Finale Blog

As the semester comes to a close the last thing I would like to discuss is Dworkin and Judge Hercules. While according to Dworkin, Judge Hercules could come to any correct decision by using law as integrity.  Dworkin's critics argue not only that law proper (that is, the legal sources in a positivist sense) is full of gaps and inconsistencies, but also that other legal standards (including principles) may be insufficient to solve a hard case. Some of them are incommensurable. In any of these situations, even Hercules would be in a dilemma and none of the possible answers would be the right one. I disagree with this to a certain extent because I believe that Hercules would be establishing a just moral precedent, that could be look to in the future. At the same time I recognize that as long as a person is in an authoritative position, there is always room for the risk of fault and corruption of the values in that society

Restorative as prevention?

What if restorative justice could be used as a method of prevention?

I was on google and I came across an article about restorative justice in the school systems ... take a look at this link and tell me if you think that restorative justice could be used in this way so that it may better promote transformational outcomes. The reason I say that it would be a method of prevention is because it would be used in schools instead of after a crime/offense could be committed. Maybe this is not the case but I do think that there is something here to think about. Instead of using restorative justice after offenses are committed the government could possibly try implementing throughout facilities in society.

http://restorativejustice.com

Trumpets

The movie that we watched this week was really good. The way that Gideon petitioned his case and why. The principles established however need to be worked on. Under the sixth amendment Americans should have the right to counsel and because of Gideon v. Wainwright this is now able to occur for the most part. One thing that this doesn't completely cover is the competence of the council you are given. I have previously worked in the District Attorney's Office of New York and I was able to view some of the defense council that lacked competence and care for the case. Some of the defense attorney did not even put up the effort needed to win some cases that could have been won. As a society what could we do that could ensure that the precedent in Gideon v. Wainwright be upheld and better improved to benefit our society better?

Death means ?

My grandmother passed this past weekend and something came up in a conversation that left me rather curious. When two people are married after the spouse dies the other gets rights I understand that. But what about their actual blood family? If a person doesn't write a will but everyone knows the possessions they are supposed to get should their spouse have the right to withhold that from them because of a law? Does jurisprudence have more of a right to be upheld or does the person who knows it belongs to them have a moral obligation to take what is theirs? Should family matters even be a thing decided by law?

Mens Rea ?

Today in class we were discussing the thought of mens rea and it's position in the law. From my understanding the concept of mens rea is essentially being able to determine if the person committing the action is guilty at mind. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. It seems to me that mens rea is needed in a society but its usage prevents the society from being progressive. For my paper what I would like my thesis to explain is why mens rea hinders our society because it does not ultimately help the individual, it leaves a continuous cycle that eventually needs to be dealt with. What suggestions do you have that can support the argument that mens rea is a double standard in society that should be subject to revisions in order to retain autonomy?

Another Swing at Epstein

After reading Epstein in class and coming together we had become a bit confused about what he meant in Philosophical Implications. On page 171 he talks about how he will show if eminent domain is a civic virtue or a injustice. Under eminent domain the government is to compensate a person for the expropriation of their private land but are not compensated for land expropriation involving zoning ordinances. Epstein argues that this narrow interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the takings clause and the political theory that animates it. Epstein comes up with a normative theory that casts doubt upon the established view today that the redistribution of wealth is a proper function of government. However, he does not dismiss eminent domain, he claims that in the clause of eminent domain theory there is a theory of political obligation thats holds eminent domain superior to any rival.

Just Thinking...

I was watching this special on Discovery channel about the KKK. Named KKK:beneath the Hood. It was about some KKK members who tried to justify the actions of the KKK. They tried to say that they did not have any relation to the clans past and that they were not hate group. They just thought white supremacy to be there God given right. Then the documentary showed how they taught these traits to their children as if they were not immoral. I began to think why and isn't this considered to be brainwashing in a sense. Depriving the child of making its own interpretations on society. I googled brainwashing to see what I could find that could answer some of my unanswered thoughts and I found this:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FU_ifHrIIg0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=brainwashing+and+philosophy&ots=6q1tovoSlC&sig=1NMTvnQo5IWkt2QMsy-1IK9KX3A#v=onepage&q=brainwashing%20and%20philosophy&f=false