To begin with, I find the story Outside the Law quite interesting that is told by the priest to Joseph K. in the cathedral. One reason why this story is interesting it represents how people can be deceiving. Usually most people are deceiving in many ways. Some includes lying and lack of honesty. As the priest describes the story Outside the Law, Joseph K. learns that a man is being deceive by a doorkeeper. The man has an interest in the law, so he takes the initiative to ask the doorkeeper if he can be allowed into the law, but is quickly denied and told maybe later. Throughout this story, the doorkeeper is being deceiving towards the man. He’s giving false hope to the man by encouraging him to try and bypass the doorkeepers in order to gain …show more content…
In addition, I like how the priest and Joseph K. gave both their opinions about this story. It gives readers two different perspectives on how Joseph K. and the priest interprets this story. I agree with Joseph K. opinion’s on how he believes the doorkeeper deceived the man, because he is absolutely right that is exactly what he did. In some way, I disagree with the priest perspective on the doorkeeper. He states, “and you must remember that he was only a doorkeeper, and as such he did his duty” (pg. 155). Yes, the doorkeeper has a specific job to do, but in a way he did not completely fulfill his job as a doorkeeper because he denied the man access to the law, but in the end the access to the law is actually granted to the man, so he should have never been denied. Furthermore, I believe this story ties to Joseph K. In this novel, The Trial, Joseph K. faces being deceived by the law as well. During his hearing he realizes that the people in the court who he classified as during his hearing half of the room will applaud and support him, however; on the other side of the room people will do the opposite. Eventually he quickly begins to see badges on both groups collars and realizes that they are working together against him. This is an example of how Joseph K. is being deceive as well. Overall, I understand why Joseph K. will have such an opinion towards the doorkeeper because
At certain times it might feel right for some people to help the people that they love by lying. Elizabeth, Proctor's wife, does not tell the truth about her husband's affair in front of the society to protect her husband. She describes her husband as a “good and righteous man” in the court (Miller 113). However, that is not the truth. When a person loves someone, he or she would do anything to help that person. Some people choose the right way, while the others choose the wrong path. Elizabeth decides to lie for the first time just to save Proctor from the problems that he might face if the truth is revealed. Similarly, a teenage girl lies about her friend’s abortion to protect her. De Paulo says, “People tell these serious lies to protect something when the truth could threaten something that they really value” (Kelleher 1). In this case, the girl took the same step to save her friend. People do not want to see their loved ones suffer. As a result, they hide the truth to protect that person from danger. To protect others, they forget the bad outcomes and the trouble they might have to face for telling lies. Not only do people lie for others, but they lie for their own
In John Torpey’s article “Coming and Going: On the State Monopolization of legitimate Means of Movement” he points out that through the use of documents such as international passports, internal passports, and identifications card such as driver licenses, the state control movements. By constructing rules and regulations the states are able to monitor and regulate who come can come in and who can’t. However, Sadiq in his article addresses illegal immigrants in a way that Torpey, failed to mention in his article. Sadiq in in his article, “Documentary Citizenship” brings forth an argument that focuses on illegal immigrants and their visibility within a nation-state. Being illegal one does not have any legal documents which means, they are invisible to the state. Though, illegal immigrants can buy identification documents in the black market that can give them social, political, or economical rights that will give them visibility within the state. I agree with Sadiq, that in order to fit in and to have rights in society you need some sort of
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.
I will not deal in lies,’” (Miller,1272). In the play, the people who have confessed to being witches are lying because they want to live and/or get rid of people they do not like. Even given proper evidence that the so-called “witches” are lying, the court does not believe them. Humans can only take so much until they break the law.
When in times of trouble, we look to the law as guidance, and as Christians, we look to the Bible as well. God gave us commandments so that we can easily distinguish right from wrong, and to act as our concrete “law,” so to speak. What would happen if the law didn’t matter or that authority was corrupt? This is exactly the horror that occurred. Authority definitely looke...
... become the victims. In the case there was never any innocence present in an individual, the choices they make will shape how corrupt they become. The town of Holcomb was traumatized by the unexpected murder of a respected family, which turned the community into distrusting gossipers. This event can take place in childhood, as it did for Perry Smith, who grew up with no protection from corruption by his parents and killed an entire family. Dick Hickock, impulsive and shallow, formulated a plan to rob and kill any witnesses present at the Clutter household. He was corrupt enough to go ahead with the plan and persuade Perry to kill the witnesses. Innocence must be protected to ensure that others may be kept innocent. The virtuous quality that most people have is connected to their innocence, but if their innocence is lost, their future may be condemned to sinfulness.
