Posted: May 24th, 2022

Jurisprudence Unit 5; Question #6

Jurisprudence Unit 5; Question #6
JURISPRUDENCE

Submitted by [name]

Name of the Course

Institution

Professor

Date

Question #6 in Unit 5:

Ask a man to say things; ask a woman to do things. “If you want something done, ask a woman.” We live in a society in which our values shape who we are in all situations at all times. Values are the standards of behavior that one holds to be right or wrong in his or her opinion. As a result, I agree with Scales’ assertion that “Male and female perceptions of worth are not shared, and they may not even be perceptible to one another in the first place. As a result, in our current genderized world, the concepts of “right-based ethics” and “care-based ethics” cannot be combined ” (Scales 1985, p.1383). During this section, we will examine the veracity of Scales’ statement from earlier in the chapter. Scales’ statement is reasonable in the sense that males and females have viewpoints that appear to differ in the majority of situations. The disparities in viewpoints are a result of the different upbringing received by both genders, as dictated by society. According to Professor Mackinnon, men are generally autonomous (i.e., they make their own decisions without external influence), whereas women are irrational (i.e., they refuse to listen to reason) (Scales 1985, p.1382). Because people’s viewpoints are related to their values, gender values can be considered to be diametrically opposed to one another based on the statements above. According to a psychological perspective, females are more caring than males, especially when it comes to child care and upbringing. This type of care stems from the belief that women are obligated to care for their children and their families. Furthermore, males have an objective (unbiased) point of view, whereas females have a subjective (personal) point of view, due to the expectation placed on them by society to be family heads. By embracing their roles, they have a tendency to portray values that are not shared by females. The fact remains that right-based ethics and caregiving are incompatible because what is right is determined by the law, which the male gender has manipulated to achieve its objectives. Because they do not encompass the entirety of what is considered proper, many feminists argue that policies cannot be relied upon to determine the correct values. Sometimes people act out of concern but end up breaking the law as a result of their actions. As a result, it is preferable for one to care less and simply follow the rules of the game. Briefly stated, values refer to the importance of something in the context of achieving what is right. Generally speaking, they differ from one individual to another, and this is especially true in terms of gender perspectives. As a result of what Scales believed, the statement that these values are not shared by both men and women is indeed correct. When looking at gender roles, it is clear that males and females assume distinctly different roles, which are a determinant of the values that they portray to the world around them.

Question #7 in Unit 6:

“Christianity is neither now, nor has it ever been, a part of the common law,” Thomas Jefferson once said in an interview. In Europe, the majority of people believe that religion should be kept separate from federal laws in order to prevent violence based on religious practices. Religion is included in customary laws, which are made up of accepted practices that are governed by the rule of conduct. Customary laws are distinct from federal laws, which are policies enacted by a political body in a country to govern the citizens of that country. In addition, most traditional practices may not be recognized by national legislation in many cases. This section will therefore discuss whether blending laws can interfere with the harmonious coexistence of customary rules and government laws, as well as Fuller’s position on the subject. Europeans’ ideal belief that the church and the state should be kept separate does not preclude blending religious and government laws in some circumstances. In fact, it is recommended because the majority of customary practices encourage the harmonious co-existence of members of a society with one another. A citizen who does not understand the language of customary law, according to Fuller, will have difficulty understanding the language of a legal law (Youngblood 2004, p.67-89). Customs educates community members on the correct values, which can then be translated into government legislation by the community. The state should adopt a specific religion that requires offenders to change based on the ethical practices of the religion in question. In most cases, religion is intended to Help its adherents in living a more complete life. A life free of crime and sin, as well as a life that is generally happy. If the state could adopt a religion that allows offenders to appreciate the beauty of life, then a shift in behavior would be unavoidably brought about. Religious practices should be included in the courtroom, Fuller argues, because it fosters respect for the parties involved in the resolution of a case (Youngblood 2004, p.67-89). As a result, the same holds true for offenders: in order for them to comply with federal law, they must hold religious values.

