Law Papers: Law Essay Help, Law Term Paper Writing, Research Papers on Law

Many people argue that selling their own bodies in terms of sex, or in other words prostitution or sex work, is considered immoral. They also say that practicing it can be very risky for the health of the prostitute. This is true, but only in the case when prostitution is illegal. Thus, prostitution is a very controversial issue, because some people believe that it should be legalized, while others oppose it bitterly. Although many people think that that prostitution should not be legalized, I believe that it should be legalized for a number of reasons.

As we all know, different people have different views of morality. Some people believe that prostitution is immoral, and therefore it should not be legalized. These people say that prostitution is demoralizing and humiliating to a woman’s self-esteem. Such people also believe that prostitution is an “unethical and illogical practice in itself.” Women are human beings and “should not be treated as material objects of trade” (Nikiforakis, interview). However, as Pippa Holloway in her book review Regulation and the Nation: Comparative Perspectives on Prostitution and Public Policy found in Journal of Women History 202 Spring points out, “Enclosing brothels in particular parts of the city and monitoring them would help protect morality and the social order.” Read more…

Russia and the United States have a few similarities and differences that are, or are not, written directly into their constitutions. One of the main areas in which this can be seen are within each country’s version of civil liberties, rights, and duties. The first amendment of the United State’s constitution includes such provisions as the freedom of religion. This is represented within the 28th Article of the Russian Constitution. The main difference between these two articles can be seen in the U.S. constitution, it is stated within; “no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In the Russian’s Article 28 it is stated much more specifically as “freedom of conscience and freedom of religion […] or to profess none.” It also has Article 14 to ensure that the state is secular and all religious associations are kept separate from government. This difference has made for a bit of controversy in the U.S., as can be seen here in La Crosse and elsewhere in the country concerning the Ten Commandments on government property.

Article 29 in the Russian constitution states the equivalent of the United State’s freedom of speech. Again, the main difference is the wording. The Russian constitution is much more exact with its language. For example, it specifies thought and directly bans propaganda of social, racial, national, religious, or language supremacy. Article 29 section 2 is also another area not represented as explicitly in the United State’s constitution. Their version of freedom of the press is very similar, yet the Russian version is again more detailed in its wording. Read more…

Religion and the intent if the framers, wow this debate has taken shape and has caused many hours of deliberation by Constitutional scholars over the years. I am no Constitutional scholar yet I feel that I have a fairly tight grasp on what they indeed hoped and prayed for while they were drafting the Constitution. Now if you paid close attention to the last sentence you should already have an excellent idea as to where I am going with this analysis…

OK now that you have reread the previous sentence you caught that I said that the framers prayed during the construction and deliberation of this great document. So what was prayer to them – and more important what is Religion, and for that matter what is freedom to do both?

The following words are defined in the Webster’s New World Dictionary as follows:
• Religion – belief in and worship of God or Gods
• Freedom – a being free, independence, civil or political liberty, a right or privilege Read more…

The scent of marijuana enters the air as Chris Smith, a forty-three year-old woman from Trabuco Canyon, exhales a hit from her pipe. Smith has multiple sclerosis and credits smoking marijuana for relieving her muscle spasms and stopping the pain (Romney 1). Because Smith and many others like her smoke the drug for medicinal purposes, medical marijuana should be made legal in the United States. Many people in the United States are avid users of the drug because of pain or discomfort from pre-existing conditions. Dupont states that “marijuana, also spelled marihuana, is a drug made from the dried leaves and flowering tops of the hemp plant” (Dupont 201). The drug has many nicknames including grass, pot, weed, chronic and cannabis (Dupont 201).

Even though the drug has been available for thousands of years, it hasn’t been legal that long. Dupont says, “In the United States, marijuana use has been prohibited by state and local laws since the early 1900?s, and by federal law since 1937. In spite of these laws use of the drug became widespread during the 1960′s and 1970′s, especially among young people” (Dupont 201). The road to legal marijuana has been shortening over time though. Dupont states that “between 1969 and 1978, the federal government and many state governments reduced the criminal charge for possession of small amounts of marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor” (Dupont 203). Certain states however went even further when they “substituted fines for jail sentences” (Dupont 204). But medical marijuana is not a legal drug in the US. Read more…

There are two main law systems in the world: Common Law System and Civil Law System. Common Law System is established and developed from England, and most of the British colonized countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and a majority of states in USA inherited it. Civil Law System, on the contrary, came from France and Dutch. The main difference between these two Legal Systems is their trial methods, the adversary system is used in Common Law System and Civil Law System takes the inquisitorial system.

In simple words, the adversary system is a dispute; on the other hand, the inquisitorial system is an inquiry. For example, the judges’ role is quite dissimilar in the two trial methods, under the adversary system, the judges act as a truth checker, his duty is to ascertain the evidence which provided by the parties, and according to the related law, make a decision beyond the ready evidence. However, magistrates in the inquisitorial system have to get the evidence by themselves or from the appointed departments, to some extent, they have more power than the judges in the adversary system, they are able to control the whole trial method. As two trial methods exist in the same world, it can not be avoid being compared with each other, in my point of view, the adversary system is more efficient. Read more…