The Pursuit of Happiness for Women

In 1970 a “Jane Roe” filed suit against the state of Texas when she was not permitted to have an abortion. The child in question was a product of rape, and “Jane Roe” did not want to hold with her the harsh reminder of what had occurred to her. Texas granted her an injunction, but they kept the law forbidding women to have abortions. “Jane Roe” and her attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington appealed the case and took it to the Supreme Court.

What happiness can an abortion provide women is a question demanding to be asked.

Women deserve to have the option of abortion not only because it is their right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and because it is their constitutional right to privacy, but also to ensure a better happier future for themselves. In today’s society women are more upwardly mobile than ever and education and career are no longer taboo considerations. A woman’s practicing her right to choice can be due to a myriad of situations; she could have been raped, she could be too young to consider herself a mother, she could be financial unable to support a child, or she can be too busy at trying to keep up with the men in the job market.

Women are no long debilitated by pregnancy. Unfortunately, pregnancy can unexpectedly occur even if you are using contraceptives, but where as a man does not need to concern himself with this a woman does. Abortion is not going to be a business woman’s singular form of birth control but it is a safety net to fall back on. Abortion can keep a John Hopkins student from swapping medical school for a serving job that makes enough money to buy formula. Abortion can keep women who can to make advancements in science after from quitting midway achieving their bachelor’s degree.

Although it is still a very heavy moral issue and it is one that no woman can deny is difficult. Every woman understands the gravity of the situation and no woman can make it with out feeling the burden of it on her shoulders forever. Student and business women will think about there decision from the moment they step out of the clinic to the moment their last breathe it is drawn, but they made that decision in the belief that were pursuing something great.

It is unjust to make women slaves to their biology. Men have no hindrances due to their biological make up, whereas women have menstruation, menopause, and pregnancy to work through. The Roe v. Wade decision was a pivotal moment in women’s struggle to overcome obstacles she faces to keep up with men.

It has been said that, “man is born free and everywhere else he is in chains.” Woman isn’t given that luxury. Woman is born into the slavery of her sex and she fights to break free from that chain. Roe v. Wade put a chink in the chain.

The Process of Family Court Restraining Orders

Copyright 2006 Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer

The first step to understanding the process of obtaining a family law domestic violence restraining order is to understand that this process is quite different from the process involved when protective orders are automatically put into place by the courts in criminal matters. In criminal matters, the police and the court are empowered to issue “automatic” temporary restraining orders. Evidentiary hearings are not conducted before these restraining orders are put into place. Consequently, in criminal courts the protected party does not need to be a part of the process.

In many instances, victims of domestic violence need to obtain a restraining order in family court, for example, where the criminal court restraining order is not adequate to deal with issues such as child support, spousal support, or custody and visitation. In other instances, a victim of domestic violence may need the protection of the family court where criminal charges were not filed or have been dismissed.

Unlike criminal matters, the protected party seeking a family law restraining order has to file his or her own papers, attend at least two hearings, and be able to conduct an evidentiary hearing. In addition, the Petitioner in a family court restraining order matter is responsible for ensuring that the Respondent has been served prior to the hearing.

At the hearing, Petitioners seeking a family law restraining order must be able to present a case, and convince the judge by a preponderance of the evidence that domestic violence was committed. Thus, a basic understanding of what constitutes domestic violence is essential. In some instances, the matter does not qualify as a domestic violence case, because the parties do not have the right type of relationship. Instead, the case may be filed as a “Civil Harassment” matter, which involves its own unique process and standard of proof.

The hearing for a permanent restraining order is essentially a mini trial. At the hearing, all of the rules of evidence apply, and both parties have the right to a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and cross examine witnesses. Preparing for a family court restraining order hearing should include, composing direct and cross examination questions, and when possible, gathering of physical and demonstrative evidence. In this high tech age that we live in, e-mail messages, voice messages, and surveillance video are frequently introduced into evidence to prove or disprove a case. Police reports are also allowed into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. Thus, litigants should attempt to obtain police reports, whenever possible, as they can be very persuasive to the judge. People within the legal profession recognize the serious consequences involved with the issuance of permanent restraining orders. Given that restraining orders typically impose significant limitations on a party’s liberty, and can affect a party’s ability to find or maintain employment, these matters are being taken more seriously by the courts in recent years. Courts have become more skeptical of the requests that are made for restraining orders and hold the moving party to his or her burden. Indeed, the days of family courts “rubber stamping” restraining orders appear to be coming to an end. Consequently, it is incumbent upon any person who is faced with having to be a part of this process to do his or her homework before entering the courtroom.

