Adeels Palace V. Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420
analytical Essay
651 words
Case, Adeels Palace v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420 entails a defendant, Adeels Palace Pty Ltd and two plaintiffs, Anthony Moubarak and Antoin Fayez Bou Najem. On New Year’s Eve 2002, a function, hosted by Adeels was open to members of the public, with a charged admission fee. A dispute broke out in the restaurant. One man left the premises and later returned with a firearm. He seriously injured both respondents. One was shot in the leg and other in the stomach. The plaintiffs separately brought proceedings against the defendant in the District Court of New South Wales (NSW), claiming damages for negligence. The trial judge issued Bou Najem $170,000 and Moubarak $1,026,682.98. It was held that the duty of care was breached by the defendant as they ‘negligently’ failed to employ security for their function. The breach of duty and resulted in the plaintiff’s serious injuries. …show more content…
They referred the principles in Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61. The court disagreed, saying the appellant did not provide reasonable protection against intoxicated, unruly or violent customers whom they served alcohol. It was mentioned that the defendant was in control of who entered and exited his premises. The issue of the gunman re-entering the premises could have been deterred or prevented with the presence of security and ultimately stopped the shootings of the plaintiffs. The duty of the proprietor was not to protect their customers but to foresee that unruly conduct that may result in injury could occur on the premises. The High Court of Australia referred to the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) as well as the Liquor Act 1982 (NSW). It was concluded that the evidence at the previous trial lacked the proof that security personnel would have stopped the re-entry of the determined gunman who was acting
In this essay, the author
- Describes the facts of adeels palace v moubarak (2009) 239 clr 420. the plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendant in the district court of new south wales (nsw).
- Explains that the defendant appealed to the nsw court of appeal, disagreeing that they owed a duty of care to their customers if criminal conduct was involved. the court disagreed, saying the appellant did not provide reasonable protection against intoxicated, unruly or violent customers
- Explains that the defendant was in control of who entered and exited his premises. the issue of the gunman re-entering the premises could have been deterred or prevented with the presence of security.
- Describes the facts of adeels palace v moubarak (2009) 239 clr 420. the plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendant in the district court of new south wales (nsw).
- Explains that the defendant appealed to the nsw court of appeal, disagreeing that they owed a duty of care to their customers if criminal conduct was involved. the court disagreed, saying the appellant did not provide reasonable protection against intoxicated, unruly or violent customers
- Explains that the defendant was in control of who entered and exited his premises. the issue of the gunman re-entering the premises could have been deterred or prevented with the presence of security.
- Explains that the high court of australia referred to the civil liability act 2002 and the liquor act 1982. the evidence at the previous trial lacked proof that security personnel would have stopped the re-entry of the determined gunman who was acting irrationally.
- Explains that the irrationality of the gunman distinguished this case from similar cases such as, home office v dorset yacht co ltd [1970] 2 all er 294 and stansbie
- Argues that failure to provide security of that kind would not be a breach of the relevant duty of care.
- Explains that the taking of reasonable care is to be considered for foreseeable possibilities. adeels' duty of care depended on the considerations identified in 5b (2) of the civil liability act.
- Argues that the plaintiffs' injuries were caused by deliberate criminal wrongdoing despite society deterring and preventing it through the work of police forces and the punishment of those offenders who are caught.
Harness the Power of AI to Boost Your Grades!
Haven't found what you were looking for? Talk to me, I can help!
Related
- opinion
- explanatory
- analytical
- narrative
- The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control Lawsopinion essay“Victims of gun violence are going to win against gun dealers and manufacturers but they need a fundamental charge.”(5) “The gun industry ad fun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior.”(6) “Liability forced gun violence to take a backseat to the issue.”(5) “The strongest piece of evidence was the testimony from the owners and sales clerk that they didn’t have procedures or policies.”(5) “Between 2006 and2009, more than 1800 firearms from the gunship was used in crimes.”(5) “Four years after the shooting laws have hindered victims from suing gun dealers.”(5)
In this essay, the author
- Explains that many gun enthusiasts don't believe that gun control laws will solve the problem. gun laws are obeyed by law abiding citizens, not by criminals.
- Argues that anti-gun control groups argue that the people have constitutional rights to own guns. many people believe that guns should be banned all together.
- Explains that gun dealers use a computerized instant check system to perform background checks. even if the potential criminal is stopped, they could still get access to one.
