Being informed doesn’t hurt, and occasionally it might actually be a good way of getting out of unwanted situations. First and foremost, let me get something clear out of the way, though: do not ever drink and drive, or drive under the influence of mind-altering substances. That’s really a dumb thing to do, and chances are you’ll only get into more trouble than it’s worth. However if you have trouble talking yourself out of engaging DUI, maybe this will be helpful: Los Angeles Criminal Law and Defense Questions.

This FAQ will provide with with a good deal of information that you probably don’t know about, but you should… but just remember, it’s always best NOT to drive under influence… ever! Just stay put and enjoy your high, do whatever you like but do not drive around wasted, not unless you really enjoy getting into unnecessary trouble.

I’ve told you more than once before about the dangers of reckless driving. Hopefully, you’ve been paying attention – so I won’t have to repeat myself. Regardless, there are occasions where no matter how cautious you’ll get, you’ll might be involved in a car accident. Realistically speaking, you could be driving along just nicely – minding your own business and following all rules, and a clumsy driver might bump into your car just out of the blue. Do you know how you’re supposed to act in such a situation? This reminds me of a story.

A few years back, I was visiting some relatives in Boston. I was having an all-around good time and enjoying the city just fine – up until one of the last days, when an unfortunate accident nearly ruined my vacations I was driving around looking for a restaurant where I was supposed to meet some friends, and suddenly I noticed trouble ahead. The guy in front of my was clearly distressed about the rush hour traffic, so he decides he’ll just speed reverse his way out of that street. Well, sooner than I could think about doing anything, he’d just crashed his car into mine… just like that!

Needless to say, that crazy person didn’t want to want to take responsibility for bumping into my car and trashing my headlights. Luckily though, I was near the restaurant I was supposed to be getting at, and one of my friends spotted me from the crowd. Not only that, one of the other persons who was having lunch with us was actually a Boston car accident lawyer. The ensuing scene was actually quite funny.

In less than five minutes, the matter was settled and the guy who’d crashed into my car willingly decided to cooperate. Not only that, he was all too eager to apologize, in fear of legal reprisal Well, after having heard a couple of horror stories from a real Boston car accident attorney, I think there’s a good chance he’ll tone down on the reckless driving. Also, that was the day I realized just how powerful you can become from tagging along with a good lawyer!

Bizzare lawsuits? Everyone has heard about it, and sometimes one gets two wonder if there’s a line that separates reality from urban myth. Regardless, there are many circumstances were notoriously akward trials surface, that oftentimes sounds completely surreal – but they’re true nonetheless. If you’re a fan of such trials, hold on tight because I’ve got this list comprised with the most bizarre court trials know to America:

If I just drink enough beer, women will love me, right?
1991, Richard Overton sued Anheuser-Busch for $10,000. He claimed to have suffered emotional distress, mental injury, and financial loss because drinking beer did not make his fantasies of beautiful women in tropical settings come to life, as he claimed it had advertised, driving him to buy and drink more Bud Light. The case was dismissed.

If you can’t sue the system, sue yourself.
1995, Robert Lee Brock sued himself for $5 million. He claimed that he had violated his own civil rights and religious beliefs by allowing himself to get drunk and commit crimes which landed him in the Indian Creek Correctional Center in Virginia, serving a 23 year sentence for grand larceny and breaking and entering. What could he possibly have to gain by suing himself? Since being in prison prevented him from having an income, he expected the state to pay. This case was thrown out.

(more…)

This good old green / blue earth is certainly a wonderful place to live in… but then again, it can also be quite grueling: it’s all a matter of being surrounded with the right people, and life can certainly get that extra spark. The trouble with people though, is that you never really know where they’re coming from. I mean, there are all kinds of people out there – good and bad – and it’s not always easy to tell them apart by observation.

Well, I’ve just found something that might be helpful in helping you figure out who you’re dealing with, when making new friends or lovers. Using this website, you get access to a comprehensive Criminal Records Check from a database with over 3 billion criminal and sex offender records; a single search will yield results from over twenty thousand public databases across the country.

So, when you find yourself wondering if someone has had troubles with the law, this is the place to go and make some research. You should avoid using this tool to pry on other people’s lives, but all the while it can be highly useful in protecting yourself against potentially fraudulent or even dangerous individual that you might come across in the course of life.

After much deliberation and discussion, the Supreme Court has returned a critical strike to the core of women’s rights in the abortion arena.  The court in a 5-4 decision banned a medical procedure known as a partial-birth abortion or Dilation and Extraction.  This abortion procedure was performed after the 20th week of pregnancy.  While the pro-rights crowd is naturally upset over the ban, they are horrified over the fact that there are no exceptions to the ban that would enable a doctor to save the life of a woman if it was medically necessary to perform the procedure.

