Because of the Literacy Test we are in lab 309 today. Finish up the video from yesterday - click here for the Tracy Latimer Case - and then we'll work on the assignment, Crimes Around the World.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
DAY 30 Tracy Latimer & Crimes Around the World
Because of the Literacy Test we are in lab 309 today. Finish up the video from yesterday - click here for the Tracy Latimer Case - and then we'll work on the assignment, Crimes Around the World.
Day 29 (Mar 26) The Criminal Code Book and the Latimer Case
We started with a quick tour through the Criminal Code book. Here is the 20 Questions handout for it.
Today we looked at the Latimer Case: Murder or Mercy?
First we looked at the handout, The Latimer Case, and we answered the four questions that I pose in the handout. Each group led a 5 minute class discussion on the topics raised by this disturbing case.
Then we watched the CBC News in Review clip of the case. The question that keep coming up when we study Law is, "Is Justice Being Served?" This is one of those rare cases where Ethics and the Law do not necessarily meet on equal terms.
Then we reconvened our groups to answer those questions again.
THE LATIMER CASE: The Disabled Speak Out
It begins as follows:
In the View of numerous groups representing the interests of disabled Canadians, Robert Latimer’s killing of his daughter was not only murder but a precedent that signalled danger for all disabled people. The public sympathy that was bestowed on him increased their concerns about the public’s attitude toward disabled people.
First we looked at the handout, The Latimer Case, and we answered the four questions that I pose in the handout. Each group led a 5 minute class discussion on the topics raised by this disturbing case.
Then we watched the CBC News in Review clip of the case. The question that keep coming up when we study Law is, "Is Justice Being Served?" This is one of those rare cases where Ethics and the Law do not necessarily meet on equal terms.
Then we reconvened our groups to answer those questions again.
THE LATIMER CASE: The Disabled Speak Out
It begins as follows:
In the View of numerous groups representing the interests of disabled Canadians, Robert Latimer’s killing of his daughter was not only murder but a precedent that signalled danger for all disabled people. The public sympathy that was bestowed on him increased their concerns about the public’s attitude toward disabled people.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Day 28 (March 24) Introduction to Criminal Law
Today we spent some time looking at the CBC News In Review story about the natural gas explosion at the Mexican resort in 2008 in which seven people died, five of whom were Canadian. Although a modern country, Mexico has a problem with corruption and it would appear that this was part of the cause of the explosion - building codes were not followed and a ruptured gas line, a gas line that was not authorized on the blueprints of the resort, leaked gas in the space below the building and finally ignited causing a major explosion. This law minute of the day is a good way to introduce the idea that the general public needs to be protected from crimes, even crimes that are "hidden in the ground."
Then my Intro Lecture on Criminal Law.
In case you missed it or in if you would like further clarification on your notes, here are some main points from the lecture:
The Law exists to: Protect society & individuals
Establish rules of conduct
Keep the peace
Punish offenders
Protect rights and freedoms
What is a Crime?
Parliament decides what is a crime and it passes laws accordingly.
A action that we consider a crime reflects societal values, e.g. Marijuana reform.
Because different people have different values and beliefs, we establish that these
FOUR CONDITIONS must exist in order for an action or omission to be considered a crime:
- The Action must harm other people or entities and the harm must be serious in nature and degree.
- The action violates the basic values of society.
- Using law to deal with the action must not violate the basic values of society.
- Criminal law can make a significant contribution to resolving the problem.
Also, these TWO ELEMENTS must exist for an action to be a criminal offense: actus reus & mens rea. Because the Charter sec 11(d) says that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty the Crown attorney must prove both of these beyond a reasonable doubt.
ELEMENTS of a Crime
- Actus Reus: wrongful action (committing the act of the crime)
- Mens Rea: wrongful mind (intention to commit the crime), or that the offense is committed with i.) intent or knowledge or ii.) recklessness.
- Intent or Knowledge: Intent is the true purpose of the action, or what a reasonable person would be thinking under the circumstances.
- General Intent: the person has no other criminal purpose in mind, e.g. assault or trespass (it has to be shown only that the person did apply force or was on someone else’s property) no need to prove mens rea.
- Knowledge: knowing certain facts can provide the necessary mens rea, e.g. using an expired credit card or someone else’s credit card.
- Recklessness: careless disregard for the possible results of an action. People who act recklessly do not necessarily intend to cause harm, no matter.
The Witch Trial
Syllogism - tool in reasoning in which applies deductive reasoning to
arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are assumed to be
true.
All As are Cs.
All Bs are As.
