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

With troops overseas in the Middle East, Americans are once again on edge about the possibility of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Now that Coalition forces are engaged in intense fighting in Iraq, the chance of an attack appears to be looming. On September 11, 2001, 19 terrorists hijacked four U.S. commercial airliners and crashed two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and the fourth in a field in Pennsylvania (Frank 5). On this day in history Americans sat glued to their televisions and radios watching helplessly as the 110-story twin towers crumbled to the ground. In took less than two hours to change our lives and country forever (Frank 4). In the aftermath of these horrible events, the United States government found it necessary to create new laws so this sort of atrocity could never happen again. On October 26, 2001 President George W. Bush signed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, better known as the USA PATRIOT Act (Minow 1). This act grants federal officials greater authority to track and intercept communication that could possibly be a threat to national security (Doyle 1). Read more…

Helmet laws have become a subject for controversy over the years. Although, they are designed to protect them, many bikers believe that helmet laws violate their freedom. I think that the pros of wearing a helmet outweigh the cons. I’ve found that wearing a helmet helps to eliminate noise from wind and keep the wind from my face. Also, wearing a helmet allows me to see further, and take basic maneuvers in order to avoid a collision with another vehicle. But, most of the bikers that I know choose to ride without a helmet. Should they be denied their right to ride without a helmet, and risk their safety? Should they have to wear a helmet at all times? Or should the ability to ride without a helmet be reserved for older, more experienced riders?

Each state has a separate statute regarding the use of a helmet. Furthermore, most states have laws that discriminate younger riders from riding without a helmet. Of the fifty states, only Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire are one hundred percent helmet law free. Out of the other forty-six states, twenty-one have full helmet laws for all riders. Florida is included in those twenty-one states. Twenty states have helmet laws that exempt adult riders, riders that are eighteen years of age or older. Lastly, there are five states that discriminate against bikers between the age of eighteen and twenty-one (motorcycle laws). Most states also have laws regarding eye protection, daytime use of a headlight, mirrors, blinkers, and passenger restrictions.

The matter of insurance has also become a hot topic for debate. Some bikers believe that this is a poor attempt to compromise the helmet laws. As it stands, the motorcycle laws for Florida do not permit anybody to ride without a safety helmet. Only if the rider is twenty-one years of age or older with a minimum of ten thousand dollars in medical insurance may they ride without a helmet. Eye protection is required by law. As is the daytime use of headlight, left and right mirrors, and blinkers. Also, if carrying a passenger a motorcycle is required to have a passenger seat, footrests, and handles. Finally, the use of headphones is prohibited. Read more…

Police Brutality is an ongoing problem and existent concern in the United States and should be resolved immediately. Law enforcement must function as an element that consists of organized and civilized officers. The presence of police brutality is becoming more of an issue as society grows. The problem posed by the illegal exercise of police power is an ongoing reality for individuals of a disfavored race, class, or sexual orientation. Police brutality must be stopped so that police do not forget who they are serving - not themselves, but the public. This means that even the criminals, who are a part of the public, have certain rights, particularly, civil rights. Police brutality causes a major concern in today’s society in America and a resolution is imminent.

Police brutality was brought to the forefront in 1991 by the Rodney King episode.

Historically, minorities have been victims of police brutality in the United States. Since the middle of the 19th century a dominant white social class maintained racial injustice through a police force willing to use violence against minorities. This violence expressed itself in the years immediately after the civil war through brutality in various forms. America has a lengthy an disgraceful tradition of police brutality to attain a sense of law and order in its society. Read more…

Over the last twenty years “we have had considerable impact on the advancement of victims’ rights, expansion of services for victims and upon government policy”. I agree with that statement.
Until about thirty years ago, the rights and interests of victims of crime were given little recognition. Since then, the change has been steady and significant.

The Parliament of South Australia has legislated to confer rights on victims. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, and provisions in the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act relating to victim impact statements, are two notable examples.

As well, the various arms of the Executive Government involved in the administration and application of the criminal law have made a real effort to recognise the interests and rights of the victims of the crimes with which they deal. I refer here to the police, to prosecutors, and to correctional services in particular. The courts also have become more attentive to the interests of victims, and quite apart from the changes in the law to which I have referred, have become much more attentive to the fact that for nearly every crime there is a victim, and that that victim has a legitimate interest in the process by which the court deals with that crime. Read more…

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…

In the recent past, employees of large, stable firms and workers with valuable skills had reason to believe their jobs were secure as long as they adhered to company policies and performed satisfactorily. Many retired from their positions with sizable pensions accrued over many years with an employer. As surely as 401(k) plans have replaced company pensions, longevity has been traded for high turnover by both firms determined to stay competitive and workers seeking greater opportunity. However, when the economy weakens, workers become less willing to job-hop; security is much more important than new challenges. Businesses often react to a downturn by trimming nonessential people from the payroll – employee cost is often the largest controllable company expense and the first place budget cuts are made. Companies that claim “our people are our greatest asset” can save substantially by reducing their “greatest asset” and splitting up the workload among those remaining.

Though the previous generation seems to have enjoyed greater job security than the present one1, in fact jobs in the United States have never been what many Americans would consider “secure.” Many believed then and many now think they cannot be fired except for a good reason, including poor performance and stealing, but in reality ours is an “at-will” country. Though the economic rationale for company terminations cited above would be unpleasant but acceptable to a large number of workers – after all, the firm has to make money to pay its employees – such a good reason for termination is not at all necessary in most situations. Read more…