For Mill the only time we must justify our actions to society, or the government, are when they concern others and most importantly, bring them harm. Mill makes it clear that harm is much more than mere offence, he also gives some examples including physical harm and harm to our financial interests such as taking away property or money without our consent. Mill also accepts harm in certain instances such as judicial punishment, so ... ... middle of paper ... ...onally accept harm as legitimate reason for the government to restrict individual freedoms, everyone's understanding of what constitutes 'harm' is different. Utilitarian's may propose that harm is anything that is detrimental to an individual's happiness. If freedom is as important as Mill suggests then we can consider any restriction on freedom harmful, in which case the Government must constantly consider the degree of harm necessary to justify and outweigh the harm they will undoubtedly be causing by imposing restrictions on individual freedom.
This perception is a flawed overestimation of the results of the rule’s principles. The principle in this case is that the exclusionary rule serves to protect the rights of the accused, and is specifically designed to create an incentive for police officials to obtain evidence without violating the rights of the accused. Should it be found that the evidence obtained was done so illegally, then the evidence is inadmissible in a court of law. The point at which most desire to attack the exclusionary rule is that it enables those who are found with incriminating items to walk free. The most ardent critics of the exclusionary rule underestimate the good done by the rule, while appealing to commonly held paranoia of losing a war on crime in order to exaggerate its weaknesses.
The separation of powers is divided into three branches which are the executive, legislative and Judiciary. In terms of evaluating cases, there are two powerful instruments which the judiciary should be in place to ensure that there was no favouritism displayed towards any party and these are impartiality and independence. Influence and pressure can come from inside and outside of the court. The executive, legislature, the press and even other judges might interfere with the cases which no longer makes the dealing objective but rather subjective. The first instrument is impartiality which simply means that the judge should not show bias to any of the parties.
The high court rejected this legislation stating that it was “ beyond the legislative power of parliament to invest the executive with an arbitrary to detain citizens in custody not withstanding that the power was conferred in terms which sought to divorce such detention in custody from both punishment and criminal guilt. Putting to one side exceptional circumstances the involuntary detention of a citizen in custody by the state is penal or punitive in character and exists only as an incident of the exclusively judicial function of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt. Every citizen is “ ruled by the law and the law alone” and may with us be punished for a breach of law but he can be punished for nothing else.” The judiciary also applies a system of precedent which allows for consistency in decisions but still provides for individual circumstances. This insures that there is no discrimination between people. Although all current conventions comply with the ‘rule of law’, the constitution does not guarantee it and provides for things such as the arbitrary exercise of power by the Governor General.
The globalization of today’s world through technology creates an intercultural phenomenon that has never been seen before. Not only are jobs and services more readily available to all people in the world, cultures are also meeting on all levels. In today’s world, national economies are more open to one another than ever before. With international trade, much of what people consume is imported, and much of what nations produce is exported at an extraordinary level. All of this is due to the integration of the world, which is spreading the integration of market, technologies, and nations.
Nullem crimen sine lege- no activity is punishable unless the sovereign has so declared, these two maxims are often used interchangeably as they don’t differ much in their fundamental philosophy. Question arises whether strict construction falls under the scope of the statute. The problem of vagueness presents this question. An individual’s life and liberty should be safeguarded. But James has already mentioned before one rule is that penal statutes should be constructed strictly but on the other hand a statute which fails to meet a certain type of requirement for definiteness of standard is not a legal basis for punishment.
You are attempting to break the law to show that the law is unjust, and it is an act of saying that the law can be made better than it is now. He’s gathered his facts and understanding of the law, it is 100% clear there’s a problem. For civil disobedience to be justified a real injustice must exist, or else it wouldn’t addresses a sense of justice of the majority.
(Reference in bibliography) Dicey states that rule of law means the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power or wide discretionary power. According to him Englishmen were ruled by the law and by the law alone; a man with us may be punished for breach of law, but can be punished for no... ... middle of paper ... ...ference in international law. "Its object is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities in his private or family life." (Reference in bibliography) The European Court of Human Rights held in the Malone case, that the English practice of interception was insufficiently grounded in law to allow it to be justified. Conclusion In summary, constitutionalism forms an institutional foundation for the rule of law, strikes a proper balance between the rule of law and the rule of person, provides a minimal guarantee for the justice of both the content and the form of law and, finally, is itself safeguarded by the rule of law.
The Supreme Court ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined in a plurality opinion. The plurality stated that freedom of speech under the First Amendment protects lying and false statements. Although the lies are frowned upon and socially unacceptable, the First Amendment protects those types of statements. With the application of strict scrutiny to this case, the Justices within the plurality found that the Stolen Valor Act was very broad and if it had more specific restric... ... middle of paper ... ... to Barnum, people who have awards such as the Purple Heart and Medal of Honor effect not only those who hold them, but those that see others wearing them.
The idea behind this is that we have actually consented to the government’s authority in several ways without being explicit, therefore showing that there is a difference between a government’s actions and a citizen’s actions even when they are identical. 1. Huemer’s Argument Here is Huemer’s Argument: it is immoral for somebody to go around kidnapping people and to extort his neighbors. There is no morally significant difference between somebody doing this and how the government acts by going around imprisoning criminals and taxing the citizens. Therefore the government should not have the authority to act in the way they do.