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.

So you got a Speeding Ticket, So now what?

Speeding tickets are no fun. If you are pulled over for speeding and issued a citation legally, you do not need a lawyer unless you were also driving recklessly and are also cited for reckless driving. Speeding tickets are fairly straight forward, for the most part. However, depending on how much over the speed limit you were driving and which state you live in, your vehicle could be impounded (typically 40 mph over the speed limit). Additionally in some states, if you are under 18, your license may become suspended. But, if none of these conditions apply to you, you have the right to do two things: either pay the ticket, usually through mail, or else dispute the charge against you. After becoming aware of the law, I learned that anyone who pleads guilty on speeding tickets where they were cited for not speeding at all or cited for not going too much over the speed limit, subjects himself to unnecessary punishment from the law, since most speeding tickets of this type can be dismissed. I had a friend who was once cited for speeding when he was not and decided to fight the ticket.

So how do I fight a speeding ticket if I don’t think I was speeding?

Courts do not like to waste time and taxpayer dollars on petty crimes. To dispute a speeding ticket, you must within 10 days in most instances either sign the portion of the ticket that says “not guilty” and mail it to the place where you would send the payment for the fine or write a letter of dispute with the ticket number included in the letter, as well as your reasons for disputing the charges. In the written dispute, you must include ticket numbers, the date the ticket was received, the “act and section of the defense,” and your personal information. Thus, it depends on the state, but for the most part, states have a writing address where the dispute can be mailed. Check with your local county clerk to learn where to mail the dispute form.

After you have completed the dispute form, you will then wait to hear from the proper authorities, which will mail you a letter stating the date that your hearing will start. Make sure you attend the hearing and try to be at the courtroom at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the court hearing.

When the judge or district magistrate in some cases asks you how you plea, make sure you plead not guilty. He will then ask you to tell your story. As in my friend’s case above, he simply told him what had happened. He told the judge that when he saw the cop he looked at his speedometer and he was only going 35 mph in a 35 mph zone. The cop had cited him for going over 45 mph in the 35 mph zone. The cop was there and he conceded. At this point the judge will decide if your case is worthy of continuance and may possibly throw out the case or in the case of a district magistrate will decide your case; otherwise, in the case of a judge, you may be summoned to appear at another hearing at which your case will be decided.

Should You Take A Lie Detector Test?

Is the standard lie detector test (also known as the polygraph) reliable? Should you be concerned about taking a polygraph test? Let’s start with a true story.

The FBI gives agent applicants a lie detector test before hiring them. After 9/11, their polygraph failure rate went to 50%. Did liars suddenly start applying for jobs? No, but the testers were instructed to read the tests differently, even though this meant throwing out some honest people with the few dishonest ones. Imagine what this would do to your future. For all of their lives these mostly innocent people will have a record of a failed FBI polygraph following them.

Most scientists now agree that polygraph “testing” is junk science. In fact, John Larson, one of the pioneers of polygraphic lie detection, says “I’m sorry I ever had any part in it’s development.” The test is valued by governments and others because it is useful for getting damaging admissions from people, especially those who don’t know that the test is a sham.

Unfortunately, the lie detector test is actually biased against the truthful. This is because the more honestly one answers the “control” questions, the more likely one is to fail. Meanwhile, hardened criminals have proven again and again that they can lie throughout the test without detection.

<b>How Lie Detector Tests Work (Or Don’t)</b>

The basic idea is this: The polygrapher asks “control” questions in order to get your “baseline responses.” These are questions to which the operator knows or assumes the truthful answer. The device measures blood pressure, heart, breathing and perspiration rates. Then, when you are asked other questions (Are you involved in espionage? Did you take Johns watch?) your responses are compared to your baseline responses, to determine if your answer is honest or a lie.

An operator will tell you that you should answer all questions honestly, but they don’t actually want this to happen. In fact, they will often ask control questions that they assume you will answer with a lie. This could be something like “Have you ever lied when in trouble?” They may mention that someone who would do such a thing is not a good person, thus encouraging you to lie, so they can see your response.

Operators use this kind of trickery as a standard part of the testing procedure. They also have to use their own judgment. If they think you are dishonest, they may interpret the results differently. Even if they don’t do this, they may push harder to find questions that give the result they want. Whether this is conscious or not, it shows how unscientific the whole procedure can be.

Should you take the test? Consider what former CIA Director John M. Deutch had to say about it: “[The CIA’s] reliance on the polygraph is truly insane.” How about former CIA Director R. James Woolsey: “…the use of this highly flawed instrument should be radically curtailed.” You may want to reconsider any plans to take that lie detector test.