- Explains that many gun enthusiasts don't believe that gun control laws will solve the problem. gun laws are obeyed by law abiding citizens, not by criminals.
- Argues that anti-gun control groups argue that the people have constitutional rights to own guns. many people believe that guns should be banned all together.
- Explains that gun dealers use a computerized instant check system to perform background checks. even if the potential criminal is stopped, they could still get access to one.
- Opines that mandatory gun locks would reduce accidental shootings, especially for young children. only responsible people would lock their guns and obey laws.
- Argues that gun control laws can actually increase gun related crime, such as australia's murders fell by 3% but man slaughter rose by 16%.
- Opines that the school shootings have opened people's eyes to the need for gun control laws.
- Explains that the government has already out some gun laws in effect. these laws include waiting periods, background checks, harsher penalties for commuting crime with a gun and restrictions involving dealers.
- Explains that the government has started to restrict children's access to firearms. the law wants to punish the parents who don't keep their guns away from their kids.
- Explains that the government has also started to crack down on gun dealers. many dealers simply don’t obey the regulations.
- Opines that victims of gun violence are going to win against gun dealers and manufacturers but they need a fundamental charge.
- Opines that gun control is probably one or the biggest issue that this country faces right now. there are solutions that can make both sides happy.
- Opines that stricter gun control laws need to be enforced before introducing new laws. waiting periods, background checks, and tougher regulations on gun dealers may not be effective.
- Explains that the government is cracking down on the types of guns that are allowed. some guns are more dangerous than others.
- Recommends that gun owners sign for specifically coded ammunition, which would discourage people from using guns to commit crimes because they could trace back.
1302 wordsRead More - Second Amendment Research Paperexplanatory essayThey were charged in this court with “…unlawful transportation of firearms in violation of certain sections of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934 (ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236–1240 [26 U.S.C.A. § 1132 et seq.])”. Two defendants, especially Miller, argued that the section of the National Firearms Act, which controls transport of certain firearms between different states, violated the Second Amendment. For this claim, the Supreme Court, as the consensus of all judge, stated the Second Amendment was the Amendment for assuring “the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of … militia forces.” Also the Supreme Court stated, “…the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own a firearm unless the possession or use of the firearm has “a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” (qtd. in Batten 55) in the Miller’s
In this essay, the author
- Explains that the second amendment was adapted by two historical events: the colonization of the u.s. and the revolutionary war.
- Explains that american people recognized firearms as required things to protect their important things from enemies. virginia adapted the state constitution after declaring independence from england.
- Explains that since the second amendment was ratified, the interpretation of it has changed many times. in united states v. cruikshank, 92 u.s. 542, 23 l. ed.
- Explains that the second amendment was adapted by two historical events: the colonization of the u.s. and the revolutionary war.
- Explains that american people recognized firearms as required things to protect their important things from enemies. virginia adapted the state constitution after declaring independence from england.
- Explains that since the second amendment was ratified, the interpretation of it has changed many times. in united states v. cruikshank, 92 u.s. 542, 23 l. ed.
- Explains that the supreme court affirmed the circuit court's decision and stated the second amendment cannot be a hindrance upon conducting gun control.
- Explains that presser v. illinois, 116 u.s. 252, 265 (1886), was the most important court related to the second amendment.
- Explains that jack miller and frank layton were charged in the federal court with unlawful transportation of firearms in violation of certain sections of the national firearms act of june 26, 1934.
- Opines that the second amendment was created through many historical events and courts, but none of these challenges were successful. some progress should be made to make better and safer life.
913 wordsRead More - Printz Vs Americaanalytical essayFortunately Otis McDonald would argue as a citizen his individual rights as a gun owner are protected by the Bill of Rights as Incorporated by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Otis filed suit against the city of Chicago after he purchased a handgun for personal protection. In recent years McDonald already being a gun owner purchased a handgun in hopes for better protection after being robbed on several separate occasions. However all handguns were required by the city of Chicago to be registered in order to be legal. Mr McDonald challenged the courts of the city of Chicago or new handgun permits had been ceased for almost 30 years. In addition to Chicago implementing one of the strictest bans on ownership of legal handgun possession. Unfortunately McDonald's attempt to overturn the ban was rebuffed in both district court and the court of appeals and then the Supreme Court, ultimately guarantee the right to keep and bear arms with an individual liberty and extend those protections by limiting the right of the state to prohibit individual firearm ownership.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that in the 2008 supreme court case district of columbia vs. heller, 6 citizens of the washington dc area filed a suit against the city in non conflict with the strict laws banning the ownership and use of handguns
- Explains that us vs. miller was the first time the supreme court focused on the issue of the second amendment.
