Debate on Indian Removal Essay Example for Free

Debate on Indian Removal EssayIn the contemporary world the idea of removal of an entire people from its inherent land would sound wickedly and would perhaps be conside chromatic a genocide, yet in the XIX century this idea was quite permissible and corresponded to the ruling design of civilized nations which were to rule those uncivilized and determine their existence. Therefore, in our estimation of pro and contra Indian removal arguments I shall attempt to evaluate the named arguments first and foremost from the back breaker of view of the time and base my conclusions on such evaluation. The first argument proposed by Andrew Jackson to the Congress in 1829 is that that no new state whitethorn be established without consent of the people of that state, and since Indians are living on the territory of existing states and do non constitute a majority, they may not establish their own government and confound to obey the laws of the state or immigrate. A harsher version of the argument is provided in the North American Review, January 1830, blaming that Indians are barbaric people incapable of sustaining any other relation with the whites, than that of dependence and pupilage. Francis J. Grund is even more acrid, as he claims Indians cruelty towards the Founding Fathers. A counterargument can be found in the Memorial of the Cherokee Indians, published in the Weekly Register vol. 38, and it is that a white man is a ruler of the land, and the red man is weak, yet there were times when whites were week and reds were strong, and the whites received warm welcome from the Indians. Also the Indians argued that previous treaties guaranteed their rights to land.The situation with the Indians is similar to the one with the colonists before the Revolution. The colonists appeared to be weak and Britain was strong, yet the colonists were able to gain their independence by force. However, the Indians were unable to win the war and they had to obey those who are stron g. Therefore, the US regimen argument was slide fastener besides a sword law, not a just law. This is well confirmed by the Decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in Worcester v.State of gallium (1832), where the Court has found that treaties between the Indians and the political relation, as well as Indian self-government are guaranteed as long as the Indians obey the general laws of the state. Since the Indians did not obey, all they privileges have to be annulled. Yet the laws of the state themselves made the Indians chose between becoming civilized in other words not leading their conventional lifestyle and immigration. So, it may be concluded, that removal has logically followed from the previous relations between the Indians and the Government, in which the Government used sword more frequently than justice.The mho pro argument proposed by Andrew Jackson in 1830 were advantages of immigration both for the whites and for Indians. For the US government is was an opportunity to protect the frontiers, for the states of Mississippi and Alabama these were new territories and opportunities for development, and for the Indians, on a lower floor Jackson, it was an ability not to have contacts with the civilized people, follow their customs and live under the government supervision, gradually becoming a civilized community.A counterargument of the Indians is explained in the mentioned Memorial, as well as in the article published in the North American Review, October 1830 where they claim their right to stay on their land and pertain their traditional life same as any nation has title over its land. In fact, we once more face the sword law the Government determined what is civilized and what is law and the Indians had to obey or disappear.Another Indian argument may be found in the letter from John Ross the Government was just willing to get rid of the Indians. This is an argument with no counterargument. Governments desire to make away with the Indians was undisputable. Concluding my analysis I have to recognize that the arguments of the Indians look stronger even for the XIX century. An independent international tribunal of the time would perhaps take their side. Yet there was no such tribunal, but only the will of the Government which caused Indians to be removed.

Minor’s Refusal of Treatment Essay Example for Free

Minors Refusal of Treatment EssayIn the causa of Daniel Hauser, a thirteen-year old boy from Minnesota, who was diagnosed as having Hodgkins lymphoma, which is considered as one of the most curable types of cancer, conflicting ethical values can be appreciated. tally to Wikipedia (2009), the principle of autonomy gives the soulfulness the right to self-determination which allows the patient roles to choose their own interposition. In the case provided, the patient wishes non to endure traditional chemotherapy and radiation exactly instead undergo alternate medicine treatments that are yet to be proven effective by science. Since the wellness care providers in the case bonk that this particular type of cancer is curable, they are very adamant in trying to convince the patient to undergo decent treatment. This exemplifies the principle of beneficence, which refer to the health care providers actions that promote the well-being of the patient (Wikipedia 2009) while the prin ciple of non-maleficience means that the health care providers should refrain from actions that can cause harm to the patient (Wikipedia 2009) much(prenominal) as deviating from the standard pee-pee of treatment.The four senses of autonomy which are free action, effective deliberation, authenticity and moral reflection are being exercised by the patient. fire action refers to the patients choice to ignore the recommendations of his health care providers and opting to do what he believes is right for him without any force or intimidation from anyone. effective deliberation means that the patient duly understands the facts and the trys before he made his decision in a systemic and rational way.In our case, the patient knows the risk that he is taking when he refused medical treatments. Authenticity means the ability of the patient to be true to his self as exemplified by his belief and postulate to be a medicine man. Moral reflection means to act on the persons accepted after be liefs after critical assessment. The patient believes that he is leading by example through standing firm on his decision to avoid the prescribed medical treatment and undergo alternative forms of therapy.The case that the lawyers have a accumulatest the Daniels parents is based on the subjective good of the patient which is the cure of his cancer through chemotherapy and radiation treatments that he simply does not prefer. The stand of the Daniels parents, on the other hand, is based on the objective good of the patient, which is respecting the values and wishes of the patient to undergo alternative forms of treatment such as drinking ionized water and modifying his diet.Although a person may be freely entitled to choose for themselves, certain liberty limiting principles should be observed. These principles allow paternalism, which justifiably restricts a persons liberty to prevent the person from harming himself and the harm principle, which justifiably restricts a persons liber ty to prevent the person from harming others (Arisaka 2009).The principle of paternalism can only be applied if the courts would rule in favor of the medical practitioners who are asking that the patient should be subjected to the standard treatment for Hodgkins disease. The judicial system would violate the harm principle if they would allow the minor patient to choose to act on his beliefs to not undergo proper remedies because this may pave the way for other teens to have the choice to refuse treatment and simply do what they think is right for them.Measures in order for minors to understand the gravity of their disease should be undertaken. Participation with group discussions with others who are suffering the same illness should be encouraged in order to gain more understanding on what to expect of the disease and its treatment rather than simply being subjected to a grueling process of standard therapy without any form of support and being forced to decide based on the experi ence.BibliographyArisaka (2009). Ethics. Retreived 5 June 2009 from http//www.arisaka.org/ethics02LLP.htmlWikipedia (2009). Medical ethics. Retreived 5 June 2009 fromhttp//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics

SWOT Analysis and finances of Nestle

SWOT Analysis and finances of NestleNestle is one of the worlds leader in the food treat and consumer packed goods application. Founded by Henri Nestle in 1866 in Vevey Switzerland, it has become worldwide with almost 85 branches around the world specializing in a variety of products ranging from bollocks food, drinks and bottled water to confectionery and ice cream. (Micheloud Cie, 2008) In the race to achieve a high grocery store share in the ice cream industry, Nestle is followed close by its global competitor Unilever, a Dutch/British multinational operating across many countries in the world with its thriving trade name fig and products. In order to perform better, Nestle followed a serial of acquisitions to grow in the global market.In order to find give away its resources, capabilities and core grapplencies, an cozy environmental analysis (SWOT Analysis) of Nestle has to be conducted.Resources can be divided into tangible and intangible resources. Tangible resources include Human resources, equipment, financial resources or uppercase and raw materials. Such resources are easier to put a value on, but they are also easy to copy and hence are not erratic to an organization. On the separate hand, intangible resources include technology, k this instantledge, expertise, brand name, copyright, patent, goodwill etc. Such resources are not easy to copy. Hence being unique, a telephoner having such(prenominal) resources should be able-bodied to achieve sustained war-ridden advantage.SWOT Analysis of NestleSTRENGTHSWEAKNESSESGood Brand Name Nestle has created a brand name for itself in international markets and also owns brands such as Kit Kat and Lion Bar.Acquisitions Nestle grew through acquiring various national companies. This meant they had to pretend them to also face the necessary risks involved in the process of acquisition and even after. Also global integration proved to be a hindrance. pass Brands It has licensed brands from Disney and in turn has used this to coach exclusive ice cream products such as Extreme ice cream cones. This grew to Nestles advantage the Disney characters were now linked to Nestle.Weak distribution links Nestle suffered as they did could not reach their products to all the local anesthetic markets due to poor distribution links. On the other hand Unilever maintained good relationships with the local companies and retailers to as to ensure adequate freezer space in most of the small outlets in the country. Their objective was to elaboration maximum freezer space in order to make their products available to the customers at all times. In certain cases the company also rented its freezer to little stores.Technology Nestle has invested a great deal in modern technology. It has used this technical development wide range of new to develop innovations in ice cream and have also launched a chain of patented products. Nestle set up a research laboratory in northwestward America and Europe to re search and develop new technologies in ice cream. By doing this the company hoped to achieved a sustained competitive advantage.Local Competition It was punishing for Nestle to compete on a local level. Nestle allowed its national companies to develop local flavors which did not prove to be effective. They also could not compete with the low overhead costs from the local supermarket chains and companies.Successful Diversification Nestle has not only succeeded and advanced in the ice cream industry but has also used its knowledge and spread into breakfast cereals, chocolate and confectionery, dairy products, coffee, drinks, baby food and bottled water. Taking this risk of entering new market has proved to be extremely successful for Nestle over the years.Achieving Profitability In countries where Nestle could not achieve a significant market share, achieving lucrativeness also proved to be a major predicament.Economies of Scale Nestle has been able to achieve lower costs as a resu lt of high volumes of production. They achieved economies of scale by branding the products that were usually manufactured at a central location with the national company name, thus reducing cost of remembering and transportation.Costs Yet another limitation of Nestle was to overcome the high fixed costs of developing and distributing ice cream. In order to reduce such high fixed costs, Nestle needs a high market share so that profitability can also be increased.Unilever definitely accomplished a competitive advantage by maintain strong distribution links with its suppliers, an important factor that Nestle did not take into consideration. Unilever also achieved competitive advantages in terms of satisfying local tastes and prices. These strengths of Unilever have proved to be threats for Nestle.Comparative Analysis of the Strategies used by Unilever and NestleSTRATEGIESNESTLEMarket challenger on the attackUNILEVERMarket leader on defenseApproach to StrategyPrescriptive Approach Nestle definitely followed a more intend approach to achieve its organizational objectives. They stuck to their plans without making major changes. As a result of this planned approach they were able to put their resources to a much more efficient use.Mix of Prescriptive and Emergent Approach Although Unilever had its planned objectives of becoming the world leader in ice cream, they kept developing strategies to improve and earn on their weaknesses. They kept up with the changes in the environment and were able to satisfy its huge customer base thus achieving a competitive advantage over Nestle. Unilever true flexibility and adaptability.Generic StrategyNestle differentiated itself from its major competitor Unilever by using its huge investment in technology to develop various patented products. It also associated itself with Disney characters by obtaining licensed brands.Unilever was able to achieve economies of scale which in turn made it easier for them to also achieve cost leadership. They were able to reduce the costs and thus successfully enter the local markets.Growth StrategyNestle followed an inorganic growth strategy through a series of acquisitions. It teamed up with other major companies to expand and develop a quicker market share. They acquired ice cream companies in more 30 major countries. round major acquisitions included Dreyers, the US market leader and Scholler, a principal ice cream company in 2002.By achieving economies of scale, Unilever was able to keep out new entrants that could not achieve such low costs. In addition to keeping out new entrants, Unilever also worked alongside local brand name calling thus following an inorganic method of growth.Growth DirectionNestle diversified by producing new products and entering new markets, thus spreading its risk. It developed breakfast cereal, confectionary, baby food, dairy products etc.Unilever on the other hand followed a product development strategy. They developed new products in t he existing market. They acquired local brands and developed additional variety of ice cream products.