Doctors can face up to 2 years in prison if they are convicted of performing the procedures, which will greatly limit the numbers of doctors performing the procedures and likely increase the number of states placing bans of the entire abortion procedure as well.  The decision came from a split Supreme Court, with two of the justices being hand picked by Bush himself.  This is a cause of great concern, suggesting that the Supreme Court has turned into a very conservative place, despite the lack of support for Bush and many of his ideas and practices on a broader level.  The Supreme Court’s involvement in politics is usually noted, but given the gravity of this decision it is clear where certain allegiances lie.

Is the Supreme Court really following the wishes of the majority, do they really have the legal right to determine that a medical decision can or cannot be performed?  The anti-abortion camps in the GOP are happy following the decision and are busily looking for more ways to put a damper on the rights of women in regards to abortions.  How will this decision be regarded when it comes election time, and the Presidential elections come around?  What about the midterm elections next time they are scheduled?

Many people are left to wonder if the Supreme Court decision is truly a legal decision, or nothing more than a very carefully selected group of ultra conservative judge’s who are following Bush’s wishes and desires in regards to the case.  The case was sitting before a panel of judge’s who seem to thrive off of the acceptance of Bush, and Bush was noted as being encouraged by the ruling and declaring it as a victory for his administration.

The court defended its decision by saying that it was doing nothing more than drawing a line between abortion and infanticide.  There is a difference between killing a child, or an infant, and an abortion.  One of the most notable differences is that a child or infant is not considered an infant until the first breath of air is taken into the lungs.  An abortion does not allow the infant to take that first breath of air, therefore, removing the term infant from their being.

While it is noble that the Supreme Court is looking and seeking to protect all forms of life, they should also concern themselves with the lives of the mothers who carry babies, who should not be allowed to continue to term for medical reasons.  There are numerous women each year who become pregnant who are unable physically to carry a child to term, and must abort the child, or risk their own life.  What has the Supreme Court done in order to protect those mothers, or improve their quality of life?

In our private lives, the area of law we will experience the most, either directly or indirectly would have to be the criminal law.  Not necessarily through contravening its principals, the individual citizen will more commonly encounter its breadth in the course of their everyday lives, considering as a factor the legal ramifications of any desired conduct or decision in the decision making process.  For most of us, we tend to live our lives within these predetermined boundaries with no second thought or question as to the morality of the prohibited option nor the moral authority behind it.  In this article, it is proposed to look at the nature and scope of the criminal law in our society, and to discuss whether as an entity it is too intrusive, or whether it is naturally a required aspect of regulating society.

It is often said academically that the citizen enjoys freedom to act as he wishes in his life, subject to the regulatory provisions of the criminal law and the criminal justice system.  It is thought that as citizens of a particular country, largely at freedom to choose where we live in the world, we impliedly accept the authority of the relevant legal provisions which, for the most part, regulate on a moral level.  Of course there are exceptions, i.e. criminal laws of a regulatory or secondary nature which do not directly bear any moral message, such as speeding limits or parking restrictions.  So, then, to what extent does the criminal law reflect morality, and further from what source is this morality derived?

The criminal law is said to operate in mind of the public good, and the benefit of society.  It could, therefore, be argued to be crossing the boundaries into serious restrictions on liberty when it regulates personal conduct like drug use which may not have any wider impact than on that of the person indulging accordingly.  Why should the criminal law impose restrictions on what a person can do with his or her own body?  Surely our own freewill is a good enough justification for acting outwith the scope of the law in these types of scenario?

Furthermore an interesting area of the criminal law is potential liability for omissions.  In this sense, the citizen can actually be punished without acting at all in a specific way.  This takes the criminal law beyond a regulatory framework for the public good into an actual coercive force to make people positively act in a certain way.  For example, in some jurisdictions there is a legal duty to report a road traffic accident.  This means a citizen who is aware of the occurrence of such will have committed a criminal offence where he does not act in the prescribed manner.  Again, this is surely affording a broad scope to the criminal law, which may be seen by some as intruding on the fundamental freedoms and values upon which most modern nations were built.

It is interesting to consider the real impact of the criminal law, and the sheer breadth of conduct it regulates.  From the objectively morally wrong to the less obvious cases of imposition of liability, the criminal law places severe restrictions on the general principal of absolute liberty, which is clearly the subject of much academic and philosophical debate.