The Police Want to Speak With Me – What Should I Do?

Copyright 2006 Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer

Have you ever stopped to consider what you would do if you were suddenly faced with the prospect of getting arrested and being asked by the police to speak to them? Most of my law abiding clients never consider such circumstances since they do not foresee the possibility of ever having problems with the law. Unfortunately, life is not predictable, and some of us may find ourselves in compromising positions where the police will attempt to speak with us.

In this article I will provide you with useful information in the event the “unimaginable” happens and you are accused of committing a crime. As you will read, there are several reasons why it may be in your best interests not to speak with the police until you have first spoken with an attorney.

THEIR CASE MAY NOT BE MADE WITHOUT YOUR STATEMENT:

First of all, the police may not be able to make a case against you without your statement. It is a little known fact that obtaining a confession or incriminating statements from the accused is the number one tool law enforcement officers rely on in making their case. Approximately 70 percent of all criminal cases filed by the District Attorney’s office have sufficient evidence for filings, only because the accused made a statement to the police. Consequently, police officers are specially trained to illicit statements from people accused of crimes. They are sent to special schools where they receive training on how to use psychology and to employ tricks to get people to speak. And in case you didn’t know, it is perfectly within the law for police officers to use trickery or to tell lies in order to obtain a statement.

LAW ENFORCEMENT ALWAYS WINS:

When you are accused of a crime, giving your “side of the story” to the police is usually the wrong thing to do. As the popular former prosecutor and noted author – Vincent Bugliosi once wrote, getting a statement from the accused almost always favors the prosecution. Once the government has your version of the incident, you are pinned down as to certain facts, and the government will spend countless hours tearing your story apart. Prosecutors are taught to use defendant’s statements in trial, even when they are self serving, since the statements are usually more helpful to the government’s case than harmful. Thus, as the Miranda warnings state, “your statement can and will be used against you.”

MIRANDA WARNINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED:

Contrary to popular belief, the police are not required to give you the Miranda warnings prior to speaking with you in all situations. Miranda warnings are only required when the police have you in a “custodial” situation, i.e., when you are not free to leave. Therefore, there are many situations where the police can contact you and speak to you without having to give you the Miranda rights. For example, police officers frequently make telephone calls to people suspected of crimes and obtain voluntary statements without having to give Miranda warnings. Incidentally, these phone conversations are usually secretly tape recorded, which the police are authorized to do! Also, officers frequently ask people to drop by the station to give a statement, or they drop by your house to talk to you. So long as the Court finds you were “free to leave,” the police are not required to “Mirandize” you before speaking to you.

SPEAKING TO THEM CAN RUIN A GOOD DEFENSE:

Experienced defense attorneys know the value of going to trial when their client’s have not spoken, since the government’s case may not be very strong. When the accused has not provided the police with a statement, his or her attorney has the opportunity to analyze the government’s case before making a opening and closing statements or deciding if a particular witness should testify. Conversely, when you speak to the police you will probably eliminate most of the defenses your attorney can employ on your behalf.

IF THEIR MOTIVES ARE INNOCENT, THEY CAN WAIT:

Assume that the police want to speak with you as a “witness.” The police tell you they do not consider you as a suspect and they believe you possess information that may be helpful in their investigation. Before speaking to them, you may want to ask yourself, “what’s the hurry?” In most circumstances, the police can wait long enough for you to consult with an attorney, since they are contacting you after the incident and there is no emergency that requires your statement. Furthermore, if the motives of the police are as innocent as they sound, the police should be willing to wait until you have consulted with an attorney.