Question 4 in Unit 7 of the textbook

The Crown Employment Contracts Act was passed by the province of Saskatchewan in 1991 in order to promote equal employment opportunities for all of the province’s residents. The legislative assembly was dissatisfied with the “Fair Share Saskatchewan” program, which was in charge of promoting job equality, because they felt that it had fallen short of their expectations. A Crown Employment Contract is an agreement between a Crown employee and the Crown or employer that is subject to modification in the event of dissatisfaction by either party or both parties to the agreement (Lexum 2018, n.p). Is it possible that the Saskatchewan legislature violated the law when it amended the Saskatchewan Act? The following section will provide an answer to the question raised above. However, in spite of the fact that the contract amendment was intended to fill in the gaps left by previous employment programs, they most likely violated the existing law, which requires equality and consideration. For example, under Section 6, the Crown is prohibited from compensating any Crown employee following the termination of a contract (Lexum 2018, n.p). A contract amendment of this nature does not allow for any consideration of the reasons that may have led to the termination of the contract in the first place. For example, if a Crown employee is subjected to workplace harassment and the contract is terminated due to safety concerns, the Crown is obligated to compensate the employee. Because it revoked this type of payment, the amendment failed to pass the law. Furthermore, Section 9 states that “Any claim for loss or damage arising out of the enactment or application of this Act is forever barred” (Lexum 2018, n.p). The statement is a clear violation of the law because it does not allow for user approval before it is made public. The contract is rigid because it requires that what is stated be followed, and outside opinions are not permitted. If a contract does not allow for the approval of the users, then it does not have legal standing. In a nutshell, the Crown Employment Contracts Act was found to be in violation of the law because of some of the amendments made to sections 6 and 9. Employers are prohibited from compensating employees who terminate their employment contracts under Section 6 of the contract. Furthermore, in Section 9, the statement of extinguishing the contract is rigid, which means that it does not necessitate the participation of third parties from its users.

Question #4 in Unit 8 of the textbook

In legal terms, justifiability is the process by which a case is evaluated on the basis of its defensibility. When a judge or a jury makes a decision, the term “reason” is used to describe the reasoning behind the decision. What are their justifications for making that decision? In the process of justice, Lloyd uses the term justifiability to demonstrate that judges are responsible for establishing sufficient reason when rendering a decision in a case (Freeman 2008, n.p.). As a result, this section will discuss factors related to justifiability in accordance with Lloyd’s interpretation of the term. The justifiability of an action, according to Lloyd, is significantly influenced by judicial reasoning. So how do the judges come to a decision when there is no correct answer to a question of judgment, for example? The conclusion is reached as a result of their deliberation and consideration of the information or evidence provided (Lloyd 1985, p. 1563-1583). Because a case cannot be left unresolved due to a lack of answers, it is the judge’s responsibility to reach a decision that is based on sound reasoning. That means they must use the constitutional laws to justify their actions in order for them to be considered justifiable. Another factor that determines the justifiability of a judge’s decision is his or her judicial discretion. It is the judges’ practical sense of fairness in a particular case that they refer to as discretion (Lloyd 1985, p. 1563-1583). If you’re going through a divorce, for example, discretion is essential. If the divorcing couple owned property together, it is only fair that each party receives an equal share of what they acquired as a result of their joint efforts. In any case, the property belonged to a single couple, and it is only fair that the owner receive a greater proportion of the property than the other tenants. Because of the importance of fairness in this situation, the judgment has a solid foundation of justification. To summarize, justifiability, as defined by Lloyd, means that a case must contain all of the necessary evidence before a judge can render a decision. That is, it should be able to provide justifications for its final decision. Some of the characteristics that have been discussed in relation to justifiability are judicial reasoning and judicial discretion. Judges can achieve justifiability in their decisions when dealing with a case if they possess these two characteristics.

References

In Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, Freeman, M.D.A., ed., 2008, p. (8th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell is based in London.

Lexum is a 2018 publication. Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) has the Crown Employment Contracts Act, SS 1991, c. C-50.11.

Lloyd’s introduction to jurisprudence was published in 1985 by D. Lloyd.

A.C. Scales’ essay on the emergence of feminist jurisprudence was published in 1985. Yale Law Journal, volume 95, page 1373.

Youngblood Henderson, J. (Sakéj), 2004. Henderson, J. (Sakéj). Aboriginal Jurisprudence and Rights are discussed in detail. (In K. Wilkins (Ed. ), Advancing Aboriginal Claims: Visions, Strategies, and Directions (pp. 67–89), Cambridge University Press.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: 150-200 words discussion with a scholarly reference, 200-300 words response to classmate discussion question, 250 word analysis essay, bachelor of nursing assignments, case study, essay bishops website