Road Traffic Accident Compensation

Most road traffic accident compensation involves two drivers, with a driver or passenger from the one vehicle seeking compensation from the driver of the second vehicle. Based on evidence that the accident was caused through negligence. The road traffic accident compensation claim will lead to legal proceedings that will involve the driver and possibly, passengers of both vehicles claiming injury as a result of the negligent driving on one the parties behalf . Typically, legal proceedings due to poor road design, will be against a local council. This can be on the basis that they to have failed to install proper signs maintained proper design or maintain a A road, high street or motorway. A road traffic accident compensation claim may also include a product liability claim lodged toward the manufacturer of a car or car part, claiming design or manufacturing defect which lead to the accident. Also, if a car mechanic or garage left a car in an unsafe condition, liability may fall within their responsibility.

Unique Situations
Unique situations can often arise in a road traffic accident compensation claim which make the legal proceedings more difficult. All parties involved may be liable for potential injuries and this will be considered during the course of any legal proceeding. Various issues that can arise from the accident itself include:

Leaving the scene of an accident: Is not so uncommon in the UK where the driver who causes an accident fails to stop at the place of the accident. This will make it difficult for the injured party involved make a positive ID and therefore bring the driver to court.
Pedestrians and Road Accidents: In such situations, a member of the public can suffer serious injuries as a result of a collision with a vehicle. Often time the conduct of the pedestrian is called into question making it difficult to make a claim against the driver.
Motorbike & Car Accidents: Motorcyclists are very much at risk in regards to personal injury when involved in a road traffic accident, even in collisions which would be relatively minor had they occurred between cars. Due to the nature of some motorcyclists, it may be prove difficult to obtain a far hearing from a jury as they’re commonly deemed ‘wreckless’ road users even if the other party is clearly at fault.
Bicyclists & Car Accidents: Bicyclists are among the most vulnerable road users. They are more likely to sustain serious injury when hit by cars or other vehicles. Various hazards such as doors opening in front of them are obvious causes of collisions as well as many others. Cyclists are often caught in the drivers blind spot and they often report that they did not see the bicyclist until it was too late.
Buses & Car Accidents: Bus accidents can also be quite serious. Due to the sheer size, passengers carried, a collision with a bus will not only see other road users worst off, but unmanaged passengers can also add to the already heated mix of a road accident. Any road traffic accident compensation claim will also be taken up with the operator of the bus not just the driver.
Unsafe road conditions: Where things like road debris and poor, uneven road surfaces abound, accidents can be common place. Whether this is in the form of parts which have fallen off of vehicles, or debris that is kicked up from the roadway, it can all be used as evidence in a road traffic accident compensation claim if the driver believes this was the cause of the accident.

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

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, Road Traffic Accident Compensation specialists.

Acknowledging Help on Legal Divorce and Family Law

For every state, the family and divorce law differs although information that will be given in this section tackles majorly of what is present in every country and how it is dealt with in general. In order to seek a clearer vision regarding a particular topic, you can consult a divorce or family lawyer regarding your status of getting professional advice.

Family is one of the most important units within the society that gives meaning to life. However, when balance is moved, there are matters that needs to be discussed and people who are seeking for advice can be given certain ideas on how the law that governs the family works, some of which are about the totality of marriage, divorce, child custody and child support.

Law on Marriage

Laws regarding marriage status in the United States are strictly governed by the law of the state. However, there are federal regulations that rely on the marital status of the couple in order to determine the federal benefits and rights which invoke the important definition of marriage to the law. Furthermore, the constitution ensures that the United States Supreme Court will be able to review the laws which are related to marriage.

Law on Divorce

Agreement on divorce is similar to agreement on separation, marital agreement, and agreement on the settlement of properties which are legally acceptable with the contract settling matters involved. It will not be referred to as an agreement on being divorced because only the court can grant such request. If both parties will fail in reaching the agreement, the case will undergo trial and the decision of the court will be altered. Whatever the court has raised can be modified and will be based on the change in substance and circumstance. Agreements, therefore, can be modifiable or non-modifiable.

Agreements settle certain issues that relate to:

1. Health, life insurance and alimony

2. Division on liabilities and assets

3. Physical and legal custody, visitation, college fund, child support and medical expenses and insurance

Law on Child Custody

Generally, ordinances authorize courts of having responsibility or jurisdiction of proceedings regarding divorce in order to determine who should have the children’s custody under the marriage. Within the common provision, parents of a child who is legitimate are considered as joint guardians of the child and each parent’s rights are equal which means that each parent has the right for the child’s custody the moment they separate. And because of the controversial authority to decide custody based on the court’s jurisdiction, laws within this field are based on the state.

Law on Child Support

In cases where there is judgment for dissolution, separation, or annulment, the court usually orders that both parents should pay the amount necessary for the child to be supported until proclaimed stable or when the child reached age of independency. Financial support of the child will be based on the facts of the couple’s separate cases. The court has the right to consider that both parents are responsible and obliged for supporting the child.

Considerations will be made upon establishment of the amount that should be supported and it will be given to both parents which, under the legal help, should provide proper support and proper welfare for the minor including the child’s needs.

« Previous Page — Next Page »