IT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO TALK:

Many people who are aware of their rights not to speak to the police, waive their Constitutional rights, because they are afraid of looking guilty. Believe it or not, many Police officers and Prosecutors accused of crimes (and who should know their rights better than the rest of us) frequently waive their rights, and end up ruining the defenses they may have had.

When you find yourself in need, do not hesitate in exercising your Constitutional rights. Remember, exercising your Constitutional rights can never be used against you in a criminal case. Thus, if you find yourself in a situation where you don’t want to speak to the police, just tell the police, “I’d like to speak with you, but first I will need to speak with my attorney to ensure my rights are protected.”

The Non-Profit ByLaw Legal Form

So, you have a non-profit organization and you need a bylaw legal form and don’t know where to turn. Well relax, you are not the first one in this situation and you are not alone. Yes you have a problem but thanks to the Internet there is an easy solution to your problem. And this solution is much easier than you would ever think.

The answer for your non-profit bylaw legal form is the Internet.

The Internet you ask? Well yeah, the Internet!

Sure you could go out and hire a lawyer but that is an expensive option. Especially for a non-profit organization. Why would you want to spend the hundreds of dollars to fill out a simple for like the bylaw legal form when you can simply have it done yourself?

Here’s all you have to do. Simply get online and use any search engine and type in the words “Bylaw Legal Forms” Note: The use of capitalization does not matter as any search engine worth its salt will not limit its search on the web for documents and web pages to fulfill your search to Internet sites which can help you out.

You will be surprised how many pages are out there and available for your use. Now all you have to do is find a bylaw legal form which will be suitable for your non-profit organization and save it to your hard drive. Many of these legal advice sites will have a download option which will save the form directly or you can simply copy and paste the information into any word processor.

Next you modify the bylaw form to suit your needs. That is to simply add a paragraph or delete one from the standard bylaw form which do not apply to your situation. And then of course you will need to fill out your own personal information to personalize the bylaw form.

Next you just need to print out the form and to make it official there should then be a vote or review by your non-profit organization’s board of directors or officers and then a signing of the document.

And that’s it! Your non-profit bylaw form is complete. If you want to go the extra step you can then get the form notarized which is not very expensive at all. Especially when you compare the cost of a public notary to that of an attorney. The hundreds of dollars you will save can be put to much better use I am sure.

So there you go. Some general advice and information on a non-profit bylaw legal form. See? I told you that it would be easier than you thought.

The Death Penalty, Is it Good Or Bad?

I am and always have been the pro death penalty, however, even though I am pro death penalty, I probably would not be willing to pull the switch or push the button. I do not think that this makes me a hypocrit. Please bear with me while I explain.

As I stated, I am pro death penalty. I am not, however, pro death penalty as an act of revenge or retribution. I believe that in certain instances it does act as a deterrent to crime and can save lives. I realize that some people have no respect for life, not even their own, and would commit violent acts no matter what the penalty. I also realize that some people get caught up in the heat of passion and don’t think about the consequences of their actions. There are people, however, that do care about themselves even if they don’t care about others and the only thing that stops them from commiting certain crimes is the idea that they might, if caught, be executed. They may not have a conscience, they may not care about the harm they do others, they may not believe in or care about an afterlife but, they do care about their own skin and they want to protect themselves from harm. Many of these people don’t care if they go to prison but they do want to live. Many of them while in prison would murder other prisoners or guards but don’t because they don’t want to turn their life sentence into a death sentence. If the death penalty saves even one or two innocent lives, I believe that it is worth having.

On the other hand, I am not omnipotent, I don’t know everything. I realize that some, or even many, innocent people may have been executed by mistake. However, I believe that many more innocent lives have been saved than lost because of the death penalty.

I also know that the death penalty can be more expensive and cost the taxpayers more than incarcerating someone for life. However, if it saves innocent lives, it is worth the extra cost. Additionally, if the death penalty process was streamlined the cost would be far less.

Having stated the foregoing, I still probably would not be willing to pull the switch or press the button. Luckily for me there are others that for some reason, either out of a sense of duty or for some other reason, are able to and will do the deed.