The Relevance Of Legal Positivism

The Relevance Of reasoned crystal put right favourablenessI construct elect to critically examine The Contemporary Relevance of heavy Positivism by Professor Brian Z Tamanaha who has written on the topic of fairnessful incontrovertibility, and this is a intelligent system that greatly interests me. Though the title suggests otherwise, in his hold Tamanaha competes a particular point that in its current commonwealth effectual advantageousness fails to consider with existing initiation matters.2Tamanaha goes on to suggest that licit positiveness has been emasculated3to the point where it is no longer a relevant levelheaded speculation, as newfangled intelligences on legal positivism have drastically shifted away from the original whims of legal positivism proposed by Bentham and capital of Texas. However, to make such claims effectively requires compelling evidence, and this is well-nighthing that the obligate plainly lacks. Moreover, Tamanahas bind is fu ll of presumptions, which one can only assume that he has mis catched many of the theoretical debates between key characters within legal positivism. As a result, this dissertation pass on argue that although Tamanaha makes some classic points, overall in that respect be too many inaccuracies within the article, which make it weak and unpersuasive. on that point are three particular arguments that will be pursued in this dissertation. Firstly, it will be argued that well-grounded Positivism does in fact deal with real world matters. Secondly, that the legal separation thesis supported by stag is in fact false and Tamanaha may have misunderstood his work. Thirdly, it will be argued that Tamanahas alternative is not the way to move forward in fact we should move in a completely different direction and focus more on science rather than descriptive possibility. healthy Positivism and Real World MattersTo begin with, we need to clarify that Tamanahas article is not without value, as Tamanaha has do some valid arguments, which cannot be disputed. Throughout his article, Tamanaha gives us a good account of what traditional legal positivism stood for and how contemporary legal theorists have transformed this great legal supposition. As a result, it is only necessary to give a brief account of the historical background of legal positivism at a later stage in the dissertation.For now, we will turn our attention to the issues within the article, the most problematic claim in the Tamanaha article is one where he states that legal positivists have divided into dickens different groups whereby both argue nigh legal theories and turn their backs on real world matters.4This is something that I strongly dissent with and will be spending a large section of the essay arguing against this point. Apologies are made in advance, as it may seem to the commentator that we are going off on a tangent tho it will become clear at the end of this section that Tamanaha has ma de a critical mistake in making this claim. My line of argument will be to look at Brian Lieters writings in Legal naturalism and Legal Positivism Reconsidered and dispute Tamanahas statement through the link between American Legal realness and Legal Positivism. Leiter argues at the outset the there are two joint misc at onceptions within jurisprudence that he wants to rebuff. Firstly, that Legal Positivism and Legal Realism are not incompatible from a conceptual level. Secondly, that Legal Realism has been gravely misunderstood even by the central character of modern legal positivism, stag.5It seems in Leiters view that only by comparing Legal Realism to Legal Positivism on a conceptual level can stag argue that they are opposed to one another. He adds on that Positivism is essentially a theory of law-a theory, in part, intimately(predicate) what is distinctive of any indian lodges legal normsRealism is essentially a descriptive theory of adjudication, a theory about what it is judges really do when they conciliate cases.6In order for Legal Realism to work it essential presuppose a theory of law and this is where consort to Leiter Legal Positivism comes in.7Leiter admits that Legal Realism cannot ascertain to be a theory of law on a conceptual level because quite honestly is it a philosophic mess but he suggests that there are links between Legal Positivism and Legal Realism on an semiempirical level. The empirical level will consider whether or not legal rules causally determine judicial decisions. Leiter goes on to add that even though Hart was aware of this possibility he has not given a convincing argument to dispute the link at the empirical level.8One has to wonder why Hart pacifyed clear of such debates, was there something he was afraid of discovering.Leiter is insistent that anyone writing on Legal Realism should fully understand what it stood for before attempting to posit what it is or what it does. He adds on that many of the main cha racters within Legal Realism like Llewellyn, Frank, Radin, Moore, Yntema, Cohen, Oliphant, Green, and Hutcheson wanted to achieve the goal of understanding judicial decision-making and, in particular, shared certain substantive views about how adjudication really works.9Leiter presses the argument that Legal Realism is a descriptive theory about how judges actually decide cases based on the facts of the cases instead of looking at legal rules. Although, it does seem clear that judges can predict cases if they fall within distinct patterns. This touch allows judges and lawyers to predict the outcome of a case where the facts fall within a situation type which the outcome of that type has already been determined.10Oliphant clarifies this point when referring to mercantile law and dealings between parties and the fact that judges may rely on commercial norms11(i.e. what would reasonably be expected of both parties in this situation) in order to decide a case.Therefore, it seems that Realists wanted to identify and describe the way in which decisions are made by judges.12This is very similar to the way in which conceptual abbreviation works, which demonstrates that there is some sort of link between Legal Realism and Legal Positivism. Legal Realists wanted to push forward the idea of an empirical theory of adjudication as it gave us the best opportunity to fully understand judicial decisions.13Of course, such a theory would only work if Realists were qualified to presuppose an existing theory of the concept of law.14Leiter, like many others before him makes it clear that Legal Positivism is a theory of law or about the genius of law.15What this tells us is that we must use this theory as a way of understanding and analysing our concept of law. This is a task which involves establishing the criteria of legality16and determining whether a certain norm is a legal norm. Leiter then covers the two most important theses of the Positivists theory. The well-dispose d thesis (which concludes it is society which decides what will count as law, social fact) and the separation thesis (which states that what the law is and what it ought to be are separate questions).17If Leiters work is read carefully, it will become clear where Hart went wrong in his analysis and the fact that Hart offers no conclusive arguments to rebut the connections between Legal Positivism and Legal Realism. So if Hart misunderstood Legal Realism himself it is inescapable that those who read Hart and interpret his work will be making the same mistakes.There are two clear arguments as to why Legal Realism and Legal Positivism are connected. Firstly, both Legal Realists and Legal Positivists accept that law is indeterminate. According to Leiter, Realists argue that trying to determine if a law is justified, based on legal rules has not worked in the past and that is not something that Realists want to do.18Therefore, Realists only wanted to find out what it is that makes judge s decide cases in this way. Similarly, Hart accepted that legal rules are indeterminate because there is a limit, inherent in the genius of address, to the guidance which general