- Analyzes mcdonald vs chicago as another case questioning whether the second amendment allows an individual the right to bear arms and own a firearm and is enforceable against the state through due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.
- Explains that in the 2008 supreme court case district of columbia vs. heller, 6 citizens of the washington dc area filed a suit against the city in non conflict with the strict laws banning the ownership and use of handguns
- Explains that us vs. miller was the first time the supreme court focused on the issue of the second amendment.
- Analyzes mcdonald vs chicago as another case questioning whether the second amendment allows an individual the right to bear arms and own a firearm and is enforceable against the state through due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.
- Argues that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the state's incorporation of the 14th amendment through the due process clause.
- Argues that miller's right to keep and bear arms was a collective right rather than an individual right.
- Argues that the second amendment creates a collective-right to bear arms ultimately requiring an individual to maintain membership in the militia.
1661 wordsRead More - Thirty-Five Court Casesexplanatory essayThirty-five states have laws or policies requiring the Pledge to be said in public schools. In 2003, a Virginia federal district court reached the same conclusion as the Seventh Circuit in rejecting a constitutional challenge to a Virginia law requiring the recitation of the Pledge in public schools. Even though the school district at issue in that case considered recitation of the Pledge in a citizenship reward program, the court was not persuaded that students were psychologically coerced into accepting religious views sponsored by the school or that they were being punished by having to listen to classmates recite the Pledge. (McCarthy 2005).
In this essay, the author
- Explains that thirty-five states have laws or policies requiring the pledge to be said in public schools. in 2003, a virginia federal district court reached the same conclusion as the seventh circuit.
- Explains that the ninth circuit appealed national attention in 2002 when it prohibited rationalization and declared that saying the pledge in public schools reduces the establishment clause by ratifying a belief in monotheism.
- Explains that thirty-five states have laws or policies requiring the pledge to be said in public schools. in 2003, a virginia federal district court reached the same conclusion as the seventh circuit.
- Explains that the ninth circuit appealed national attention in 2002 when it prohibited rationalization and declared that saying the pledge in public schools reduces the establishment clause by ratifying a belief in monotheism.
265 wordsRead More - The Decisions of the House of Lords in the Case of R vs. Special Adjudicator
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes the house of lords' decisions in the case of r vs. special adjudicator.
- Describes the risks of returning a person to the country where he would suffer.
- Explains that in r (razgar) v sshd (ukhl 27), the house of lords held that the case was a landmark.
- Analyzes the house of lords' decisions in the case of r vs. special adjudicator.
- Describes the risks of returning a person to the country where he would suffer.
- Explains that in r (razgar) v sshd (ukhl 27), the house of lords held that the case was a landmark.
- Opines that it will be necessary to look at what he says is likely to happen to his life.
- Opines that it is consistent with what was said in paragraphs 46 and 64.
2172 wordsRead More - The Extent to Which the Decision of the House of Lords in Gemmell and Richards has Clarified the Meaning of the Concept of Recklessness in English Criminal Law
In this essay, the author
- Explains the extent to which the house of lords' decision in gemmell and richards has clarified the meaning of the concept of recklessness in english criminal law.
- Describes how tramp lit a fire in haystacks to keep warm.
- Opines that the time two questions needed to be asked did he intend it?
- Explains the extent to which the house of lords' decision in gemmell and richards has clarified the meaning of the concept of recklessness in english criminal law.
- Describes how tramp lit a fire in haystacks to keep warm.
- Opines that the time two questions needed to be asked did he intend it?
- Narrates how a hotel boss got drunk and set fire to the hotel.
- Narrates how she ended up in a neighbour's garden shed for 74 hours.
- Opines that one could go to kick his foot towards a window and stop it.
- Opines that there was still a risk but took it anyway, and so was found to take it.
- Describes a circumstance in which he is aware of the risk that it exists or will exist.
- Opines that if there was an obvious risk, it amounts to no more than this.