The question of the character of law is primarily a simple one, although it presents a diversity of argumentation to make it an academic favourite and a thought-provoking topic of debate. Positivism is the term describing the school of legal thought that follows that law is an authoritative, binding, regulatory construct.  It holds at its core the idea that law is enacted as an authoritative statement of how society must behave.  It rejects the concept of any connection with morality, and suggests that there is no room for subjective consideration of the law – the law is, with no room for negotiation.  Positivism has been criticised, particularly in Germany, as a means of affording tyranny and extremism to enter mainstream politics.  It is said that the general concept of accepting and enforcing the law by virtue of its status allows unjust laws enforcing prejudice and discrimination respect by virtue of their enactment, placing an indefeasible trust in the legislature. As compared to other legal theories, positivism has gathered a great deal of respect and support across the world, making it one of the most prominent considerations of the nature of law.

Positivism places strength on the rules as they are laid down, on the premise that the process of the legislature is the time for challenge and interpretation.  Although this may generally be the case, it does throw up some problems in relation to the practical consequences of certain enactments, which reflect better with experience the level of effectiveness.  Another feature of the positivist movement is that rather than be guided by moral considerations, the law can be used in certain circumstances to determine what is right and what is wrong, on the basis of its status as in accordance with or against the law.  Again this causes problems that have formed the basis of much academic argumentation in the area.

One of the main criticisms of positivism as a theory came in light of the linguistic considerations of HLA Hart, a leading international legal philosopher.  He stated that the positive law is far from fixed in nature, for the simple reason that language is not fixed.  For example, the famous scenario offered for this point is a sign in a local park stating ‘no vehicles allowed’.  This is by no means a fixed and definitive statement of the law, because ‘vehicles’ can be taken to mean a broad range of things.  For the most part it will be fairly obvious what falls within the scope – no cars, vans, trucks or trains would be permitted.  But what about skateboards?  Bicycles? Are these covered within the definition of vehicles? There is no way of knowing from the text exactly what is intended by the law, so to positivism in this strict sense is flawed. Rather, a more sophisticated approach is required, which allows the law to be read in the light of pragmatic and policy considerations.  This makes positivism more palatable as a concept, and strengthens its validity at the heart of legal philosophy.

Positivism is only one in a series of mainstream legal theories which satisfy the rational and logical requirements of academics and practitioners alike.  Its intellectual sophistication sets it apart from the more basic natural law theory, although it is by no means an utterly definitive set of beliefs.  All in all, this is an area of study that is rapidly developing, producing new and more complex arguments with every empirical text.

In attempting to garner an understanding of the nature of law, early legal philosophers and academics formulated what has come to be known as the natural law theory, and has become a literal cornerstone of the development of modern legal thinking.  Although somewhat limited in modern jurisprudential thinking, natural law has had a tremendous impact on our understanding of what law means in society as a baseline from which to build more complex theories.  In this article, we will look at some of the major propositions underpinning the concept of natural law, and the corresponding strengths and weaknesses of this fundamental interpretation of the legal function.

Natural law starts with the basic premise that the law is driven by morality, and consequently is affected by it.  With a history extending back to Aristotle and other early philosophers, the natural law theory has traditionally linked the law with religion and an innate sense of justice, rather than the more pragmatic approaches of some other theories.  Although this might sound rather basic, the principals have been developed and refined through academic debate for centuries ultimately leading to a far more sophisticated theory of the nature of law.  The idea that all law is subject to an unwritten code of morality is fundamental to natural law.  This also throws up some potential problems in terms of civil regulation.  Certain natural law theorists suggest that for a law to be binding on the citizen, it must conform to this sense of natural justice.  However, there is clearly no definitive objective concept of morality, which casts doubt over this principle.  Additionally, the prospect that a law may be disregarded in favour of some higher sense of morality doesn’t conform in reality, considering the potential implications of consistently disregarding law on the grounds of the subjective concept of justice.

Furthermore on this primitive understanding of natural law, the citizen in contravention to the laws of his state, could attempt to excuse his actions through a justification of ‘immoral’ laws.  This would also create a state of disorder, given the natural variation of personal opinions, which would ultimately render society unworkable.  For this reason, the natural law scheme has failed to garner modern academic acceptance, of course with a few exceptions.

Natural law has been proposed as a consideration in trying war criminals, on the basis of the retrospectivity principle, i.e. no man can be tried for a crime that was not a crime when he committed it.  Many war criminals are merely cogs in the machine of a legal regime, which ultimately permits their actions, however unjustifiable morally.  Natural law theories give a basis for challenge on these grounds, whilst avoiding the awkward question of direct legal contravention, which ultimately works to serve justice.  In this sense, it is perhaps useful as a canon of interpretation and in determining just and equitable outcomes in ‘difficult’ cases.  However, as a wider legal concept, natural law and the proposed intersection between law and morality seems too awkward to reconcile with considered academic legal understandings.  Having said that, natural law has provided an excellent starting position for further advanced argumentation, and has provided a platform for critique that has been essential to the development of the more sophisticated ideas held in regard in this modern day.