Quinten van der Perk, TH4D 2017 Individual paper, Unawareness of the law. 20/04/2017
Introduction.
Imagine you’re a teenager again, you’re outside with some of your friends and you end up doing something you’re not really sure about is allowed according to the law, you end up doing it anyway because you’re a teenager and you don’t think of the consequences about an hour later the police drives by and arrests you and your friends, because apparently you did something that wasn’t allowed but you were unaware. Your own children are going through that stage now or they will at some point in their youth, you wouldn’t like your children to be locked up for a couple of months or even just a night for something they didn’t know was not allowed.
…show more content…
We’re just expected to know certain things based our morals and values. it’s kind of a controversial subject to speak about when you state that your knowledge about the law is minimal. There’s a quote by Aristotle that says: “No one is expected to not know the law.” As a individual you’re not supposed to know all the laws but you are expected to know the laws that affect you in your daily life and the situations you have to deal with on a pretty much regular basis. There are however miscarriages of justice. A miscarriage of justice is when someone has committed a crime that was obviously not allowed by the law since it’s a crime but on the moment of happening the person that did it misjudged the law and thought it was allowed or wasn’t aware of the law at all. (Advocatenkantoor Elfri de Neve, 2009 ) The effect this has is a lot of problems in court when people say that there’s a case of a miscarriage of justice, they claim to have not been aware of the law when committing the crime, this often happens in small cases but then we state this: “ “ignorantia juris non excusat”, meaning that being unaware of the law doesn’t excuse you. So this is a controversial thing because you’re supposed to know the law but sometimes that’s not the case and you get excused but then there’s always the fundamentals of the law system stating that being unaware of the law …show more content…
I learned that the government and the EU don’t always properly introduce their laws. I learned that there’s a lot of things that remain undiscussed although they affect a lot of people. I learned that the law is sort of a abstract something as everyone is just expected to know it but when you’re not as knowledgable as expected you can’t be excused under the excuse of being unaware of the law , this is because you’re just expected to know it. Although there currently isn’t really an instance that informs everyone about the changes in the law or even the fundamentals of the law which are based upon morals and values you’re still expected to know basic things and i think this should change and people should be properly educated about the law and the changes it goes through each
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
Unfortunately, these two cases are not uncommon in the justice world. As a matter of fact, “by 2010, Florida had sentenced more than a hundred children to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses,” (Stevenson 153). One of the primary reasons for this originated in the idea that harsher punishments will act as a deterrent for kids who want to break the law. However, recent studies have suggested that because the prefrontal lobe of the brain is still in development until the age of twenty, children don’t have the mental capacity to make the best decisions, especially under stress. Additionally, children normally wouldn’t have access to weapons or drugs, which allows the argument that adults should be held responsible for making such objects available to them in the first place (Reaves).
Further, the reason for them to get involved in the deviant behavior should be established first before judging them. According to studies, most youths is exposed to environments that drive them to commit crimes. Studies indicate that 79 percent of the children who involve themselves with crimes witness violence in their homes (Steinberg and Scott). Besides, 17 percent of these children grows without the frequent presence of their relatives (Nellis 45). Children facing such social disadvantages are most likely to commit crimes. Sentencing them may not be the solution since it adds more suffering than good for their lives. Instead of convicting them, the cause of them committing crimes should be established. That way, other children may be saved. However, lawmakers in the United States continue to turn a blind eye to human rights and social problems facing
... They are mature enough to understand the problems with the law, but that maturity also lets them realize that their freedom is restrained and that they have no power to change these laws.
The First Amendment is what we chose because it covers good areas (topics) that are occurring in the world on a daily basis. Many people like the items that The First Amendment covers, and some people don't like them. Either way there are many other amendments that have been ratified by the two-thirds of the House and Senate. There are ten amendments in the constitution, but there are 17 other amendments that aren't in the constitution. Therefore, in total there are 27 amendments.