1705 wordsRead More - PQexplanatory essay...w claims against Wessex police at common law and via the Human Rights Act. If we take a look at the common law aspect of the problem question, we can see that through legal aspects such as negligence, duty of care and causation, B’s family or B’s estate can have private law claims against Wessex police at common law. This idea of B’s family or B’s estate having a private law claim against Wessex police can be augmented by the legal facet of vicarious liability, this liability has been established by the three stage test that renders Wessex police responsible for the action of their employees. Another vital aspect of the problem question that we have investigated is that of the Human Rights Act 1989. For this facet of the answer we have used cases as well Articles to show that B’s family or B’s Estate may have private law claims against Wessex police.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that they will investigate whether or not barbara's family or estate have any private law claims against wessex police.
- Explains the importance of duty of care, negligence, and causation in the case of d v east berkshire community nhs trust.
- Explains hill immunity, which protects public authority from liability. the hill principle states that the police were not negligent during the investigation and prevention of barbara's crime.
- Explains that they will investigate whether or not barbara's family or estate have any private law claims against wessex police.
- Explains the importance of duty of care, negligence, and causation in the case of d v east berkshire community nhs trust.
- Explains hill immunity, which protects public authority from liability. the hill principle states that the police were not negligent during the investigation and prevention of barbara's crime.
- Explains that there was a breach in duty by wessex police in regard to b's estate and family. they compare the police case of craggy vs chief constable of cleveland of police to our problem question.
- Explains the idea of vicarious liability and how they can have private law claims against wessex police through the actions of the uniformed police.
- Explains that dependents, people who are dependent on the deceased, could have claims of their own under the fatal accidents act 1976 as well as human rights act.
- Explains that section 6(1) makes it unlawful for a public authority to act incompatible with the convention act. section 7 allows the common man to bring proceedings against public authorities under act 5.
- Analyzes how the european court of human rights held that the police did not fail in their duty under article 2 to safeguard the life of someone as there was insufficient proof to show that a real and immediate threat to life existed.
- Explains that b's family or estate may have a private law claim under article 2 (right to life) under ecthr. hill/osman represented that some public authority had blanket immunity.
- Explains that when advising b's family or estate against wessex police, we have to tell them about other situations that may arise from the case.
- Explains that liability of public authorities (wessex police) is a tricky situation due to the strikeout aspect of law.
1739 wordsRead More - Common Law Case Studyanalytical essayExplain and analyse the common law tests used by the judiciary to determine liability under the tort of negligence for the following two types of injury claim:
In this essay, the author
- Explains and analyzes common law tests used by the judiciary to determine liability under the tort of negligence for the following two types of injury claim.
- Explains that it was reasonably foreseeable that a person in the claimant’s position would be injured.
- Analyzes the case of kent v griffith, where a doctor called for an ambulance to take an asthma patient to hospital, but the ambulance didn't arrive in time and the patient suffered heart attack.
- Explains and analyzes common law tests used by the judiciary to determine liability under the tort of negligence for the following two types of injury claim.
- Explains that it was reasonably foreseeable that a person in the claimant’s position would be injured.
- Analyzes the case of kent v griffith, where a doctor called for an ambulance to take an asthma patient to hospital, but the ambulance didn't arrive in time and the patient suffered heart attack.
- Explains that a duty of care only exists if the relationship between the claimant and the defendant is sufficiently close. the case of osman v ferguson did not succeed because it was ruled that it wasn't fair, just and reasonable.
- Explains that donoghue v stevenson is a seminal case to set out the general principles of duty of care.
- Explains that the third part of the test, whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care, is based on public policy.
669 wordsRead More - Ralph Rider Case Summaryanalytical essayThe two parties could rise that Riders’ negligence was the only proximate cause for his injuries. However the actions of all defendants played a role in injuring Rider, not just his actions alone. Tortville Tavern could argue that they were not aware of the fact that Follower was already visibly intoxicated before severing him, however they have a duty as previously mentioned to protect their patrons. They also have a duty to be aware if a patron is intoxicated before continuing to serve them. The last argument that could be raised is that Rider assumed the risk of a car accident when he hitched a ride with Follower when he appeared to be visibly intoxicated. An argument could state that there was implied assumption of risk in Rider’s actions and he should not be allowed to recover. On the contrary, Rider saw Follower’s offer for a ride as a better choice then standing in the rain, so he chose to ride with Follower and is only partially responsible for his injuries. In conclusion the decision made by the trial court should be
In this essay, the author
- Explains that the trial court's judgment will be upheld on appeal for the following reasons: ralph rider and tortville tavern are guilty of negligence per se, frank follower is the approximate cause of ralph’s injuries and all three parties are liable for damages.
