No Marshmallows, Just Term Papers
Question 12, p. 170
a. They clearly broke the law. They killed someone weak and innocent for personal gain. In a board sense, crimes consist of two elements: a wrongful act or mission (actus reus) and evil intent (mens rea). I think they broke the both. It must be guilty of murder. Although they were not living by a moral standard here, they simply gave into a survival instinct.
b. After reading the whole material, I realize whether the prisoners in killing Parker were guilty of murder--the law is that where a private person acting upon his own judgment takes the life of a fellow creature, his act can only be justified on the ground of self-defence--self-defence against the acts of the person whose life is taken. This principle has been extended to include the case of a man killing another to prevent him from committing some great crime upon a third person. But the principle has no application to this case, for the prisoners were not protecting themselves against any act of Parker. If he had had food in his possession and they had taken it from him, they would have been guilty of theft; and if they killed him to obtain this food, they would have been guilty of murder.
Question 11, p. 210
a. I think this case is illegal. Although Lancaster then used its power of eminent domain to condemn the 99 cents property for the purpose of making it available to Costco. But it made a lot of lose for 99 cents. And the purpose is only to build to its local economy with illegal way. Prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation for the owner
–Possessory –gov’t confiscation/physical occupation of ppty
–Regulatory –gov’t regulation where it leaves no reasonable economic viable use of ppty
–Public use = so long as the gov’t acts reasonable belief the taking will benefit the public
–Measured by the loss to the owner –FMV; gain to gov’t is irrelevant
b. For all the...
Join now to view this essay and thousands of others on PaperCamp.com. It's free Join Now!