Therefore all Bs are Cs.
Example:
All cats (A) are animals (C).
All lions (B) are cats (A).
Therefore all lions (B) are animals (C).
Similar, but in this case untrue, is this example.
All cats (A) are animals (C).
All lions (B) are animals (C).
Therefore all cats (A) are lions (B).
Another logical fallacy:
All ghosts are imaginary.
All unicorns are imaginary.
Therefore all ghosts are unicorns.
This is the type of argument made by Monty Python in their witch trial.
Breakdown of the Argument
1. All witches are things that can burn.
2. All things that can burn are made of wood.
3. Therefore, all witches are made of wood. (from 1 & 2)
4. All things that are made of wood are things that can float.
5. All things that weigh as much as a duck are things that can float.
6. So all things that weigh as much as a duck are things that are made of wood. (from 4 & 5)
7. Therefore, all witches are things that weigh as much as a duck. (from 3 & 6)
8. This thing is a thing that weighs as much as a duck.
9. Therefore, this thing is a witch. (from 7 & 8)
Analysis of the Argument
There are actually four arguments being made here. Lines (3), (6), (7) and (9) are all
conclusions, with (9) being the main conclusion of the argument. Let’s take them one at a time.
The first argument:
1. All witches are things that can burn.
2. All things that can burn are made of wood.
3. Therefore, all witches are made of wood.
This is a valid argument. That is, (3) really does follow logically from (1) and (2). That’s not to say that it’s an especially convincing argument because premise (2) is rather obviously false. Still, if (2) were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. So this step is valid but unsound.
The second argument:
4. All things that are made of wood are things that can float.
5. All things that weigh as much as a duck are things that can float.
6. So all things that weigh as much as a duck are things that are made of wood.
This argument commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The structure of the
argument is the old familiar:
All A is C.
All B is C.
Therefore, all A is B.
And that, of course, is not a valid argument.
There are actually four arguments being made here. Lines (3), (6), (7) and (9) are all
conclusions, with (9) being the main conclusion of the argument. Let’s take them one at a time.
The first argument:
1. All witches are things that can burn.
2. All things that can burn are made of wood.
3. Therefore, all witches are made of wood.
This is a valid argument. That is, (3) really does follow logically from (1) and (2). That’s not to say that it’s an especially convincing argument because premise (2) is rather obviously false. Still, if (2) were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. So this step is valid but unsound.
The second argument:
4. All things that are made of wood are things that can float.
5. All things that weigh as much as a duck are things that can float.
6. So all things that weigh as much as a duck are things that are made of wood.
This argument commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The structure of the
argument is the old familiar:
All A is C.
All B is C.
Therefore, all A is B.
And that, of course, is not a valid argument.
The third argument:
3. Therefore, all witches are made of wood.
6. So all things that weigh as much as a duck are things that are made of wood.
7. Therefore, all witches are things that weigh as much as a duck.
This argument has the same problem as the second argument. It’s also an undistributed middle (i.e. the middle argument, 6, is not true).
The fourth argument:
7. Therefore, all witches are things that weigh as much as a duck.
8. This thing is a thing that weighs as much as a duck.
9. Therefore, this thing is a witch.
Yes, once again, it’s an undistributed middle.
How is our legal system similar to this?
Thursday, March 6, 2014
DAY 23 - 26 (March 17 - 20)
Monday, March 17
I'm away until Friday so please follow instructions here on the blog.
From Text:
Three cases:
R. v. Oakes, Page 39
Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, Page 41-42
Canada v. JTI-McDonald Corp., Page 44
Please read the cases and answer the questions that follow.
Tuesday, March 18
Today we're looking at three different philosophies of law as follows:
Positivism - the way of looking at a legal idea that considers FACTS, technical information, literal interpretation of law, "letter of the law". What this school of thought does not consider is any other legal philosophy. This school of thought is not interested in "extenuating" circumstances.
Natural Law - the way of looking at a legal idea that considers the "will of god", the compassionate nature of the god or the wrathful nature of the god. This school of thought is often guided by religious principles that establish what the "natural order" of existence should be. For some people nature is ruled by God.
Realism - this way of looking at a legal idea does not direct it in any way. Realists acknowledge that many different factors influence legal ideas. For example, psychological, social, cultural, religious, economic, experiential, etc. factors can influence how we should examine a legal principle. A true realist judge would try to gather as much information from many aspects of a case to render a good judgment (background of the offender, religious beliefs, motivations of people, etc.).
Here's the handout on Three Legal Philosophies (see R v. Ford below).