My problem stems from uncertainty. Is there a God (I hope so.), and if there is a God, did he send down the Ten Commandments? If God did, what did God mean by “thou shalt not commit murder” (Note: It is not “thou shalt not kill” it is “thou shalt not commit murder”, check with a theologian.)? Is it murder to execute a murderer or is it carrying out God’s will by protecting other people. Would I loose my soul and an afterlife by executing a murderer. I would be willing to loose my soul in order to protect my love ones by killing someone who threatened them, or to go to war in order to protect my family and country but I might be too selfish to be willing to loose my soul by carrying out a legal execution. I just thought of something, could this selfishness cost me my soul? Oh boy, one more thing to ponder. I either don’t have enough faith or I have too much faith. I can’t be sure which it is, but I assume that it is not enough faith, because, if I truly believed in a just God, I would be able to trust in him and leave it in his hands.

Finally, I say I probably would not be willing to push the button. I say probably because you never know what you would do when it comes right down to it. I don’t think I’d have the guts, however, if there was no one else to do it, who knows?

The Credentials of Any Good San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

The hallmark credentials that you want to see when hiring a San Diego criminal defense lawyer on a serious felony charge are pretty much the same for a criminal defense lawyer anywhere. When you are charged with a serious felony in a state court system where your exposure is many years in prison you don’t want someone “practicing” or dabbling on your matter. You want a consummate talented and respected professional that regularly handles the type of criminal charge that you are charged with.

The bottom line is that you want a lawyer with a winning reputation. The profile that makes up that type of lawyer consists of a number of characteristics. You want a lawyer that is well educated. While the law school a lawyer went to isn’t necessarily the characteristic that makes the difference, the better law schools produce lawyers who understand the theory of the law better which makes them better able to make arguments that persuade judges.

You also want a lawyer who has a good presence and who is respected in the courts. The more respected your lawyer is, the better he will be able to negotiate, win critical motions, and get rulings favorable to your case. A good lawyer who is respected in his community will be respected anywhere he or she goes to handle a case. The prosecutors and the judges get the picture quickly by the way the lawyer handles themselves.

You want a lawyer who has been practicing many years if your case is a serious felony such as murder, vehicular manslaughter, forcible rape, or child molestation. The more years a lawyer has practiced means that he or she has handled more situations, more cases, and more trials. That combined experience means that they will be able to analyze your case quicker and with more accuracy than a lesser experienced lawyer. Years of experience means they know all the moves and how to implement them effectively at the right moment.

Make sure your lawyer has successfully handled many cases of the type of charge you have. If you are charged with murder, for instance, you want a lawyer who has handled and tried several murder cases. A top gun lawyer should be able to cite several examples of jury trial results and favorable settlements in the type of case you have. There is no reason not to hire a lawyer with a long record of winning. Every lawyer has won a case or two. You want the lawyer with a long list of successful results.

In every major community in this country competent skilled professionals exist who are capable of getting you the best results. A little work trying to find one will be worth the effort. If you throw your money away on someone who isn’t up to the task you won’t find out until it is too late. You can always change lawyers but you may have spent all of your resources. Major Tip: Don’t ask people to refer you to a good lawyer. You may just be getting a friend or a business referral. Ask people: “Who are the five or ten best San Diego criminal defense lawyers to handle a serious state court felony trial case?” You will likely get a list of great lawyers. The good lawyers will all talk to you and you will be able to see the difference and choose who you are most comfortable with and can afford.

The Argument for Torture

I. Practical Considerations

The problem of the “ticking bomb” – rediscovered after September 11 by Alan Dershowitz, a renowned criminal defense lawyer in the United States – is old hat. Should physical torture be applied – where psychological strain has failed – in order to discover the whereabouts of a ticking bomb and thus prevent a mass slaughter of the innocent? This apparent ethical dilemma has been confronted by ethicists and jurists from Great Britain to Israel.

Nor is Dershowitz’s proposal to have the courts issue “torture warrants” (Los Angeles Times, November 8, 2001) unprecedented. In a controversial decision in 1996, the Supreme Court of Israel permitted its internal security forces to apply “moderate physical pressure” during the interrogation of suspects.