language can provide.19This was because language is, in Harts opinion, open-texturedThere will indeed be plain cases constantly recurring in similar contexts to which general expressions are clearly applicable (If anything is a vehicle a motor-car is one) but there will too be cases where it is not clear whether they apply or not. (Does vehicle used here acknowledge bicycles, airplanes, roller skates?). The latter are fact-situations, continually thrown up by personality or human invention, which possess only some of the features of the plain cases but others which they lack.20This then makes it clear that even the most celebrated 21st century legal positivist is aware that there are similar features between Legal Positivism and Legal Realism. The second argument is that both Positivists and Realist ag ree that legal rules do not determine decisions in some cases.21Realists for example argue that it will be up to judges to decide how the use a range of tools available to them when interpreting previous decisions. As Llewellyn puts it judges have the discretion to interpret a case strictly or loosely and that in most cases their interpretation will be recognised, legitimate, honorable.22It is through adjudication that private parties, such as individuals or corporations are able to sort out legal disputes. In addition, adjudication is there to review any disagreements between private parties and public officials. If then judges are involved in the legal process whereby they have to assess evidence and arguments presented to them about legal issues sure as shooting this is something which can be considered a real world matter. Tamanaha has failed to consider these sorts of arguments in his article and as a result has opened himself up to criticism.Contrary to Tamanahas argument, Le gal Positivism does deal with real world matters, as adjudication is a real world matter. Legal Realism is about highlighting how law operates in practice, and Realists wanted to locate law in its broader context (not separate). Leiter also points out that Realists challenged the myth of legal certainty- by highlighting indeterminacy of law. More importantly to our task here, it is clear that Legal Realism concerns law and study of law as an inherently practical activity associated with the real world.23As a result, these findings suggest that Tamanaha was wrong to make such an erroneous claim without looking at the evidence to back up his premise. There are also a number of other faults with Tamanahas article. In an attempt to convince the reader, Tamanaha has selected specific writings about legal positivism, which heavily criticise it in order to eccentric his side of argument, whilst ignoring arguments that are made in favour of legal positivism. He quotes Waldron who said that these uninflected discussions tend to be flat and repetitive in consequence, revolving in smaller and smaller circles among a diminishing band of acolytes24. What Waldron believes is that we should go back to traditional legal philosophy in order to improve our understanding of the concept of law. He states that in legal philosophythere is less of a sense of a canon of great books stretching back to the dawn of clock time. If there is canonical work it is H.L.A Harts book, The Concept of Law, which analytical jurists read over and over (and the squabble amongst themselves as to what it means and whose position is now closest to what Harts is taken to be). Since Hart Developed his theory by criticizing the nineteenth-century jurisprudence of John Austin, there is also some half-hearted discussion on Austins work. Beyond that however, the canon of legal philosophy is attenuated and non-existent.25Of course, it is true that there hasnt been any standout publication on legal philosop hy after Hart published The Concept of Law, but that does not mean that we should go back to the traditional ideologies on legal philosophy. Hart proved that some of the original ideas rotter legal philosophy are unpractical in a modern society thus is it unproductive to keep applying them when trying to ascertain our concept of law. So special Kalty sense and reality would make us reject what Waldron suggests. Tamanaha then considers Twining, who has asserted that positivist debates are now repetitious, trivial, and almost entirely pointless.26Twining comes across as a great admirer of Bentham whose work is highly valued, however, Twining believes that Bentham should not remain as a historical figure in legal philosophy. For Twining Benthams version of legal positivism a more flexible and subtle conception of sovereignty than Austins his penetrating attack on natural right his progressive ideas on punishment and his theory or adjudication27remain important topics. In fact, Twini ng goes one step further to suggest that we should go beyond Benthams work and look at the work of Augustine and Plato to stand by us understand issues we deal with today.28Whilst Benthams work was crucial, it is important to remind ourselves that what he produced was suited for the 19th century, thus it seems unlikely that it will be beneficial in dealing with issues in a contemporary society. With regards to going beyond Bentham, it is im practicable to conceive how ancient ideologies would help us deal with modern issue and thereof Twinings suggestion is on the verge of being absurd.Tamanaha also refers to Schauers work to argue that large numbers of American law professors believe that analytical jurisprudence in general, and the debates about legal positivism in particular, are the largely irrelevant preoccupation of a small group of socially unaware but philosophical obsessed pedants.29The simple explanation to this is that almost everyone involved in legal philosophy is a p ositivist.30Even Tamanaha accepts that legal positivism is the dominant legal theory of law, as the first paragraph of his article states that Most legal philosophers agree that legal positivism is the dominant theory of law today.31As a result, it is super difficult to argue on anything more than marginal issues as the main issues have already been agreed upon.Therefore, until we have another philosopher like Dworkin or Hart who is able to come up with new and radical ideas, unfortunately, marginal arguments is all that is left for contemporary legal positivists to debate. Tamanaha has presented some inconsistent arguments in support of his position. unspoiled at the outset, he admits that legal positivism is by far the biggest camp within legal theory32but at the same time attempts to argue that it is no longer relevant. It is simply irrational to describe a theory as being both dominant and irrelevant at the same time, Tamanaha has every set out his article to be extremely prov ocative, or he has not really planned his arguments.Nonetheless, Tamanaha then moves on to explaining why legal positivism has reached this point of being irrelevant. One of his arguments is that for a lot of its existence, the primary foil for legal positivism has been natural law theory. But natural law theory no longer has the primacy it once did.33Yet, Tamanaha then says that due to an agreement reached by natural law theorists and legal positivists on certain issues legal positivism has lost and important reason for being.34It is astonishing how a professor who, according to Washington University in St Louis, is a renowned jurisprudence scholar and author35would make this sort of argument. intrinsic law theory might have hampered the complete domination of legal positivism but Tamanaha himself admits that natural law theory no longer has the primacy it once did. How can a legal theory lose a reason for being if it is still the dominant theory after all this this time? In fact , Tamanaha is completely wrong as legal positivism is easily the best theory of law and there does not seem to be a theory out there that can match it.36Tamanaha seems to be confused as to what legal positivism stands for, namely that it seeks to provide a dampen understanding of the nature of law37and if a new idea comes along positivists are willing