Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Philosophy of Law

    Uploaded by

    JAED SALAZAR
    The document argues that the survivors should be found guilty of murder and face the death penalty. It presents three key points in favor of conviction: 1) Conviction establishes an important legal precedent and prevents the justification of unlawful acts based on necessity or natural law in the future. 2) The ends do not always justify the means, and allowing an exception in this case would disregard legal principles regarding crimes against persons. 3) Conviction is needed to achieve a just, egalitarian society where the law is upheld and one's rights end when another's begin.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Philosophy of Law

    Uploaded by

    JAED SALAZAR
    29 views1 page
    The document argues that the survivors should be found guilty of murder and face the death penalty. It presents three key points in favor of conviction: 1) Conviction establishes an important legal precedent and prevents the justification of unlawful acts based on necessity or natural law in the future. 2) The ends do not always justify the means, and allowing an exception in this case would disregard legal principles regarding crimes against persons. 3) Conviction is needed to achieve a just, egalitarian society where the law is upheld and one's rights end when another's begin.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Philosophy-of-Law.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document argues that the survivors should be found guilty of murder and face the death penalty. It presents three key points in favor of conviction: 1) Conviction establishes an important legal precedent and prevents the justification of unlawful acts based on necessity or natural law in the future. 2) The ends do not always justify the means, and allowing an exception in this case would disregard legal principles regarding crimes against persons. 3) Conviction is needed to achieve a just, egalitarian society where the law is upheld and one's rights end when another's begin.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views1 page

    Philosophy of Law

    Uploaded by

    JAED SALAZAR
    The document argues that the survivors should be found guilty of murder and face the death penalty. It presents three key points in favor of conviction: 1) Conviction establishes an important legal precedent and prevents the justification of unlawful acts based on necessity or natural law in the future. 2) The ends do not always justify the means, and allowing an exception in this case would disregard legal principles regarding crimes against persons. 3) Conviction is needed to achieve a just, egalitarian society where the law is upheld and one's rights end when another's begin.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LIBRT: The survivors should be found guilty of murder, and should face a

    mandatory death sentence.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beneficiality Speech

    (Rebut first the arguments of the other bench before proceeding to this speech oy)

    His Excellency, equal-worth opponent, ladies and Gentlemen, Good Evening!


    Ladies and Gentlemen, at this point, let us paint a picture of the future. A picture in
    where a judicial crisis arises just because the ‘state of necessity’ validates one’s
    unlawful acts. A scenario where that it is okay to steal if we starve; that it is fine to rape
    if our libido is at a high-stake; and that it is acceptable to kill any person just because he
    is a hindrance to one’s desires in life and where the courts are bound to tolerate a
    person’s unlawful behavior just because natural law sees it as human nature. Is this the
    kind of justice you like? No. That is not the kind of justice we deserve.
    Ladies and Gentlemen, it is the stand of the affirmative side that there are important
    benefits in the conviction of the explorers primarily because it sets forth the hold of
    future juridical instances where there are grey areas beyond the hold of the law.
    It is a time-honored principle that while the law may be harsh, it is the law. (Insert the
    law thing)
    Moreover, the affirmative believes that the ends, no matter how sentimental and
    ‘justified’ as others may see it, does not give anyone the authority to use unlawful
    means in achieving the former. We are for the belief that the ends do not always justify
    the means. To do otherwise would be a total disgust of the existing legal principles
    regarding crimes against persons.
    As in dealing with the statute, so in dealing with the exception, the question is not the
    conjectural purpose of the rule, but its scope. Now the scope of the exception in favor of
    self-defense as it has been applied by this Court is plain: it applies to cases of resisting
    an aggressive threat to the party's own life. It is therefore too clear for argument that this
    case does not fall within the scope of the exception, since it is plain that Whetmore
    made no threat against the lives of these defendants.
    Your honor, we are in the position of the conviction primarily because we see its
    importance in the judicial system of the world. The striking of this decision for the
    conviction provides for a prevention of future possible commission of the crime with the
    same reason, as accordingly being ‘justified’.
    Your honor, not to acquit the explorers give out a notion to the future generation that it is
    okay to steal if we starve; that it is fine to rape if our libido is at a high-stake; and that it
    is acceptable to kill any person just because he is a hindrance to one’s desires in life.
    We from the affirmative ought not to see that kind of picture being painted. Instead, we
    must let every stroke of the pen by the justices draw down the proper and right justice
    needed to be established in order to achieve a more desirable society worthy of living
    for every citizen – A society that sees justice as a form of social equality, rather than
    social tolerance.
    The effects of the conviction of the explorers for their unlawful act cannot be realized not
    until we let justice do its part. For indeed, one’s rights end when the right of the other
    begins.

    You might also like