JURISPRUDENCE
By [name]
Course Name
Institution
Professor
Date
Unit 5; Question #6
“If you want things said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.” We live in a society where values shape who we are in all situations. Values are the standards of behavior that one perceives to be right or wrong. I, therefore, agree with Scales’ statement that “Male and female perceptions of value are not shared, and are perhaps not even perceptible to each other. In our current genderized realm, therefore, the ‘right-based and ‘care-based ethics cannot be blended” (Scales 1985, p.1383). This section will discuss the truthfulness of Scales’ statement above.
Scales’ statement is sensible in that males and females have viewpoints that seem to differ in most circumstances. The different views are a result of the upbringing for both genders as society demands. According to professor Mackinnon, men are generally autonomous (makes their decision without external influence), unlike women who are irrational (do not listen to reason) (Scales 1985, p.1382). Since people’s viewpoints relate to their values, gender values can be termed a complete opposite based on the above statements.
According to a psychological perspective, females are more loving than males, especially when it comes to kid care and parenting. 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 leaders. By embracing their roles, they have a tendency to depict values that are not shared by females.
The fact remains that right-based ethics and caregiving are incompatible since what is right is defined by the law, which the masculine gender has exploited to achieve its objectives. Because they do not encompass the entirety of what is regarded proper, many feminists contend that policies cannot be depended upon to determine the correct values. Sometimes people act out of concern but wind 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 viewpoints. 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 take distinctly different roles, which are a determinant of the values that they project 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 famously declared in an interview. In Europe, the majority of people believe that religion should be kept distinct from government laws in order to prevent violence based on religious customs. Religion is included in customary laws, which are made up of established activities that are governed by the rule of conduct. Customary laws are distinct from federal laws, which are rules 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 address whether blending legislation can interfere with the harmonious coexistence of customary rules and government laws, as well as Fuller’s position on the subject.
Europeans’ ideal conviction that the church and the state should be kept apart does not exclude blending religion and political regulations in some circumstances. In fact, it is recommended since the majority of customary practices encourage the harmonious co-existence of members of a society with one another. A citizen who does not comprehend 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 particular religion that requires offenders to change based on its ethical practices. In most cases, religion aims to help members live a holistic life. A life without crime, sin, and generally happy life. If the state could adopt a religion where offenders understand the beauty of life, then a change of behavior is inevitable. Fuller critiques those who find religious practices primitive and encourages their incorporation in the courtroom since it contributes to respect for the parties involved in solving a case (Youngblood 2004, p.67-89). Therefore, the same applies to the offenders; for them to respect the federal law, it is essential to have religious values.
Unit 7; Question 4
The Crown Employment Contracts Act was enacted in 1991 by the province of Saskatchewan to help provide equal employment for all its residents. The legislative assembly was dissatisfied with the “Fair Share Saskatchewan” program responsible for promoting job equality since they had failed to do so. A Crown Employment Contract is an agreement between the Crown employee and the Crown or employer and is prone to changes in cases of dissatisfaction by one party or both (Lexum 2018, n.p). Did the legislature of Saskatchewan breach the law during the amendment of the Act? This section will provide an answer to the above question.
As much as the contract amendment was bridging the gaps that previous employment programs had left, they most likely breached the existing law, which demands equality and consideration. For instance, in section 6, the Crown cannot compensate any Crown employee after the termination of a contract (Lexum 2018, n.p). Such an amendment does not give room for consideration based on reasons that might have led to the termination of the contract. For instance, if the Crown employee faced workplace harassment and terminated the contract due to safety issues, the Crown must compensate the employee. The amendment failed the law since it revoked this kind of payment.
Further, section 9 states that “Every claim for loss or damage resulting from the enactment or application of this Act is extinguished” (Lexum 2018, n.p). The statement is a clear breach of the law because it does not give room for approval by its users. The contract is rigid since what it states must be followed, and outside opinions are barred. If a contract has no room for approval by the users, then it lacks legal ground.
In a nutshell, the Crown Employment Contracts Act breached the law based on some of the changes included in sections 6 and 9. In section 6, the contract bares employers from compensating employees who terminate contracts. Also, in section 9, the statement of extinguishing the contract is rigid, which means that outside opinions are not required from its users.
Unit 8; Question #4
Justifiability is the process where a case is understood on the grounds of its defensibility. The term is used when referring to the reason behind the judgment made by a judge or a jury. What reasons do they have for that judgment? Lloyd uses the term justifiability in the process of justice to show that judges are responsible for establishing sufficient reason when giving their verdict to a case (Freeman 2008), n.p). This section will therefore discuss factors related to justifiability based on Lloyd’s meaning of the word.
Lloyd argues that judicial reasoning is a significant factor in justifiability. For instance, when there is no correct answer to judgment, how do the judges get their verdict? The verdict is arrived at from their reasoning based on the information or evidence provided (Lloyd 1985, p. 1563-1583). Since a case cannot go unresolved for lack of answers, it’s upon the judge to reach a conclusion that has a rational basis. That means they ought to apply the constitutional laws to give their reason for it to be justifiable.
Judicial discretion is another factor determining the justifiability of their judgment. Discretion refers to judges’ practical sense of fairness in a particular case (Lloyd 1985, p. 1563-1583). For instance, in the case of divorce, discretion is essential. If the couple divorcing shared properties, it is only fair that every party gets an equal share of what they obtained together. In any case, the property belonged to one couple; it is only fair that a more significant percentage of the property gets issued to the owner. In this case, judgment has a basis of justification since fairness is involved.
To sum up, justifiability, as used by Lloyd, means that a case must have all required evidence before judges issue their verdict. That is, it should have reasons backing its final judgment. Some of the qualities that relate to justifiability discussed are judicial reasoning and judicial discretion. Through possessing the two qualities, judges can achieve justifiability when dealing with a case.
References
Freeman, M.D.A., 2008. Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence (8th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Lexum., 2018. The Crown Employment Contracts Act, SS 1991, c C-50.11. CanLII.
Lloyd, D., 1985. Lloyd’s introduction to jurisprudence.
Scales, A.C., 1985. The emergence of feminist jurisprudence: An essay writing service. Yale LJ, 95, p.1373.
Chen, Yuying. “Reflections on the Three-child Policy from the Perspective of Feminist Jurisprudence.” 2021 International Conference on Social Development and Media Communication (SDMC 2021). Atlantis Press, 2022.
Schauer, Frederick. “Civil Law, Common Law, and the Data of Jurisprudence.” Common Law–Civil Law. Springer, Cham, 2022. 5-15.
Youngblood Henderson, J. (Sákéj)., 2004. Aboriginal Jurisprudence and Rights. In K. Wilkins (Ed.), Advancing Aboriginal Claims: Visions/Strategies/Directions (pp. 67–89)