to adopt it. Churchill once said, I am an optimist- it does not seem to be much use being anything else.38It has become clear that Tamanahas reasoning as to why legal positivism is in a problematic state is completely blemished as natural law only had a marginal effect on the dominance of legal positivism.The most surprising error in Tamanahas article is his attribution to Harts success in the Concept of Law as on one of the reasons legal positivism has reached this point. Tamanaha writes that Hart established the parameters of the current understanding of legal positivism. Tamanaha goes on to add that legal positivism today remains t rapped within Harts paradigm.39Either Tamanaha has misunderstood Harts writing or he has completely failed to hold it. Hart made it clear in The Concept of Law that his interpretation of the concept of law is quite open in that it does not forbid the attachment of the term.40Therefore, how can legal positivism be trapped in Harts paradigm if Hart himself has admitted that this is not a conclusive answer of what the concept of law is and that from time to time this term will need to be expanded in order to be applicable in a modern society. Tamanaha could at least afford Hart the courtesy of fully reading and understanding his work before making such erroneous presumptions, which do not portray Harts objectives.Yet, Tamanahas mistake of Harts work does not stop there. One of his other arguments is that legal positivism through the separation thesis allows us to be in a better position to challenge unfairness law. Tamanaha relies on a quote from Hart who said thatSo long as human beings can gain sufficient cooperation from some to enable them to dominate others, they will use the forms of law as one of their instruments. Wicked men will enact wicked rules which others will enforce. What surely is most needed in order to make men clear sighted in confronting the official abuse of power, is that they should preserve the sense that the certification of something as legally valid is not conclusive of the question of obedience, and that, however great the aura of majesty or authority which the official system may have, its demands must in the end be submitted to a moral scrutiny.41According to Tamanaha, only if we separate the question of law and morals we can be in a position to judge whether a law is moral or not, Tamanaha writes that Hart is Reminding everyone of the separation between law and morality, according to this view, should enable citizens and legal officials to recognize, resist, and disavow evil law.42To drive this point home Tamanaha also relies on Schauers work,43but in a few pages within the same work Schauer concludes that the separation of law and morality does not necessary allow people to resist bad law.44To add further misery to Tamanahas argument, Bix writes that there are no conclusive arguments either logical or psychological, for favouring legal positivism or natural law theory (or any other alternative) for the resistance to evil law.45Again, Bix is another source Tamanaha has quoted in his article but somehow he has either misread his own sources or has chosen to simply construct them in a way which would better suit his argument. In summary, it has become clear that Tamanaha has presented a number of unfounded arguments, which can easily be rebutted. In fact, some of his arguments come across as amateur and it is surprising that that someone who is highly regarded in legal philosophy would see any value in presenting such arguments to the reader. Having discovered that Tamanahas claim that legal positivism do es not connect with real world matters is misguided, we will now move on to the second part of the dissertation, which will argue that contrary to Tamanahas belief the separation thesis is in fact false.Separation Thesis is FalseOne of the key arguments Tamanaha makes in the article is that the shift away from traditional legal positivism has had a wider affect to the point that one of the fundamental ideas behind it namely, the separation thesis, has been dramatically transformed to a point where it no longer resembles the original ideas.46 looking at at legal philosophy from a historical context, it is clear that Benthams contribution helped shape the way in which law is perceived today. As a result, it would be almost impossible to talk about legal positivism without mention his work. Classical legal positivism as portrayed by Bentham and Austin suggests that the public opinion of law is simply a command of the sovereign, which obliges subjects to obey the law and gives official authority to carry out punishment. Modern legal positivists adopt a well more sophisticated approach to the concept of law, but, like their distinguished predecessors,47they deny the relationship between law and morals.48Bentham single-handedly sought to transform English cat valium law in order to achieve a greater good in society.49Through his critical analysis of the common law Bentham made it possible to construct a comprehensive theory of law. Bentham wanted to unmask the true meaning of the common law and make all of the common laws misconceptions clearer.50In his opinion, the common law was so indeterminate, and in such chaos that it was close to being pervasive. His main argument was that in order to achieve clarity and certainty common law had to be written and recorded in a manner, which could be traced when a similar legal issue arises, thus allowing for them to be deal with in the same manner throughout England.51Bentham wanted to organise the common law in a way that it could control the behaviour of society as citizens would have a clearer idea of how they would be punished if they disobeyed the law.52In addition, by systematically setting these rules it meant judges had less power in making the law and it made it easier to understand your legal rights and obligations.John Austin followed in the work of his predecessor as he advocated the idea of commands as notions of law. Austin was concerned about state power and which laws subjects had to obey. It can be argued that both Bentham and Austin wanted to achieve a greater understanding of the principal features of the law. However, it has been suggested that Austins definition of law as commands is special(a) in its application only to criminal law.53In addition, other writers have observed that whilst Bentham was concerned about a single complete law Austin wanted to create a science of law.54Austin also made it clear that what the law is and what it should be are two separate questions and t hey should always stay separate.55It is in no doubt that Bentham and Austin laid the foundations for modern legal positivism. However, their ideas have been considerably refined, developed, and even rejected, by contemporary legal positivists.H.L.A. Hart is a good deal credited with providing a more sophisticated account of legal positivism than provided in Bentham and Austins writings. In doing so, Hart advises us that we must apply analytical, linguistic and philosophical techniques to the study of law in order to achieve a greater understand of the concept of law.56In The Concept of Law, Hart made this point clear from the outset in the preface that his task is about achieving a descriptive sociology or in other words, hermeneutic description thus a deeper meaning in the nature of words and law.57Hart considers legal concepts and the ideals we may have about the law and legal systems in a different point of view. He asks questions which had not been asked before, way specifical ly on the conceptual context of law. Whilst advocating some of the previous ideas about legal positivism, Hart strenuously denies that law should be seen as an imperative theory of law.58Harts interpretation of positivism is completely different to the accounts given by Bentham and Austin. This may be because society has changed dramatically since their time as a result, contemporary legal positivism focuses less attention on a coercive picture of law. Hart made it clear that the only way to understand the true nature of law is to look at actual social practices that apply within our own communities.59Law, in Harts analysis, is a system of rules, which our society constructs and transforms as time goes by. Legal rules are divisible into primary rules and secondary rules.60Primary rules prohibited committing certain acts which would have jeopardised the close coexistence in our community (e.g. theft, murder etc.). However, as a society becomes more complex, there is obviously a need to change these primary rules, hence why Hart advocates secondary rules. Unlike primary rules, secondary rules do not generally impose duties, but usually confer power to adjudicate on breaches of primary rules, and to identify which rules are actually obligation rules.61For Hart, there are tw