The law in Salem was guilty until proven innocent, which was very unjust because in the constitution it clearly states that a person is innocent until proven guilty; and the court condemned people without providing the proper evidence to prove their innocence or guilt. "And why not, if they must hang for denyin' it? There are them that will swear to anything before they'll hang; have you never thought of that?"(258-296). Reverend Hale and John Proctor are discussing and agreeing that the justice of the court is not "just" and that an accusation is like already saying your guilty. The only way to avoid punishment would be to lie and confess. This isn't just at all because lying is a crime, but in this case it's forced upon because there's no way you could prove your innocence if your already found guilty and there's no evidence that your innocent. "But the proof, the proof!"(118). Elizabeth Procter and Mary Warren are talking about how Goody Osborn was condemned only because she couldn't recite the Ten Commandments. While Elizabeth noticed the court didn't have any proof that Goody Procter was guilty.
I was fortunate to be able to attend Richard Rothsteins talk for his book The Color of Law. Richard Rothstein has worked as a Research Associate for places such as the Economic Policy Institute and Fellow for the Thurgood Marshall Institute. The book is about the forgotten history of how our government segregated America. As an African American female from the South, I do not live in a white privilege bubble so I am well aware of how our government separated and still separate’s America. I attended a de facto segregated all black high school in Georgia with resources not comparable to our neighboring predominantly white school which I could not attend because expertly drawn lines that made it so people whom lived in black neighborhoods could attend my
We have all heard the common adage “Practice what you preach.” Another version of this sentiment can be found in the saying “You cannot just talk the talk; you must walk the walk.” In other words, it is commonly considered useless for one to talk about doing something or living a certain way if he does not actually live out those words. It is overall a sentiment that denounces hypocrisy. This idea is explored by Geoffrey Chaucer in his “Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale,” as well as the Introduction to the tale. Chaucer identifies a pardoner as his main character for the story and utilizes the situational and verbal irony found in the pardoner’s interactions and deplorable personality to demonstrate his belief in the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church during this time.
One character that seemed to fall into the social trap of hypocrisy is Judge Danforth. When questioning Mary Warren about her sudden decision to tell the truth, Danforth ridicules Mary when saying, "How were you instructed in your life? Do you not know that God damns all liars?" (94). The Judge sees himself as part of the "elect" which is why he believes everyone else to be ignorant. For this same reason, is unable to see his error in forcing people to lie to save their lives. When Reverend Hale fails in his attempt to pardon the accused, Danforth states, "I cannot pardon these when twelve are already hanged for the same crime. It is not just," (119). Danforth sees himself as high enough in society that he has the God-given gift to decide what will benefit the community. The Judge believes he is showing compassion in deciding what is "just" but is ignorant to the fact that this "justness" only causes unneeded deaths. Danforth's pride causes him to be blind toward his blatant hypocritical accusations.
In "a view from the Bridge", justice and law are not presented as being synonymous.
According to Aristotle, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual”, suggesting every member of society, even a ruler, must abide by and follow the law. The rule of law is linked to the principle of justice, meaning that everyone within a society (including both private citizens and government officials) are subject to the law, and that those laws are administered fairly and justly. The intention of the rule of law is to protect against arbitrary governance. It is the basic underpinning of a free society.
...acilitators when they are the only characters whose authority never is questioned. Only they can pull off the deceptive schemes that they do because no one else in the play either can be trusted, or is not in a position of power as the friars are. Friar Francis and Friar Lodowick are not despised in the end because their religious positions allow for them to be trusted in making a just and right decision. The friars restored order. Within the system of justice in which the friars operate it is not only just, but necessary, to sin by lying and deceiving, in order for love and harmony to prevail. It then becomes a question of not whether these holy men abuse Christian dogma, but on their intent behind the deceit. Thus "craft against vice" is the powerful system which allows for discrepancy concerning sin in order to combat the havoc caused by deception by evil intent.
To begin, we must understand the meaning of the rule of law and why the UK courts implement this constitutional principle in day to day practice. British jurist and constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey paved the way for much of our understanding of the rule of law we know today; giving a strong starting point for academics such as Lord Bingham and Joseph Raz whom later on developed the formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. Dicey has three key principles: no punishment unless there is a breach of the law; Law should not be exercised arbitrarily; and there should be a consistency in the creation of law. Dicey simply means that an individual should be aware of laws which apply to them, they are free to act as they please, whether they
Law is a tool in society as it helps to maintain social control, promoting social justice. The way law functions in society and its social institution provide a mechanism for solutions. There are many different theories of the function of law in relation to society in considering the insight they bring to different socio-legal and criminological problems. In the discussion of law’s role in social theory, Leon Petrażycki and Eugen Ehrlich share similar beliefs in the jurisprudence of society. They focused their work on the experience of individuals in establishing meaning in their legal relations with others based on the question of what it means to be a participant in law. Jürgen Habermas presents a relationship between law and morality. From a certain standpoint, law is a key steering mechanism in society as it plays an educational role in promoting conducts, a mean of communication and it