- Explains that frank follower's actions of drinking and driving with ralph rider as a passenger was the main cause for rider’s injuries.
- Explains that the statutes applied can replace the reasonable person standard. rider violated this statute by hitchhiking with follower.
- Explains that the trial court's judgment will be upheld on appeal for the following reasons: ralph rider and tortville tavern are guilty of negligence per se, frank follower is the approximate cause of ralph’s injuries and all three parties are liable for damages.
- Explains that frank follower's actions of drinking and driving with ralph rider as a passenger was the main cause for rider’s injuries.
- Explains that the statutes applied can replace the reasonable person standard. rider violated this statute by hitchhiking with follower.
- Opines that rider is the proximate cause for his own injuries because without his contributory negligence he never would have been injured in the accident.
- Explains that the state has comparative negligence statutes, which apportions damages based off of how much each party is at fault.
- Argues that rider's negligence was the only proximate cause for his injuries, but the actions of all defendants played a role in injuring rider, not just his actions alone.
587 wordsRead More - medical negligenceeanalytical essayThe decision in Bailey v Ministry of Health raises important issues in relation to the causation concept of ‘material contribution to harm’ and its application in the context of medical negligence. The Court of Appeal considered this test of causation is a departure of the normal but for causation rule and appeared to have made the correct ruling that the causation in this case was satisfied as the tortious negligence made for a sufficient connection to be liable. However, while the outcome seems to be accurate, the Court in concluding that material contribution to harm is a departure to but for rule is not convincing. Waller LJ’s remark that ‘one cannot draw a distinction between medical negligence cases and others’ also deserves distinct attention. While it is applicable to the case of Bailey, this argument was a flawed analogy and there are also strong policy concerns for the justification. The law of causation has long been a problematic area that attracts clarification. Thus, in view of the inherent obscurity in causation problems, the court is bounded to employ a clearer principle in order to uphold consistency and coherence in this doctrine.
In this essay, the author
- Opines that the court of appeal's decision in bailey v ministry of health raises important issues in relation to the causation concept of ‘material contribution to harm’ and its application in the context of medical negligence.
- Explains bailey case and but-for causation rule. causation was satisfied in most cases which do not give rise to difficulty. problem arises in cases where two or more causes contributed to the undesirable outcome.
- Argues that the but-for test does not need to be satisfied before a material contribution can constitute s causal link for indivisible injury.
- Opines that the court of appeal's decision in bailey v ministry of health raises important issues in relation to the causation concept of ‘material contribution to harm’ and its application in the context of medical negligence.
- Explains bailey case and but-for causation rule. causation was satisfied in most cases which do not give rise to difficulty. problem arises in cases where two or more causes contributed to the undesirable outcome.
- Argues that the but-for test does not need to be satisfied before a material contribution can constitute s causal link for indivisible injury.
- Argues that waller l.j.'s reasoning in bailey drew a flawed analogy between the case and distinctive feature in wardlaw.
- Argues that in cases involving factors that contributed to a threshold step by which an indivisible injury occurred, causal link should be established even though the causation was unnecessary.
- Explains that the doctrine of ‘material contribution to harm’ ensures that both causes are acknowledged. the negligence in such cases satisfies the casual link of harm.
- Argues that bailey's decision casts a significant impact on medical litigation in view of the "no better off" principle.
- Argues that the analysis on damages is confused since it conflated the factual causation issues and the ‘damage’ issue.
- Opines that the court of appeal has adopted an unsustainable way in resolving the bailey case.
- Argues that waller l.j.'s conclusion may be justified in the sense that the dichotomy between medical litigation and others is always obscure when considering causation.
- Opines that the existing case law concerning the doctrine of causation needs a greater clarity and depth of analysis.
- Explains that the court is bounded to address the confusion by establishing how various tests of causation are applied in different cases.
- Opines that the bailey case highlights the confusing state of the law relating to causation and the consequent difficulty in applying causal doctrine to concrete factual scenarios.