It has thus fully embraced the recommendation of the 1987 Landau Commission, presided over by a former Supreme Court judge. This blanket absolution was repealed in 1999 when widespread abuses against Palestinian detainees were unearthed by human rights organizations.

Indeed, this juridical reversal – in the face of growing suicidal terrorism – demonstrates how slippery the ethical slope can be. What started off as permission to apply mild torture in extreme cases avalanched into an all-pervasive and pernicious practice. This lesson – that torture is habit-forming and metastasizes incontrollably throughout the system – is the most powerful – perhaps the only – argument against it.

As Harvey Silverglate argued in his rebuttal of Dershowitz’s aforementioned op-ed piece:

“Institutionalizing torture will give it society’s imprimatur, lending it a degree of respectability. It will then be virtually impossible to curb not only the increasing frequency with which warrants will be sought – and granted – but also the inevitable rise in unauthorized use of torture. Unauthorized torture will increase not only to extract life-saving information, but also to obtain confessions (many of which will then prove false). It will also be used to punish real or imagined infractions, or for no reason other than human sadism. This is a genie we should not let out of the bottle.”

Alas, these are weak contentions.

That something has the potential to be widely abused – and has been and is being widely misused – should not inevitably lead to its utter, universal, and unconditional proscription. Guns, cars, knives, and books have always been put to vile ends. Nowhere did this lead to their complete interdiction.

Moreover, torture is erroneously perceived by liberals as a kind of punishment. Suspects – innocent until proven guilty – indeed should not be subject to penalty. But torture is merely an interrogation technique. Ethically, it is no different to any other pre-trial process: shackling, detention, questioning, or bad press. Inevitably, the very act of suspecting someone is traumatic and bound to inflict pain and suffering – psychological, pecuniary, and physical – on the suspect.

True, torture is bound to yield false confessions and wrong information, Seneca claimed that it “forces even the innocent to lie”. St. Augustine expounded on the moral deplorability of torture thus: “If the accused be innocent, he will undergo for an uncertain crime a certain punishment, and that not for having committed a crime, but because it is unknown whether he committed it.”

But the same can be said about other, less corporeal, methods of interrogation. Moreover, the flip side of ill-gotten admissions is specious denials of guilt. Criminals regularly disown their misdeeds and thus evade their penal consequences. The very threat of torture is bound to limit this miscarriage of justice. Judges and juries can always decide what confessions are involuntary and were extracted under duress.

Thus, if there was a way to ensure that non-lethal torture is narrowly defined, applied solely to extract time-critical information in accordance with a strict set of rules and specifications, determined openly and revised frequently by an accountable public body; that abusers are severely punished and instantly removed; that the tortured have recourse to the judicial system and to medical attention at any time – then the procedure would have been ethically justified in rare cases if carried out by the authorities.

In Israel, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the state to apply ‘moderate physical pressure’ to suspects in ticking bomb cases. It retained the right of appeal and review. A public committee established guidelines for state-sanctioned torture and, as a result, the incidence of rabid and rampant mistreatment has declined. Still, Israel’s legal apparatus is flimsy, biased and inadequate. It should be augmented with a public – even international – review board and a rigorous appeal procedure.

This proviso – “if carried out by the authorities” – is crucial.

The sovereign has rights denied the individual, or any subset of society. It can judicially kill with impunity. Its organs – the police, the military – can exercise violence. It is allowed to conceal information, possess illicit or dangerous substances, deploy arms, invade one’s bodily integrity, or confiscate property. To permit the sovereign to torture while forbidding individuals, or organizations from doing so would, therefore, not be without precedent, or inconsistent.

Alan Dershowitz expounds:

“(In the United States) any interrogation technique, including the use of truth serum or even torture, is not prohibited. All that is prohibited is the introduction into evidence of the fruits of such techniques in a criminal trial against the person on whom the techniques were used. But the evidence could be used against that suspect in a non-criminal case – such as a deportation hearing – or against someone else.”

When the unspeakable horrors of the Nazi concentration camps were revealed, C.S. Lewis wrote, in quite desperation:

“What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had no notion of what we mean by Right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair.” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, paperback edition, 1952).