What Is A Crime Scene Investigation

What Is A abhorrence Scene investigatingThe roles and duties of police officeholders as first responders execration characterization investigators as truth seekers ar very important. Actions taken at the beginning of an probe at a iniquity motion picture butterfly a vital role in solving a case. Careful and thorough investigation is the key to ensure that potential physical examine is not defile or destroyed or potential witnesses are not overlooked (Reno, 2000). An important factor influencing the ultimate legal signifi stinkpotce of evidence is that investigators follow an objective, thorough, and paying attention approach. The goal of this process is to recognize and preserve physical evidence that result yield reliable information to aid in the investigation. Three main components of an investigation are physical evidence, interviewing and interrogation (Summerfield, 2005). Key words Police officers, investigations, potential evidence, physical evidence, hatred sco pe, truth seekers, roles, duties, one-fourth Amendment RightsWhat Is A Crime Scene Investigation?A annoyance motion picture investigation is an examination of the scene of a offense for any clues or evidence that whitethorn lead police to a suspect. One can think of a crime scene as a piece of history. The crime scene has a story to discern. The evidence can retell the story with the right approach to investigating the crime scene. Crime scene investigation is a slow and hardworking process, but the methodology that requires perfect(a) care also tends to unwrap important clues to the method, motive and suspect of the crime. CSI investigators combine law enforcement tactics with scientific knowledge in their work, and the way investigators do their jobs plays a big part in whether or not the police capture a suspect (Vaux, 2011). A crime scene is the beginning point of a successful or unsuccessful investigation. The main objectives of a crime scene are to preserve and collect re levant information and any physical evidence that will realize a connection between all parties involved. The first responders dispatched to the scene of a crime are usually the only people who bond to view the crime scene immediately after the crime took erupt, at its original state. The end result of the investigation is to ensure that justice is served (Thomas, 2011). Crime scene investigation consists of analyzing the scene of a item crime in order to determine what happened and provide clues as to the identity of the suspect. Several basic considerations come into play when managing a crime scene effectively. They carefully and systematically examined a crime scene to learn how and when the crime was committed, who committed it and why, and perhaps what items may have been take from the scene. Each investigation of a crime scene is different. The differences depend on where the crime is committed, how big the crime is, and the area of the crime. A number of procedures tak e place at a crime scene. While others depend upon the nature of the scene and the circumstances surrounding the crime, there are specific procedures that are always done. Crimes could be luck intoed by a witness who sees a crime in progress and reports it to the police, a victim of the crime reports it to the police or the police discover the crime in progress. Police discovering the crime in progress is also known as a sting operation. These are situations where law enforcement agents set up a scenario and criminals are encouraged to commit crimes (Vaux, 2011). Once the investigation Officers has gathered all the information possible from a crime scene, they may release it. after release, people can go back to using the site as they normally would. The site may require specialized cleanup to remove stern substances, along with the unsavory reminders of a crime, such as the smell of a decomposing body or damage caused by a fire (Smith, 2003).Roles and Duties of Police Officers a s First RespondersThe certified first responder (CFR) profession was developed to address the lag between the time an accident happens and the arrival of an emergency medical technician, such as a paramedic. Many certified first responders are trained firefighters, lifeguards, athletic trainers, police officers or park rangers (Thomas, 2011). Police Officers as first responders crime scene investigators and as truth seekers are the starting point of a crime scene investigation. Important information is discovered and collected to armed service lick the crime and seek the truth that surrounds the crime. The crime scene investigator at the scene first, stops an understanding of what the investigation will entail, and construct a plan of pull through for locating and gathering evidence. Every crime scene is different however, the crime scene investigator has to make sure that all physical evidence is fit(p) and collected in a proper manner, record all pertinent information, secure s the scene from contamination, and goes over what he or she thinks took place, and how and why it happened (Siegel, 2009). At a crime scene, the first responders other than onlookers are usually police officers, emergency medical technicians and depending on the situation, the fire department. The first responders dispatched to the scene of the crime are usually the ones who get to view the crime scene immediately after the crime first happened and at its original state. To get an accurate account and successful resolution in a criminal investigation, first responders at a crime scene must maintain the links that connect the suspect to the victim and the crime scene (Thomas, 2011).Ensure SafetyThe first duty of the police officer as first responders is to ensure safety. As the first to arrive on the scene, they must make make sure that the victim or victims are safe, out of danger, and provided with the proper medical care. They also have to make sure the paramedics responding to t he crime scene will treat the victim and take them to a nearby hospital for treatment if necessary. Another important duty is to separate the witness so that they can tell their stories without influencing each other (Cox, 2011). It is a very important duty for the police officer to secure the crime scene area so that no unaccredited persons can come in and interfere with the investigation. Crime scene security perimeter measures has to be established by securing the crime scene area as soon as possible with barrier tape, police vehicles or other means to preserve the evidence and make sure that crime scene does not get contaminated (Thomas, 2011).Interview Victims and WitnessesInterviewing is one of the duties that give the investigating Officer the opportunity to get evidence and testimony that will help establish facts, post potential suspects and potentially provide corroboration. Conduct a preliminary interview with onlookers and the victim, if possible, to determine if anyon e can identify the person who committed the crime. At this time the attention officer will obtain a physical description of the suspect and ask the victim to explain what happened to the best of their ability. Interviewing is divided into two viewpoints, witness and victim. both(prenominal) interviews have some common elements, but with differences based on on the individual