Philosophy of Law

rule of law

1. prevent arbitrary government 2. there must be a system in place for sanctions 3. there must be specific law prohibiting sanctioned action 4. collaterally provides for regulation of civil manors (contract: offer, acceptance, consideration) 5. laws must be made known to the public with advanced notice and clarity 6. due process and fair warning

legal positivism

if the legislature makes a rule and it becomes law, there is not necessary connection between it and morality

legal justice

does what the law requires. Punishments and benefits determined by legal principles

substantive justice

treating people in the manner they deserve, giving benefits or punishments they deserve. Not based on legal principles

civil contempt

direct (refusing to testify in court) and indirect (not paying child support or alimony)

criminal contempt

disobedience of the order of the court. Hold criminal charges

Griswold v Connecticut

1965. the right of privacy (the fourth amendment) is allowed to individuals beyond the right to deny entry into home. The government has no right to intrude into individuals' lives and the government cannot make laws that infringe of different demographics' rights. Protects the right to contraceptives

due process

the requirement that legal rulings must follow previous legal precedent, while protect individual's freedoms and rights. All individuals must be treated the same under the law. 14th amendment

comparative negligence

negligence can be spilt between both parties of a legal case

plea bargin

reduced sentence or fine for the defendant's punishment. Saves time and money of the court

aristole

justice's purpose is giving people the life that they deserve and to learn habits that create a good and virtuous life and moral character

personal freedom

the ability to choose how you spend your time and resources

Hart

philosopher. Rules can be determined by observation. Two-tiered system; primary rule (punishable and governed by legislation and court) and secondary rule (established what to do to make a law). Laws can have legal weight without morality due to blind acceptance.

Bowers v Hardwick

1986. GA ruled that having sexual relations without the purpose of procreation is illegal (homosexuality, anal, and use of contraceptives). Does not support the idea of right of privacy in home

natural law

system of right/justice held it be common to all humans and derived from nature

positive law

system of laws and justice created by people (the state) for the benefit of the state. Not always moral

devine law

laws created throughs scripture

etermal law

God's laws

Lawerance v Texas

2003. liberty of thought, expression, and intimate actions (autonomy) is protected. Protection of self and home

Freedman v Maryland

1965. the states doesn't have the right to determine if a movie or literature is obscene. Violates the first amendment

Miller v California

1972. the state determining if a movie is obscene and restricting it from publication violates an individual's first amendment rights

Dworkin

philosopher. Believes that the morality of a judge plays a significant role in decision making but creates problems because different individuals have different morals and biases. More natural law based and the legal system can have unjust law that are valid.

Plato

"state vs" indicates that we have transferred power for vengeance

legal positivist

lacks connection between law and morality

conventionalism

ignore morality and worry about whether it is the law. Believes judges interpret laws and make decisions with morality and bias. Created by Dworkin

pragmatism

views law as produced by specific social contexts and focuses on the consequences of judicial decisions

Kant

1724-1804. philosopher. Establishes the legal principle that law is NOT determined by a deity or god. Focuses on modern rationalism and the distinction of what we can experience (the natural and observable world) and what we cannot (supernatural). Humans can only have true knowledge about what we experience.

Katz v United States

1967. protection to the right of privacy is extended to unreasonable searches and seizures of electronic devices and wiretapping; personal conversations are protected

Miranda v Arizona

1966. A series of cases presented to the Supreme Court evolving mistreatment and violation of rights while in custody. Ruling formed the Miranda Rights

Miranda Rights

1. right to remain silent 2. right to speak to a lawyer before questioning (anything you say can and will be used against you in court) 3. right to a lawyer during questioning 4. right to a lawyer (the court will appoint you a lawyer if you cannot afford one) 5. right to remain from answering questions at anytime