But legal torture should never be directed at innocent civilians based on arbitrary criteria such as their race or religion. If this principle is observed, torture would not reflect on the moral standing of the state. Identical acts are considered morally sound when carried out by the realm – and condemnable when discharged by individuals. Consider the denial of freedom. It is lawful incarceration at the hands of the republic – but kidnapping if effected by terrorists.

Nor is torture, as “The Economist” misguidedly claims, a taboo.

According to the 2002 edition of the “Encyclopedia Britannica”, taboos are “the prohibition of an action or the use of an object based on ritualistic distinctions of them either as being sacred and consecrated or as being dangerous, unclean, and accursed.” Evidently, none of this applies to torture. On the contrary, torture – as opposed, for instance, to incest – is a universal, state-sanctioned behavior.

Amnesty International – who should know better – professed to have been shocked by the results of their own surveys:

“In preparing for its third international campaign to stop torture, Amnesty International conducted a survey of its research files on 195 countries and territories. The survey covered the period from the beginning of 1997 to mid-2000. Information on torture is usually concealed, and reports of torture are often hard to document, so the figures almost certainly underestimate its extent. The statistics are shocking. There were reports of torture or ill-treatment by state officials in more than 150 countries. In more than 70, they were widespread or persistent. In more than 80 countries, people reportedly died as a result.”

Countries and regimes abstain from torture – or, more often, claim to do so – because such overt abstention is expedient. It is a form of global political correctness, a policy choice intended to demonstrate common values and to extract concessions or benefits from others. Giving up this efficient weapon in the law enforcement arsenal even in Damoclean circumstances is often rewarded with foreign direct investment, military aid, and other forms of support.

But such ethical magnanimity is a luxury in times of war, or when faced with a threat to innocent life. Even the courts of the most liberal societies sanctioned atrocities in extraordinary circumstances. Here the law conforms both with common sense and with formal, utilitarian, ethics.

II. Ethical Considerations

Rights – whether moral or legal – impose obligations or duties on third parties towards the right-holder. One has a right AGAINST other people and thus can prescribe to them certain obligatory behaviors and proscribe certain acts or omissions. Rights and duties are two sides of the same Janus-like ethical coin.

This duality confuses people. They often erroneously identify rights with their attendant duties or obligations, with the morally decent, or even with the morally permissible. One’s rights inform other people how they MUST behave towards one – not how they SHOULD, or OUGHT to act morally. Moral behavior is not dependent on the existence of a right. Obligations are.

To complicate matters further, many apparently simple and straightforward rights are amalgams of more basic moral or legal principles. To treat such rights as unities is to mistreat them.

Take the right not to be tortured. It is a compendium of many distinct rights, among them: the right to bodily and mental integrity, the right to avoid self-incrimination, the right not to be pained, or killed, the right to save one’s life (wrongly reduced merely to the right to self-defense), the right to prolong one’s life (e.g., by receiving medical attention), and the right not to be forced to lie under duress.

None of these rights is self-evident, or unambiguous, or universal, or immutable, or automatically applicable. It is safe to say, therefore, that these rights are not primary – but derivative, nonessential, or mere “wants”.

Moreover, the fact that the torturer also has rights whose violation may justify torture is often overlooked.

Consider these two, for instance:

The Rights of Third Parties against the Tortured

What is just and what is unjust is determined by an ethical calculus, or a social contract – both in constant flux. Still, it is commonly agreed that every person has the right not to be tortured, or killed unjustly.

Yet, even if we find an Archimedean immutable point of moral reference – does A’s right not to be tortured, let alone killed, mean that third parties are to refrain from enforcing the rights of other people against A?

What if the only way to right wrongs committed, or about to be committed by A against others – was to torture, or kill A? There is a moral obligation to right wrongs by restoring, or safeguarding the rights of those wronged, or about to be wronged by A.

If the defiant silence – or even the mere existence – of A are predicated on the repeated and continuous violation of the rights of others (especially their right to live), and if these people object to such violation – then A must be tortured, or killed if that is the only way to right the wrong and re-assert the rights of A’s victims.

This, ironically, is the argument used by liberals to justify abortion when the fetus (in the role of A) threatens his mother’s rights to health and life.

