008, ballot initiative Proposition 8 was passed. This California state constitutional amendment stated, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This proposition did not affect the state’s same sex marriages or domestic partnerships performed before November 5, 2008 (Martin). It wasn’t long before the state started experiencing arguments based on the validity of Proposition 8. Two same-sex couples responded to the proposition, which eventually led to the well-recognized case Hollingsworth v. Perry (formally known as Hollingsworth v. Perry).