elements of law
The questions must be answered to show the following:
1. Your ability to respond to the question that is asked
2. Your demonstration that you have read the text
3. Your understanding of the text
4. Your comprehension of the issues involved in the problems the questions point to.
5. Your ability to address those problems.
Books used in class:
The Natural Law reader, Laing and Wilcox, Eds. (wiley-Blackwell, 978144333213)
Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, Patterson Ed. (wiley-Blackwell, 9780631202882)
The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (wiley-Blackwell, 9780631228325)
Questions:
Answer all six questions and make sure you cite correctly and include the page number.
We have read articles considering the role of intent and responsibility as justification for punishment (Golding), the questions raised by theories of justification of punishment (finkelstien), and accounts of the normative requirements of a morally justified or practically efficient code of criminal, tort, and contract law. (Husak, Zipursky, and Eric Posner, respectively)
1. Why are there philosophical questions about how legal codes should be structured?
2. What questions are there regarding legal concepts of liability, punishment, criminalization, civil liability, and promise keeping?
3. Why is it important to be concerned in the criminal law whether someone has guilt mind? ( look especially at Golding, but also Finkelstien and Husak)
4. What are negligence and recklessness, and why are they essential for holding people responsible? Should people be held similarly responsible for acts done knowingly and purposively?
5. What is the purpose of tort law? Why do penalties need to be paid for the affects our actions have on others? In the case of the Buick Motor Company v. McPherson (1916), manufactured products were held to be the responsibility of the manufacturer in some cases even after they were sold for resale. (This is known as the elimination of privity.) In the case of Greenman V. Yuba Powers Products (1963), courts held that in civil law, actors could be held responsible for damages under strict liability as a nor negligence was shown. What are the reasons for accepting strict liability as a standard? What would be the argument for requiring a finding of negligence?
6. Why does criminal law and its punishment require some finding of intent or negligence, where tort law allows strict liability? Should they be placed on the same standard?
ScholarMatic: Explanation & Answer
Your ready answer from a verified tutor is just a click away for as little as $14.99
Click Order Now to get 100% Original Answer Customized to your instructions!