The Right to Save One’s Own Life

One has a right to save one’s life by exercising self-defense or otherwise, by taking certain actions, or by avoiding them. Judaism – as well as other religious, moral, and legal systems – accepts that one has the right to kill a pursuer who knowingly and intentionally is bent on taking one’s life. Hunting down Osama bin-Laden in the wilds of Afghanistan is, therefore, morally acceptable (though not morally mandatory). So is torturing his minions.

When there is a clash between equally potent rights – for instance, the conflicting rights to life of two people – we can decide among them randomly (by flipping a coin, or casting dice). Alternatively, we can add and subtract rights in a somewhat macabre arithmetic. The right to life definitely prevails over the right to comfort, bodily integrity, absence of pain and so on. Where life is at stake, non-lethal torture is justified by any ethical calculus.

Utilitarianism – a form of crass moral calculus – calls for the maximization of utility (life, happiness, pleasure). The lives, happiness, or pleasure of the many outweigh the life, happiness, or pleasure of the few. If by killing or torturing the few we (a) save the lives of the many (b) the combined life expectancy of the many is longer than the combined life expectancy of the few and (c) there is no other way to save the lives of the many – it is morally permissible to kill, or torture the few.

III. The Social Treaty

There is no way to enforce certain rights without infringing on others. The calculus of ethics relies on implicit and explicit quantitative and qualitative hierarchies. The rights of the many outweigh certain rights of the few. Higher-level rights – such as the right to life – override rights of a lower order.

The rights of individuals are not absolute but “prima facie”. They are restricted both by the rights of others and by the common interest. They are inextricably connected to duties towards other individuals in particular and the community in general. In other words, though not dependent on idiosyncratic cultural and social contexts, they are an integral part of a social covenant.

It can be argued that a suspect has excluded himself from the social treaty by refusing to uphold the rights of others – for instance, by declining to collaborate with law enforcement agencies in forestalling an imminent disaster. Such inaction amounts to the abrogation of many of one’s rights (for instance, the right to be free). Why not apply this abrogation to his or her right not to be tortured?

Stress at Work in the UK

Stress at Work in the UK

At Claims Master Group we understand the unhappiness, depression ill health and stress which can be brought on by bad working conditions & unfair working practices. In many cases, there are good grounds for claiming compensation for stress at work

For example:

Unrealistic service levels or deadlines at work causing stress and depression

The rise in sexual discrimination can lead to stress and depression at work

An unclean work environment stress and depression at work

The fear of continual racist abuse causing stress and depression at work

Not allowing necessary breaks from work can often cause stress and depression at work

Employees who become depressed at work through stress, they deserve to claim compensation

What is stress?

HSE defines stress as “the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressure or other types of demand placed on them”. Pressure is part and parcel of all work and helps to keep us motivated . But excessive pressure can lead to stress which undermines performance, is costly to employers and can make people ill.

Why do we need to tackle stress?

· about half a million people in the UK experience work-related stress at a level they believe is making them ill;

· up to 5 million people in the UK feel “very” or “extremely” stressed by their work; and

· a total of 12.8 million working days were lost to stress, depression and anxiety in 2004/5.

Employers should look at:

· developing appropriate and effective policy

· organising a risk assessment and benchmarking exercise

· developing appropriate training for managers and staff

· developing support structures and services as needed

Bullying at work can be grounds for compensation

There are many more causes of employee stress and depression at work.

However there is some good news. You could be entitled to reasonable compensation if you are suffering stress and depression at work or have been forced to resign from work because of undue stress which has led to depression.

********************************************

If you need advice or would just like to speak to someone, please don’t hesitate to give Claims Master Group a call on 08000 71 22 71.

The Personal Injury, Accident Claim, No Win No Fee, Stress at work in the UK specialists.

Spyware – Legislation?

We have all had to become more aware about what companies are doing to invade our privacy these days. Identity theft, frauds, and scams are happening every day and the perpetrators of these are getting more and more sophisticated.

There are even some major corporations involved in some of this as if ethics rules for businesses don’t apply to what they might do online. People tend to think that if a company is big and well known, they must be reputable. They go so far as to think it’s safer to do business with a big company than with one that is small. These corporations take advantage of that trust.