Commonsense justice represents the citizens and what they think what is right and wrong; just and fair. The bias that jurors have inside themselves, they are taking those emotions to the jury box as they are about to judge the “defendant and the law.” What the citizens feel the law should be is what they think. (Norman J. Finkel, 2000). Instructions for jurors were “rewritten using psycholinguistic principles” which [illustrated] that their comprehension improved.” “Commonsense justice and jury instructions,” adjacent on an “instructive and reciprocating connection,” continued to demonstrate the studies of how citizens interpreted the instructions. (Norman J. Finkel, 2000)
Every year, innocent people are given prison sentences to crimes they did not commit. Statistics are kept by the Criminal Justice Department on the number of wrongful convictions but according to research, it has been estimated to 5% of the cases tried have resulted in a false conviction. Reasons due to false convictions are misidentification from a witness, false confessions, forensic mistakes, DNA testing, coercion, and more. A number of ideas will be argued as possible solutions to help lower the number of wrongful convictions that are given the innocent people who fall trapped to this system. A study by Barry Scheck [2008] on forensic evidence revealed that not more than 20% of the felony cases involved biological evidence [Scheck, 2008, p.4]. Although the number seems low, the proper handling and testing of biological evidence can offer some hope to an innocent suspect. Other variables that lead to wrongful convictions are false statements and confessions. Which that can be taken from suspects through questionable actions of methods. [Leo, Ofshe, 1998] or that pooled from jailhouse snitched, informants, or cooperators. Many people believe that the use of evidence has been corrupted in the system while others believe that cases where evidence is used are deviations from the typical process. “Eyewitness misidentifications were a factor in over 70% of wrongful convictions.” The knowledge that a free citizen could be unreasonably sentenced to prison or executed by the State is totally opposed the thought of shrewd treatment likely in the United States. DNA is the leading cause to wrongful convictions. If the problem is to be talked and fixed, it must first be understood; not as it is seen, but as it is. It is difficult to express...
According to the article of “Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?” at Buzzle.com, “It is a proven fact that when a child is at the age around nine or ten that they do not have the mental accessibility to think as an adult” (Borkar). Citizens see this statistic as a reason as to why children should not be tried as adults. “Children are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted in adult prisons than in juvenile facilities” (Equal Justice Initiative). These juveniles are subject to much harsher punishments which includes life sentencing (Michon). These people do not feel that these children should be in a prison for the rest of their life for something they did when they were 13. Broken families can be a reason for a child to rebel and become trouble. “Psychology speaking, it is said that there are no ‘problem children’ but only ‘problem parents’” (Borkar). Parents roles are to guide their kids in the right way. Children will not know what is right or wrong if parents do n...
of law has proved to be confusing to both juries and judges due to the
The subjective definition of recklessness is where the defendant takes an unjustified risk and was actually aware of the consequence, has been seen here to be the best approach when understanding reckless behaviour. Although within criminal law, the term recklessness has a second definition which is known to be objective recklessness. The objective definition argues that a person is reckless when the defendants take an unjustified risk and was actually aware or should have been aware. This essay establishes that the subjective definition of recklessness takes into account the individuals characteristics, the mental state of a defendant but also help to understand certain cases like rape. It has also been established here that elements of the objective definition is an extension from the subjective definition of recklessness, which therefore allows the subjective side holds greater weight and in terms of looking at if the reasonable man may have be incapable of foreseeing a consequence. Thus, it has been argued here that the subjective definition of recklessness in criminal law must be maintained.
Our wonderful country is known for a lot of things, unfortunately, dumb laws happen to be one of them. When you think of dumb criminals you usually think of morons trying to steal an ATM machine (it never works people, give it up) or dullards who write their bank robbery note on the back of their personal check but, occasionally, it's the law that's dumb, not the offender. For instance:
Today?s court system is left with many difficult decisions. One of the most controversial being whether to try juveniles as adults or not. With the number of children in adult prisons and jails rising rapidly, questions are being asked as to why children have been committing such heinous crimes and how will they be stopped. The fact of the matter is that it is not always the children's fault for their poor choices and actions; they are merely a victim of their environment or their parents. Another question asked is how young is too young. Children who are too young to see an R rated film unaccompanied are being sent to adult prisons. The only boundaries that seem to matter when it comes to being an adult are laws that restrain kids from things such as alcohol, pornography, and other materials seen as unethical. Children that are sent to adult prison are going to be subjected to even more unprincipled ideas and scenes. When children can be sent to jail for something as minor as a smash and grab burglary, the judicial system has errors. The laws that send juveniles to adult prisons are inhumane, immoral, and unjust. Kids are often incompetent, which leads to unfair trials. Adult prisons are also very dangerous for minors, and in many cases this leads to more juvenile crimes.
The difference between a mediocre attorney and a great attorney, is their ability to do great research. Researching anything is a process; thus, legal research is the process of finding which primary law applies to a client’s problem. There are certain guidelines an attorney must follow when researching in the field of law; their goal to win their case in court with only the research they found. There are also different sources of law that require different approaches to research.
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.
Law is one of the most important elements that transform humans from mere beasts into intelligent and special beings. Law tells us what is right and wrong and how we, humans, should act to achieve a peaceful society while enjoying individual freedoms. The key to a successful nation is a firm, strong, and fair code of high laws that provides equal and just freedom to all citizens of the country. A strong government is as important as a firm code of law as a government is a backbone of a country and of the laws. A government is a system that executes and determines its laws. As much as fair laws are important, a capable government that will not go corrupt and provide fair services holds a vital role in building and maintaining a strong country.