2241 wordsRead More - Wrongs Act 1958analytical essayIn the case of D’orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) the court held that under common law advocates are immune from claims of negligence that are relative to their conduct inside of court, and those out of court which directly relate to in court proceedings. For all other conduct outside of court however, advocates are liable for duty of care. This is because if such collateral or retaliative litigation were allowed then this would adversely affect the administration of justice. Likewise, some government agencies as well as police are protected under certain circumstances from negligence claims. Examples of such instances may be observed in Sullivan v Moody (2001) and Tame v New South Wales (2002). In Sullivan v Moody (2001) the court held that medical practitioners should not be held liable for reparations brought about by a third party because their duty to patients must be fulfilled without the threat of secondary negligence claims. Similarly in Tame v New South Wales (2002) the court the held that police officers should be exempt from claims of negligence pertaining to police investigating crimes and recording relevant material, regardless of its effect on pertinent persons because it is an administrational requirement of the profession. Others protected with immunity from negligent litigation include; but are not limited to rescuers; as in Chapman v Hearse 1961 , good Samaritans; protected under section 31 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) , volunteers undertaking ‘community work’; part IX Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) , blood donors and food donors; protected under section 135 of the Health Act 1958 (Vic) and section 31E of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic)
In this essay, the author
- Evaluates the usefulness of section 48 of the wrongs act 1958 (vic) in determining whether or not a duty of care exists between parties of varying circumstances.
- Explains that duty of care is a primary determinant of what constitutes the tort of negligence.
- Explains that exemptions or immunities exist to protect certain people/professions from litigation.
- Evaluates the usefulness of section 48 of the wrongs act 1958 (vic) in determining whether or not a duty of care exists between parties of varying circumstances.
- Explains that duty of care is a primary determinant of what constitutes the tort of negligence.
- Explains that exemptions or immunities exist to protect certain people/professions from litigation.
- Explains that the case of perre v apand pty ltd demonstrates a set of factors omitted from section 48 of the wrongs act 1958 that should be taken into account when considering whether or not duty of care exists.
- Argues that personal responsibility in the face of obvious risks should be taken into account when deciding whether a duty of care exists.
- Analyzes how the case of stuart v kirkland – veenstra (2009) shows how statutes, aside from the wrongs act 1958, may also be considerably relevant in determining the existence of a duty of care.
- Explains that sullivan v moody highlights one such immunity from negligence that exists, but it also represents yet another point which is necessary in the determination of a duty of care: public policy.
- Explains that the wrongs act 1958 (vic) section 48 fails to ascertain whether or not a plaintiff’s illegal conduct should be taken into account when deciding on cases claiming negligence.
- Explains that the wrongs act 1958 (vic) s59 pertains to the above standard of care that a skilled professional is required to abide by.
- Concludes that the wrongs act 1958 (vic) s48 is not an adequate or foolproof measure that on its own ascertains whether a duty of care is owed across varying circumstances.
2318 wordsRead More - Supreme Court Ruling Case Studyanalytical essayThe Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Eighth Amendment prohibits states from implementing the death penalty for the rape of a child when the rape did not lead to the murder of the child, or was not intended to result in the child’s demise. The court ruled that asking for the death penalty other then those circumstances would be an implementation of “cruel and unusual punishment” which violates the Eighth amendment. In making this ruling, the Court overturned the law in Louisiana plus five other states: Montana, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Two men on death row for child rape, both in Louisiana, would now receive a sentence of life without parole (Kennedy v. Louisiana 554 U.S. 4072008).
In this essay, the author
- Explains the supreme court's 5-4 decision that the eighth amendment prohibits states from implementing the death penalty for the rape of a child.
- Explains that justice anthony kennedy delivered the majority ruling of the court on kennedy v. louisiana; justices breyer, ginsburg, souter, and stevens joined him.
- Analyzes how justice alito, justice scalia, and justice thomas dissented from the supreme court's view of the national consensus.
- Explains the supreme court's 5-4 decision that the eighth amendment prohibits states from implementing the death penalty for the rape of a child.
- Explains that justice anthony kennedy delivered the majority ruling of the court on kennedy v. louisiana; justices breyer, ginsburg, souter, and stevens joined him.
- Analyzes how justice alito, justice scalia, and justice thomas dissented from the supreme court's view of the national consensus.
- Explains colonel dwight sullivan wrote on a military blog about the kennedy decision, arguing that the court did not take military law into account in their decision. military law permits the death penalty in rape cases involving children.
- Explains that louisiana filed a petition for rehearing based on the fact that the court did not take military law into consideration in their prior opinion.
583 wordsRead More