Many people do not even know the answer to this question; “Who are the biggest distributors of pornography in this country?” The common answers are Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, and others who are well known for that distribution.

For years, General Motors owned Direct TV. Direct TV is the company that has served up more pornographic movies than any other single company. I bet they don’t discuss that at GM’s shareholder meetings. The number two purveyor of porn for years has been AT&T. They run the pay-per-view channels that are piped into even very reputable hotel chains across the country.

My point is that just because you are very familiar with a company’s name does not mean that everything they send you is to be trusted. RealPlayer is notorious for adding unwanted software and installing those programs on your computer. In the fine print of their user-agreement, which they know you do not read, you give them permission to download what they like to call third-party software.

There are many companies you know and trust that let software piggy-back on their software’s installation without you knowing it in most cases. Of course, IF you read the user-agreement and you were an attorney who could understand the way they write it, you would have known you were giving permission for this nefarious activity.

The companies that make the malicious software pay the bigger more trusted companies to add their programs to their installations, because they know they could never get you to agree to download their software directly. And of course then you would also know it was running in the background on your computer using up your resources to make them money.

Big software companies also lobby congress to make sure no laws get passed that might limit the ways they can take advantage of computer users. And beyond that, the average politician doesn’t know anything about how computers or the Internet actually works. This helps the software companies keep them in the dark on the whole issue.

Until legislation is passed that prohibits spyware, malware, adware, badware, and other data-mining software, the problem is just going to get bigger. Until we have politicians that actually pay attention to new technology, we will continue to have corporations take advantage of their naivete and take advantage of the average Internet user.

Most of the terms of service written by these company’s attorneys are worthless from a legal standpoint. The items they put into the fine print will not hold up in a legal challenge. However, the average user is not going to hire a powerful attorney and pay the expense of taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court just because someone harmed their computer or allowed their identity to be stolen.

These companies know they are safe as long as they keep congress and users in the dark. They are cockroaches and cockroaches hate the light. Write to your congressman and tell him or her that this has to stop. These companies need to be stopped from the practice of downloading anything they want from anyone willing to pay them onto your and my computer.

A simple terms of service should be required and you should get to read it BEFORE downloading or paying for any software. It should contain an easy to read section called, “Other Items Installed On Your Computer When You Install This Program.”

Social Security Member’s Concerns

Changing of Names

The Social Security has set some rules and regulations to be followed by members who wish to have their names changed. There are various circumstances where name changing is allowed and these are as follows: if a member marries, if the member divorced and if there are certain corrections to be made on the name of a member.

If you are a Social Security member and wishes to change your name let’s say in you social security card, the first thing you ought to do is to tell both the agency as well as your employer. The importance of telling your employer is to ensure that your earnings will be properly reported and recorded. However, it is only your name that will be changed and will not in any way affect your social security number. The changing of a member’s name does not require for any payment, it is entirely for free.

In order for a member to get his or her new corrected social security card he or she will be required to bring along with her the identification showing the old name and the new name. For the new name a member may bring his or her marriage certificate or divorce decree. And for those members who were born outside of US you will be made to present proofs of your US citizenship.

Divorced?

For divorced social security members especially those that have been married for at least ten years, may be able to collect retirement benefits on their former spouse’s Social Security record provided they are at least sixty-two years of age and if ever their former spouse is entitled or already receiving benefits. However, if after the divorce a member marries he or she may not collect on his or her former spouse’s benefits unless his or her marriage ends either by death, divorce or annulment.

There are still other circumstances aside from the above mentioned wherein a divorce spouse may be able to claim benefits. Take for example if ever the divorced spouse dies and then the other spouse have not yet married plus the surviving spouse is of age 60 then he or she will be receiving benefits. However, if he or she remarries before reaching the age of 60 he or she will no longer be able to receive any benefits from his or her ex-spouse. But if after the age of 60 the ex-spouse remarries only then will he or she be entitled to receive social security survivor benefits and even retirement benefits out from his or her deceased ex-spouse.

« Previous Page — Next Page »