Sunday, March 17, 2013
Peterman Defense
Steven Peterman, can not be charged with attempted rape. In New York State, there is no crime of attempted rape. It was one of the sorest subjects in Criminal Law. Even when involving a minor, there are not any crimes on the book. My Client Mr. Peterman is willing to plea to promoting child pornography, and having the child pornographic paraphernalia on his person. There was not any physical contact between my client and the ten year old girl. Due to the fact that the girl was imaginary. Depending on the conversation between the imaginary girl and my client he may be free from all charges due to entrapment. If the police invited and enticed my client to meet each other then thats entrapment. My client did not have the actus reus in this crime. No act was actually committed. Although a sexual crime involving a minor does not need mens rea to prosecute. "Statutory Rape'. There was no rape committed and/or crimes committed against the ten year old.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Life Boat Question Three
Part Three of "Life Boat"
What would a utilitarian philosopher argue, and what would a deontological philosopher, such as Kant, say?
A Utilitarian Philosopher would have argued that what the crew did was for the greater good. That sacrificing 5 people guaranteed the safety of the two dozen others that were on the lifeboat. The lesser sacrifice of 5 people saved the majority, which would be the utilitarian main argument. Although, on the other hand, the view of deontology would oppose the view of the utilitarian. Deontology would argue the fact that they cannot predict future consequences, they have to operate doing the right thing. Whatever is morally right, it is their duty to do that. They would have saved the 5 people still in the water at any risk or cost because it would be the morally right thing to do.
What would a utilitarian philosopher argue, and what would a deontological philosopher, such as Kant, say?
A Utilitarian Philosopher would have argued that what the crew did was for the greater good. That sacrificing 5 people guaranteed the safety of the two dozen others that were on the lifeboat. The lesser sacrifice of 5 people saved the majority, which would be the utilitarian main argument. Although, on the other hand, the view of deontology would oppose the view of the utilitarian. Deontology would argue the fact that they cannot predict future consequences, they have to operate doing the right thing. Whatever is morally right, it is their duty to do that. They would have saved the 5 people still in the water at any risk or cost because it would be the morally right thing to do.
"Life Boat"
. Do
you think that the defendants in this case are guilty of murder (see
the penal code on p. 2) or were they justified in their action? (See
definition on p. 2). Why or why not?
I do not believe that they are guilty of murder. It all comes down to the interpretation of the Penal Code and Statutes of their localities. I am a Law Major and plan on becoming a Lawyer, Rule number one when studying to become a lawyer, emotions, sadness, and morality should not play a role in judgement. My Criminal Law Professor used a quote that I love very much when describing the Law, "Too Bad So Sad". They were smart to wave their right to a jury so the judge would "Judge" them based on the written law, not how sad it is, or they are a monster for what they did in a jury's eyes. They could not risk the jeopardy of everyone for the 5 that died. It is sad, but two dozen other people were guaranteed safety because of the hard choice the had to make. As well as the defense of " General Justification" that had no choice to ensure the safety of everyone else.
Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? Why or why not?
In most cases when you add morality to it, it doesn't look good. It can actually make you sick. The law is not meant to be held to moral standing, it is meant to keep the general peace of the public. There are crimes and cases that were planned out and executed to the precision of a Cardiologist, and they are able to walk away from criminal liability. The Justice system is not perfect but it works for the most part. In my opinion it was immoral what they did, they could have risked it, and pulled them to safety and leave it to chance, give everyone a fair chance to survive, but they didn't.
I do not believe that they are guilty of murder. It all comes down to the interpretation of the Penal Code and Statutes of their localities. I am a Law Major and plan on becoming a Lawyer, Rule number one when studying to become a lawyer, emotions, sadness, and morality should not play a role in judgement. My Criminal Law Professor used a quote that I love very much when describing the Law, "Too Bad So Sad". They were smart to wave their right to a jury so the judge would "Judge" them based on the written law, not how sad it is, or they are a monster for what they did in a jury's eyes. They could not risk the jeopardy of everyone for the 5 that died. It is sad, but two dozen other people were guaranteed safety because of the hard choice the had to make. As well as the defense of " General Justification" that had no choice to ensure the safety of everyone else.
Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? Why or why not?
In most cases when you add morality to it, it doesn't look good. It can actually make you sick. The law is not meant to be held to moral standing, it is meant to keep the general peace of the public. There are crimes and cases that were planned out and executed to the precision of a Cardiologist, and they are able to walk away from criminal liability. The Justice system is not perfect but it works for the most part. In my opinion it was immoral what they did, they could have risked it, and pulled them to safety and leave it to chance, give everyone a fair chance to survive, but they didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)