Select Page

Step 1. Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Step 2. Make Payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Step 3. Receive your paper

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

500 WORDS Professor Hasnas argues that the “rule of law” is a myth, and a dange

by | Jun 22, 2022 | Other | 0 comments


Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

Professor Hasnas argues that the “rule of law” is a myth, and a dangerous one at that. Do you agree? Explain.
also Samaha’s contention that not only legislators, but also judges,
police and prosecutors “make” the law. (pp. 17-18) Do you agree? Do you
see this as problematic? How so or why not?
If so, what do you see as an alternative, if anything, to the current system, or is the status quo a “necessary evil?”
If you think the current system works well, how would you respond to Hasnas? To Samaha?
Remember to cite to the assigned materials in your post. How can Hasnas, Baxter, and / or Samaha inform your answer?
The largest source of criminal law is in state criminal codes and
municipal codes (Samaha, 12). However, just because municipalities can
contribute to criminal law doesn’t mean that they have unlimited,
unregulated power. For example, municipalities cannot create felonies
and they cannot punish offenders with more than one year of jail
(Samaha, 16). Additionally, local ordinances cannot clash with state
criminal codes (Samaha, 16). This balance of power is similar to the
hierarchy of the federal Constitution and state constitutions since
state constitutions cannot conflict with the rights guaranteed in the
federal Constitution.
Public parks can deny those on Segways or motorized skateboards from
entering the park. The general reasoning for this rule is that
municipalities and states do not want to disrupt or potentially injure
bystanders by allowing vehicles in the park. This reasoning is
emphasized in the municipal ordinances section of the textbook reading,
which states that local governments are exercising their abilities more
than ever to create zero-tolerance laws for drugs, violence, and public
disorders that violate community living standards (Samaha 15). Working
solely off the definition for a vehicle given in the local municipal
ordinance, I assume that the municipality would be able to classify both
a Segway and motorized skateboard as automobiles, which is one of the
vehicles prohibited in the park.
Assuming that Carol relies on her motorized wheelchair for mobility
assistance, she cannot legally be denied access to the public park due
to protections from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). From what
I learned about the ADA in my other courses, any space open to the
general public must comply with ADA compliances to ensure that those
with disabilities are not hindered in their ability to enjoy the same
experiences and rights as others. Regardless of what the local municipal
ordinance meant by their definition of a vehicle, they would violate
the ADA if they tried to prevent those with disabilities from entering a
public park (or any other public space, for that matter).
Hasnas demonstrates how the law is indeterminate, meaning that there
is flexibility in the language of the law to allow its meaning to prove
or disprove just about any statement or argument. He argues that we
should not strive to make the law fully determinate, as that would
prevent us from considering the equities of particular cases (Hasnas
213). Therefore, this characteristic of law is actually a positive
thing. The given scenario of the prompt helps back this claim up. If we
wanted to make every law apply in the same way to everyone, regardless
of any considerations for exemptions, Carol would likely be prohibited
from entering the public park due to her motorized wheelchair. The
ability to make federal laws, such as the ADA, is a way to protect
specific groups from being affected by the overarching language of
certain laws. In an attempt to ban unwanted activities, states and
municipalities must be aware of cases in which their proposed laws would
affect those they are not intending to target in the process.
The Model Penal Codes (MPC) gives us a definition of criminal conduct
as “conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens
substantial harm to individual or public interests.” (Samaha, p. 14).
The hardest part of understanding the (MPC) is in the interpretation of
this definition especially morally.
Scenario a: I do not think that the robbers would be
responsible for the man’s death. The robbers had the criminal intent
to rob this man but not to kill him and did not do so when he was in
their possession. I do not believe that this man dying was a
premeditated foreseeable circumstance when the robbers forced the man
out of the car. There was no reason for the robbers to believe that this
action would lead to the man’s death but morally their criminal actions
did contribute to the man’s death and maybe they could be charged as
contributors to his death in some way.
I also believe that the college student did not have criminal intent
to kill this man, but did he abide by State and Municipal Ordinances in
his driving that night? Was he driving in such a manner that an average
person driving by these guidelines should have been able to see this man
and stop? In this case the college student may be charged with a
misdemeanor “an offenses punishable by fine and/or confinement in the
local jail for up to one year.” (Samaha, p. 12). I think morally it
would come down to his driving and if he should have been able to
reasonably see the man in the road and stop.
Scenario b: I think the man can only be charged with
a crime if there is a State or Municipal Ordinance that states that
this type of behavior is criminal. There would have to be a clear law
on nudity in one’s own home when people from the outside can see this
nudity. His nudity was not physically harming anyone but would not be
morally acceptable in most norms of society. Is it considered indecent
exposure if you are in your own home and not a public place? These
questions would have to be addressed to see if the man is to be charged.
His actions would morally offend a lot of people but whether he can be
charged with a crime is undetermined.
Scenario c: I do not think that the woman can be
charged with a crime that is “mala in se (inherently evil) crimes that
require some level of criminal intent.” (Samaha, p.12). I do not think
that she is responsible for the man’s death of a drug overdose. I do
think that she could be charged with a crime of mala prohibita because I
do believe that there would some statute or ordinance that would
constitute her leaving the man when he is collapsed as some level of
neglect. Morally the scenario is unacceptable. Her utter lack of
feelings for this dead man can be seen again when upon her return from
work, she leaves the body with her daughter instructing her to call the
police and again leaves the house. I feel that she will be charged with
some type of negligence especially if it could be determined that had
she checked on him before leaving or called an ambulance that his life
could have been saved.

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now


We encrypt everything. It’s all confidential.

Secure Payment

Sleep tight: each transaction is encrypted and 100% secure.

Ready to get started?