Assignment 10

Due: Latest by Tuesday, June 11.

Since early 2013, women can be topless in New York City without fear of being arrested. Do you agree with that? What would Mill say? 

Assignment 9

Due: Sunday, June 2

1. What, according to Mill, is the major problem for a democracy?

2. Mill believes that not all laws are justified. Why not? Can you think of any existing laws that violate Mill’s principle? Do you agree or disagree with Mill? Why?

3. How does Mill justify the freedom of expression?

4. Freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment; are there any cases of free expression, which are not protected by the First Amendment? Do you think freedom of expression should be unlimited?

5. Some scholars have suggested that the cases in which the courts have permitted states to limit religious freedom nearly always involve activities important to minority religious groups: the use of peyote by Native Americans, the practice of polygamy among Mormons and Muslims, the refusal to salute the flag among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on. These critics contend that the courts would not be likely to permit similar restrictions if they impacted “mainstream” religious groups in America, such as Christians or Jews. Is this criticism fair?

Assignment 8

Part I: Due: Sunday May 26

1. How does M.L. King argue that segregation laws are unjust?
2. Why, according to King, should we disobey unjust laws?
3. How does Aquinas determine if a law is just or unjust?
4. How would a Legal Positivist judge segregation laws?

Part II: Due Sunday May 26

Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes Saint Augustine’s famous remark that “an unjust law is no law at all.” It has been objected that this claim is plainly false. How can something fail to be “law” simply because it is unjust or in some other way immoral? King, himself, critics point out, was punished and put in jail for, as we would say, “breaking the law.” Assuming that King was right and the racially discriminatory statutes and practices of the South were unjust, does the fact that King wound up in jail prove that unjust laws nonetheless remain laws? Does that fact in itself refute Augustine? If not, why not?

Assignment 7

Part I: Due: Sunday May 19

What are Jackson’s arguments in support of the charter of London?

What are Wyzanki’s arguments against the legality of the charter?

Part II: Due Sunday May 19

In January 2005, Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr., who grinned in photos of Iraqi prisoners being sexually humiliated but told jurors, “I didn’t enjoy what I did there,” was sentenced to 10 years behind bars in the first court-martial stemming from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Graner, labeled the leader of a band of rogue guards at the Baghdad prison in late 2003, could have received 15 years. Asked if he felt remorse after the sentence was handed down, Graner said, “There’s a war on. Bad things happen.” Graner will be dishonorably discharged when his sentence is completed. He also was demoted to private and ordered to forfeit all pay and benefits. Graner was accused of stacking naked prisoners in a human pyramid and later ordering them to masturbate while other soldiers took photographs. He also allegedly punched one man in the head hard enough to knock him out, and struck an injured prisoner with a collapsible metal stick. Graner did not testify during his trial, but during the sentencing phase he took the witness stand to repeat the defense claim that the jury clearly rejected: that he had been ordered by intelligence agents at Abu Ghraib to abuse the prisoners to make them easier to interrogate. He said he initially resisted pressure to mistreat prisoners, but his Army superiors made it clear to him that he was expected to obey the commands of the military and civilian intelligence agents who ran his part of Abu Ghraib. Graner said a lieutenant in his unit told him: “If (military intelligence) asks you to do this, it needs to be done. They’re in charge, follow their orders.” He said he now knows that those orders were unlawful, but “at the time my understanding is that they were (lawful), or I wouldn’t have done them,” he said. Do you agree with the sentence or do you think there was any merit to his defense that he was following orders?

Part III: Wednesday May 22

Please comment on two of your classmates’ responses to the Abu Ghraib case.

Assignment 6

Please give a short, clear, and precise answer for each of the following questions by Sunday, May 12, 2013:

1. What is the difference between criminal law and tort law?

2. What are the conditions for strict liability and negligence?

3. What does it mean that an event A caused another event B? Give an example.

4. What is legal causation? Give an example.

5. What were the reasons for the court's decision in Lynch vs. Fisher? Do you agree - why or why not?

6.What were the reasons for the court's decision in Palsgraff vs. LIRR? Do you agree - why or why not?

Comment on Assignment 4

Comment on the Native American Killing a Wendigo:

In this case, it is important to make a distinction between excuse and justification. If the defense claims justification on the basis of self-defense or defense of others, as some of you arguing on this side did, it means that the defendant did the right thing given the circumstances and his state of mind. The problem with this is, as most of you on the other side noted, that there was no immanent danger and the defendant chased the victim. Also, keep in mind that there are no “degrees” of justification, if a justification is used successfully it leads to an acquittal.

If the defense argues excuse, they are going for less punishment. There is a good chance that today the defense could argue for a “cultural defense,” which lessens the punishment. In this defense it has to be proven that there is indeed a cultural belief that makes the defendant less responsible, and this is usually treated as an excuse. An excuse lessens punishment, so in proportion as the defendant is less responsible he or she may receive less punishment. This can be manslaughter instead of murder, and punishment may be reduced all the way down to probation.

One may argue, as some of you did, that the defendant lacks the mens rea requirement, namely that he never intended to kill a human being, but his intention was to kill a monster. If the mens rea requirement is lacking, the prosecution cannot even make a case. The problem here is that the defendant chased and killed the victim intentionally, so here we need a definition of the scope of mens rea, whether it pertains to the intention to kill, or whether it pertains to the defendant’s perception of the nature of the victim, which could again lead to a cultural defense.

Just on a side note: Killing a monster is an act that routinely occurs in action and horror movies, and the audience typically not only approves of this action, but deems the person killing the monster a hero. – Think about it next time you see an action movie.

When I gave this assignment, I withheld some information. The assignment was based on a real case in Canada, Regina v. Machekequonabe (28 O.R. 309 [1897]). In this case the victim was the defendant’s father. Why do you think I withheld that information? Do you think a judge would withhold this information?  Why or why not? 

Assignment 5

Part I (your argument) due April 21

Part II (your rebuttal) due April 25

Please post your rebuttals as comment under the argument of the person whose argument you rebut.

Stanley Tookie Williams was an early leader of the ‘Crips’, a notorious American street gang which had its roots in South Central Los Angeles. He was convicted of three murders in 1979. While on Death Row in California, Williams became an anti-gang activist, he renounced his gang affiliation and apologized for the Crips' founding, while maintaining his innocence of the crimes for which he was convicted. He co-wrote children's books and participated in efforts intended to prevent youths from joining gangs. In late 2005, a campaign began to urge the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to grant clemency for Williams in consideration of his work as an anti-gang activist and asserted "redemption." Thousands of people signed online petitions calling for Schwarzenegger to commute the death sentence. Those who campaigned against the execution included celebrities, politicians, and Nobel laureates. In early November, 2005, Williams' attorneys filed his formal petition for executive clemency, as well as a motion to obtain new evidence. On December 12, 2005, Schwarzenegger denied clemency for Williams, and he was executed via lethal injection on December 13, 2005. 

Suppose you had to argue on behalf of Schwarzenegger, against clemency for Williams, or in defense of Williams’ request form executive clemency. Please check in the tables below for which side you are supposed to argue and whose arguments to rebut. Your argument should include reference to theories of punishment and reasons for or against capital punishment.

 

Against clemency:	rebuts arguments by
Sheneika D	Karen A
Austin P	Diana S
Andrew L	Gelicia S
Anthony K	Tshering P
Kanchan K	Danny C
Dr. Albrecht	Jairo J

 

In favor of clemency	rebuts arguments by
Karen A	Austin P
Diana S	Andrew L
Gelicia S	Anthony K
Tshering P	Kanchan K
Danny C	Sheneika D
Jairo J	Austin P