Legal Issues Presented & Was a Valid Prima Facie Case Established In this case, Vehar v.
Because of this, the defendant argued that the government’s use of demonstrative evidence was prejudicial and that his conviction violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause because if he wasn’t “Indian”, he would have been subjected to a minor and less harsh of a penalty under
Mrs. Ferjo’s application against the tribunal stated that she believed that the tribunal discriminated against her at the previous hearing when they denied her legal representation. Mrs. Ferjo checked off sexual discrimination on the application form but could not provide any factual evidence that she faced discrimination on those grounds. Mrs. Ferjo was therefore unable to establish prima facie case. [2] The tribunal argued the doctrine of judicial immunity prevented legal proceedings against judicial members based on their actions as an adjudicator or decision maker. This is so that judicial members can make decisions without fear of consequences.
For this institution Pittonia will draw inspiration from the Canada. Canada’s court system is comprised of four tiers; the provincial and territorial lower courts, the provincial and territorial superior courts, the appellate courts, both regional and federal, and the Canadian Supreme Court (“Canada’s Court System”). By using a method such as this Pittonia will ensure that all areas needing judicial guidance are overseen. Borrowing more from the Canadian system, and not another similar one, such as the American system, Pittonia’s courts are all unified, and the Supreme Court retains the final authority, unlike in the American system, where states can interpret state laws as they see fit. With such a diverse population, it is necessary in some areas to have strict uniformity, so that there can be no dissent with interpretations between regions.
To begin with, in the judicial system, there is an ongoing dispute over what compromises the proper amount of judicial power. This lack of agreement concerning policymaking power of the Courts is bestowed within the discussion between judicial activism and judicial restraint. In general, these two philosophies represent the conflicting approaches taken by judges in their task of interpretation. Consequently, the Court’s decision could be framed in terms of activism or restraint by either changing or upholding public policy.
However, “There is ample opportunity for the defendant to show that a statistical disparity is actually caused by something other than a discriminatory employment decision.” In response to the plaintiff’s argument, the defendant could prove that the women were less qualified or interested in the managerial positions, through either quantitative or qualitative data. In the United States, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., “employs more than 1.2 million workers.” Seventy-two percent of Wal-Mart ’s employees are females, but when Duke’s claim was filed in 2001, “only one-third of Wal-Mart’s managers were women.”
This is to ensure fair treatment especially when dealing with a citizens entitlement. The Court examined
As the rule of law, it focuses on the equal treatment and absence
The knowledge that there is a disease with the potential to not only match butpossibly eclipse the detrimental nature of HIV is mortifying to say the least. The articleSex Superbug Could Be’ Worse Than Aids’ written by Mark Koba states that in 2009 adiscovery was made in japan while screening a women for sexually transmitted diseases. What was discovered was a strain of Gonorrhea resistant to antibiotics known as HO41.This strain of Gonorrhea has been categorized as a superbug grouped among diseasessuch as HIV. However the implications of this disease are far worse than HIV for severalreasons. The article Sex Superbug Could Be’ Worse Than Aids’ written by Mark Koba informsyou about the typical ailments that Gonorrhea can typically cause if not
The legal system in Canada is recognized as a neutral, predictable and impartial system in maintaining social order. Each citizen is guaranteed a fair and equal treatment from the legal system. The law thereby acts like an equal, predictable and calculable system. However, the jury system has questionable actions, unclear purpose and undermines the entire legal system of equality. This paper will demonstrate how the jury system fails and lacks the capacity to judge and indict the accused because of the jurors’ bias and flaws in problem solving.
Lastly, courts lack the resource to implement policies in line with their decisions. Thus, even when cases are won, “court decisions are often rendered useless” as litigants are left to the task of implementation (Rosenburg 21). Despite the Constrained Courts view that courts are insufficient in producing social change, “it does not deny the possibility” (Rosenburg 21). When the right factors are in place and certain conditions in favor of the case’s outcome, courts can be a powerful institution in promoting justice (Hall 2).
The EHRC intends to ensure that equality and human rights remain a prime concern for the government. They supervise the government’s behavior to ensure that it lives up to its promise to create an equitable
Consequently, there is evidence from studies that draw conclusions that there is gender bias in sentencing for both women and men. On the surface there appears to be a degree of preferential treatment or leniency in the criminal justice system. However, there are other factors that enshroud the whole aspect of biases that include class, race and the offence in question among others. There is need for the justice system to understand female offenders in order to be able to address it effectively and avoid the perpetual claims of bias which only signifies the
According to the radical critique of law, how does law discriminate? Along with many other policies, the law also stresses on the discrimination which
The entitlement to reasons is not only an ‘indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review’, as Professor Wade described it, but also ‘a healthy discipline for all who exercise power over others’ There are two basic underlying reasons for giving reasons: first, a general objective of fairness in the decision making process. Second, the facilitating of judicial review. Furthermore, the giving of reasons acts as a defense against arbitrary decision making, the practice of partisanship in our courts and it aids hugely in the appeals process. The three main sources of a duty to give reasons (The