On the back of this sheet is the R. v. Ford Case in which I ask everyone to make a legal judgment on a case, your first case! When you are done reading then answer the CASE QUESTION at the bottom of the case - this is formal and you need to write your case in full paragraphs.
Everyone should list the factors that are most important in deciding this case.
Positivism - the way of looking at a legal idea that considers FACTS, technical information, literal interpretation of law, "letter of the law". What this school of thought does not consider is any other legal philosophy. This school of thought is not interested in "extenuating" circumstances.
Natural Law - the way of looking at a legal idea that considers the "will of god", the compassionate nature of the god or the wrathful nature of the god. This school of thought is often guided by religious principles that establish what the "natural order" of existence should be. For some people nature is ruled by God.
Realism - this way of looking at a legal idea does not direct it in any way. Realists acknowledge that many different factors influence legal ideas. For example, psychological, social, cultural, religious, economic, experiential, etc. factors can influence how we should examine a legal principle. A true realist judge would try to gather as much information from many aspects of a case to render a good judgment (background of the offender, religious beliefs, motivations of people, etc.).
Here's the handout on Three Legal Philosophies (see R v. Ford below).
On the back of this sheet is the R. v. Ford Case in which I ask everyone to make a legal judgment on a case, your first case! When you are done reading then answer the CASE QUESTION at the bottom of the case - this is formal and you need to write your case in full paragraphs.
Everyone should list the factors that are most important in deciding this case.
For Example:
1. Ford was charged with theft of narcotics (insulin).
2. He stole the insulin for his daughter (diabetic)
3. Dyslexia prevents him from getting a job despite his efforts to find one.
4. Freeland is deeply religious.
5. That religion required Ford to provide insulin for his daughter.
6. He could not afford it so he had to steal it.
7. Ford has been unemployed for eight months.
8. Social assistance was not available to Ford because he was not disabled "enough".
9. Mandatory penalty of 15 yrs. in jail for narcotics theft (insulin is considered a narcotic in Freeland).
10. Daughter's health was deteriorating because of lack of insulin (three weeks).
1. Ford was charged with theft of narcotics (insulin).
2. He stole the insulin for his daughter (diabetic)
3. Dyslexia prevents him from getting a job despite his efforts to find one.
4. Freeland is deeply religious.
5. That religion required Ford to provide insulin for his daughter.
6. He could not afford it so he had to steal it.
7. Ford has been unemployed for eight months.
8. Social assistance was not available to Ford because he was not disabled "enough".
9. Mandatory penalty of 15 yrs. in jail for narcotics theft (insulin is considered a narcotic in Freeland).
10. Daughter's health was deteriorating because of lack of insulin (three weeks).
Wednesday, March 19
See the Search and Seizure in a School Setting sheet which covers various aspects of your rights in a school setting, in particular your rights regarding your lockers.
I have asked, on the handout, that you create a four paragraph response explaining how you see the information on Locker Searches connecting with the Charter of Rights. You must be specific (i.e. cite the sections of the Charter) when you refer to the Charter and in each case explain the significance of the Charter in ensuring an effective justice system in Canada. Use your text to look up relevant information - Index, Chapters 1-3.
Points to Consider in Locker Searches:
1. Privacy.
2. Who owns the locker?
3. School-wide security.
4. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"?
5. Who are the witnesses?
6. What about shared lockers?
7. Seriousness of the suspected offense.
8. What about lockers that are not locked?
9. Prior offenses of the suspects?
10. Should all lockers be searched?
I have asked, on the handout, that you create a four paragraph response explaining how you see the information on Locker Searches connecting with the Charter of Rights. You must be specific (i.e. cite the sections of the Charter) when you refer to the Charter and in each case explain the significance of the Charter in ensuring an effective justice system in Canada. Use your text to look up relevant information - Index, Chapters 1-3.
Points to Consider in Locker Searches:
1. Privacy.
2. Who owns the locker?
3. School-wide security.
4. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"?
5. Who are the witnesses?
6. What about shared lockers?
7. Seriousness of the suspected offense.
8. What about lockers that are not locked?
9. Prior offenses of the suspects?
10. Should all lockers be searched?
Thursday, March 20
Criminal Law - Introduction
Please go through Chapter 4, Intro to Criminal Law taking notes on subheadings and answering all questions that you encounter.
Monday, March 3, 2014
DAY 19 - Peer Editing History of Law
This picture says a thousand words . . . so GREAT to see so many of your critiquing each other's work, it really is an effective way to improve your own work during the writing process. Nicely done, everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)