circumstances. The interview should be conducted as near to the time of the crime as possible. The witness should be able to tell what happened without being interrupted. The victim should be interviewed with sensitivity and on a professional level (Summerfield, 2005).Manage the AreaAn officer is assigned as the crime scene security officer. He will keep a log of names of personnel entering and leaving the crime scene. Anyone entering the crime scene can contaminate the evidence that could possibly link the suspect to the crime scene, so accurate documentation and evidence delivery is ingrained (Thomas, 2011 ).Apprehend the SuspectWhile on duty, Police Officers will look for the person who committed the crime at the scene and make an bugger off if the suspect is still in the vicinity of the crime. They want to ensure that all responsible parties are held responsible for their actions. Suspects who are arrested for the crimes are usually booked into poky or cited and release (Hickey, 2003).Detain All Witnesses and OnlookersCollecting valuable information in the investigation, by interviewing people at the crime scene, is a duty that could help in apprehending the suspect. Witnesses usually have important information about the suspect and about what veridically happened. Sometime the credibility may be an issue in some cases with the information given but victims and suspects physical evidence in such a case will be very useful in connecting any missing link in the investigation (Thomas, 2011).Document the SceneThe responding Officer should used methods which consist of written notes w hich will be used in constructing a final report, crime scene photographs, and a diagram or sketch. The goal of the documentation is to create a visual record that will waive forensics lab and the prosecuting attorneys to recreate an accurate view of the scene. There should be a great consistency between each of these functions. Each method is important in the process of properly documenting the crime scene. The notes and reports should be done in a chronological order and should not include opinions, analysis, or conclusions. Just the facts The crime scene investigator should document only what they see, not what they think. The final report should tell a descriptive story. A general description of the crime scene should be given just as the investigator sees it when they do the initial walk through of the scene (Byrd, 2000).Collect and Preserve EvidenceOnce the crime scene has been thoroughly documented by the investigating Officer and the locations of the evidence noted, and the n the collection process can begin. The collection process usually starts with the collection of the or so fragile or most easily lost evidence. Special consideration can also be given to any evidence or objects which inquire to be moved. Collection can touch on along the crime scene trail or in some other logical manner. Photographs should also continue to be taken if the investigator is revealing layers of evidence which were not previously documented because they were hidden from sight (Schiro, 2011). Each type of evidence has a specific value in the investigation. The value of evidence should be kept in consideration when doing a crime scene investigation. It is also wise to collect to a greater extent evidence at a crime scene than not to collect enough evidence. The most should be made at the crime scene, since an investigator has only one shot (Schiro, 2011). The reasons for the evidence collection is to organize the evidence that the investigator recovered from the scene, where the items where recovered from, and what part of the lab that the items were directed to (Byrd, 2011).Report to the Leading Crime Scene InvestigatorThis particular duty call for all events that took place, any adjustments or alterations made to the crime scene and all movements in and out the crime scene perimeter will be documented. Lack of accurate information, omissions, negligence, under or overemphasis in information can severely damage the investigation and the event for a successful conclusion. An accurate account of what happened, without any addition or deletion is very important when communicating with the leading investigator (Thomas, 2011).The Fourth Amendment RightsThe Fourth Amendment plays a very important role when it comes to individual rights. The most important word in the evaluation of The Fourth Amendment is the word warrant. The Amendment states The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable sear ches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, (Scalia, 2007). According to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the elements are the 1.Oath or Affirmation made 2. Probable cause determined 3. Specific warrant issued and 4.The actual Search, arrest, seizure, and detainment. The order of these elements is important 1 and 2 should happen to begin with 3, and 3 before 4. Properly conducted, a crime scene search can reveal evidence that allows investigators to reconstruct the crime and identify the perpetrator. Lawfully conducted, a crime scene search can aid in the successful prosecution of those responsible. To lawfully conduct a crime scene search, however, investigators must be extremely careful to follow the dictates of The Fourth Amendment (Crawford, 1999). Because officers under the in tense stress and pressure of a crime scene may overlook the contents of The Fourth Amendment, law enforcement agencies should reinforce the take in for warrants through policy. The fact that a crime was committed on the scene generally provides the requisite probable cause for obtaining a search warrant. Moreover, forensic technicians and crime scene analysts can assist in meeting the particularity requirement of The Fourth Amendment by supplying a list of likely items of evidence to include on the warrant application. By developing policies that emphasize the need for warrants, law enforcement agencies can substantially increase the likelihood of successful prosecutions (Crawford, 1999). Officers can also search and seize objects on a person if the officer has place the person under arrest. This exception extends to situations in which the police in good-faith mistakenly arrest the wrong suspect and seize contraband during the search. If a suspect, either during relations stop o r otherwise, makes a furtive gesture, the gesture justifies a limited warrantless police intrusion (Wheatly, 2007). When Police Officer obtain a warrant before conducting a search, the warrant must comply with the Fourth Amendment before evidence from the search will be admissible in court. A warrant may be defective if it is not supported by probable cause that is established by a detailed, sworn statement made by a law enforcement officer appearing before a magistrate (Fairlex, 2011).ConclusionPolice officers as first responders require considerable knowledge. They have a great business when being the first person on a crime scene. They have to make sure that the victims are safe and the suspect is apprehended, and that each of their Constitutional Rights are in place. Processing a crime scene is a very lengthy and thorough process. Investigators will spend hours, and sometimes days, documenting the crime scene and its go over and collecting all the physical evidence that is pre sent in an attempt to discover what crime was committed and who committed it. All crime scenes, bodies of evidence and inquiring techniques are unique in their own right. The Criminal Justice System wants to convict the guilty, while protecting the innocent. As with any element of our society it is essential that we have in place some system for validating conclusions and assumptions to ensure fairness and justice are preserved. Even our system of government has seen the wisdom in a system of checks and balances to ensure no single force can dominate without a consensus. Our law enforcement investigative process should do no less. By ensuring all elements of an investigation are fully explored and considered, this can be achieved (McFadden, D.).

Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues - Michael Levin vs. Richard Mohr :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

Homosexuality - Michael Levin vs. Richard Mohr         Homosexuality has been on debate for numerous years.  It is mentioned inthe Bible which is thousands of years old.  But recently two philosophers acceptspoken how they get hold about Homosexuality.  Michael Levin and Richard Mohrsviews on the subject are in conflict with one another.  Levin argues thathomosexuality is abnormal beca expenditure it is a misuse of body parts that have evolvedfor use in heterosexual intercourse (Levin 354).  Furthermore, because naturalselection has made the exercise of heterosexuality rewarding to human beings,homosexuality has a high probability to unhappiness.  Mohr refutes Levins post about homosexuality myths and stereotypes.  He rejects arguments thathomosexuality is immoral or unnatural.         Levin exemplifies the point that homosexuality is misuse of body partswith the case of Mr. Smith, who like s to play Old MacDonald on his teeth sodevoted is he to this amusement, in fact, that he never uses his teeth forchewing but instead takes nourishment intravenously.  This is a clear eventwhere Mr. Smith is mis apply his teeth.  In addition to misuse, Levine statesthat this man will have a dim future on purely physiological grounds (Levin 355). Since Mr. Smith isnt using his teeth for chewing, his digestive system willsuffer from disuse.  The result will be Mr. Smiths deteriorating health.  Levinincorporates the evolution process into this example.  He states that Mr. Smithdescended from creatures who enjoy the use of such parts.  Creatures who do notenjoy using such parts of their bodies will tend to be selected out.  Inparticular, human males who enjoyed inserting their penises into each othersanuses have left no descendants.  Homosexuality is likely to cause unhappinessbecause it leaves unfulfilled an innate and innately rewarding desire (Levin35 5).         Mohr takes a completely different stance on homosexuality.  correspond toMohr, homosexuality is perfectly unobjectionable.  The unnaturalness charge thatLevin give homosexuality carries a high emotional feeling.  This feeling isusually expressing disgust and evincing queasiness.  An example of such feelingsare around peoples response to women who do not shave body hair.  Many of thepeople who have a strong emotional reaction, without being able to give devoutreasons for them, we think of them not as operating morally, but rather as beingobsessed and maniac (Mohr 367).  So the feelings of disgust that some peoplehave to gays will hardly ground a charge of immorality.         The idea of natural is a key defense in Mohrs debate.  He states thatnatural is that it fulfills some spot in nature.  According to Levin,homosexuality on this view is unnatural because it violates the function of

Postwar Effects on Women :: American America History

Postwar Effects on Wo workforceThe feminine mystique that American nicety promotes is entirely dependent upon its ideas, beliefs, and needs of the time. American culture has always tended to influence women into doing what the day and age required. after(prenominal) men went to war there was a gap in the work force that needed to be filled. During World War II women were the most available to join the work force. Due to the discouragement to raise families during the Great Depression and the fact that most men of age had entered the war, many women were left without families to look after and men to take to take care of them. Most women toiled at unskilled jobs most were young, single, and without children (307). This lack of family and specie left women with no other place to go besides the factories. Womens need for work was nursed along by the media as well as the public.A rapidly expanding war economy absorbed most of the reserve labor force, (307) yet it still was not enough, the economy get hold ofed a larger work force. This demand worked in cooperation with the availability of the women of the time. Commando Mary and Rosie the Riveter became symbols of women who heeded their countrys call (307). There were many enticements luring women to join the work force. These enticements included higher war wages, more available time and opportunity to work, and wartime restrictions on leisure activities.Despite the general expectation that women would return to their home after the war, pistillate laborers did not simply drop their wrenches and pick up frying pans (310). After the war many women continued to work outside the home primarily to help support their families. After the war 28% of the labor force was female compared to the 24% prior to the war. When the war was over nearly one million women were laid off and another 2.25 million voluntarily left. These female losses in the work force were offset by the gain of 2.75 million women into the work forc e. When women who had been laid off managed to return to work, they often lost their seniority and had to accept trim back pay in lower job categories (310). Due to the severe segregation by gender, the postwar economic life for women was appalling.Postwar American life became organised around marriage and family. As men came back from the war they merged with the peacetime economy, taking jobs away from women and sending them back to the home.