How was it?
Answers:
i did!!
i twas really good
@
I did.
It was a cute movie. That's about it. Cute.
Wait, are you talking about the movie?
Why is this on Law and Ethics, i have to wonder...
yes it was ok i thought it was kind of dumb though i think the first 2 are better
Some critic on TV referred to it as Shrek - the Turd. My interest faded.
It was great but i still prefer 1 and 2.=)
It was amazing and tantalizing. you will like the development of the plot... it's the best way to see it for yourself!!!
it was alright.
first 2 were better in my opinion but after i watched the third, it felt i was watching just a normal tv episode. cos it didnt hav much stuff going on like a movie would. but it was alright.
i like the end where their singing and baby ogre bends down and farts while dragon donkeys baby coughs fire.
fart (gas) + fire = deadly combo.
hehe
It was terrible
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Did anyone not expect paris hilton to get special treatment while in jail because of her celebraty status?
Answers:
It's not suprising, but it doesn't make it right. Justice should be blind, but clearly isn't in many ways.
of course she is going to get special treatment, her whole i am going to go to jail like a "normal" person story was totally abandoned when she had a mere 3 days in jail; got out of jail, and was forced back. in my opinon, she is sick of playing the dumb blonde(as she also told barbra walters via collect call) and like most celebs did something drastic to counter it.
Dick Cheney, and Goerge Bush are above the laws?
The Vice President and the President have casually declared their offices to be independent of the executive branch and completely autonomous, with Dick Cheney also attempting to abolish agencies his office is supposed to be accountable to.
Last week the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported:
Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”
As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order.
In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."
The documents released by the committee reveal that Cheney's office has not cooperated with an office at the National Archives and Records Administration which is responsible for overseeing the protection of classified material by the executive branch.
As the Washington Post further reported, Cheney's staff have consistently declared themselves above the law by not filing reports on their possession of classified data and even blocking an inspection of their office in 2004. The documents also reveal that after the Archives office demanded cooperation earlier this year, Cheney's staff proposed eliminating it altogether.
While Cheney has declared his office outside of the executive branch he has continued to receive funding from the bill that funds the executive branch. Instead of challenging Cheney's absurd declaration of autonomy, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel is now seeking an amendment to the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations bill in order to cut the funding to Cheney's office and thus legally separate it from the executive branch.
"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal
case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive
branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot
ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President
should be consistent." Emanuel has said.
In addition to Cheney's office declaring itself exempt from oversight, President Bush's office has also claimed it has the same status.
The LA Times reported:
An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.
It has now become chillingly clear that the President and the Vice President believe that they have absolute power over the Government of the United States and cannot be held accountable to anybody.
Previously Dick Cheney has declared both himself and Bush unaccountable to Congress, stating last year that "vice president and president and constitutional officers don’t appear before the Congress.”
It is also now clear that Bush and Cheney have broken literally hundreds of laws because they see themselves as outside of them. Last April the Boston Globe reported:
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
The Constitution assigns power to Congress to write the laws and asserts that the president has an obligation ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Take the "torture ban", which was approved last year, for example. After approving the bill, Bush issued a ''signing statement" giving his own interpretation of what the law meant and giving him the right to bypass it if he so wished.
Bush and Cheney are vastly expanding Presidential power and creating provisions that set their offices up as dictatorial bodies.
Answers:
Are they above the law? Of course not.
They are temporary occupants of their offices who, sadly, have done more damage to the laws and Constitution of this country than any terrorist group could ever hope to do. They are mean-spirited, insensitive people who have attempted to establish themselves as imperial monarchs by ignoring the clear precedents and traditions that have made us great. They have severely damaged our democratic principles and have violated any number of laws along the way.
I would add a list of their offenses here but would probably run out of room. It will take us decades to re-establish our adherance to the law and Constitution, not to mention to restore our standing in the international community. They have promoted intolerance, torture. secret dealings (e.g., oil companies involvement in the energy task force, which Cheney stonewalls to this day), and have invaded another country which was no threat to us whatsoever.
They lie consistently and have divided our country more than ever since the civil war. Their offenses are shocking, as is their arrogance.
The good news is that they will all be gone soon, but I, for one, would like them to stay around just a little longer to face charges, trials and convictions. One of their mindless supporters on here recently asked, "Since when is protecting our country a violation of the Constitution?" The answer is that the ends do not justify the means, and in any event, they are not "protecting" our country but, rather, endangering it by ignoring our Constitution and laws.
Next to this crowd, Richard Nixon looks like a saint.
No they are not above the law. Nor is any politician. But they all think they are. And not just these pols but throughout history. Now they tap people phones whicj is wrong. But what about FDR just rounding up a whole race of people and putting them in a concentration camp. Or the Congress and Presidents with their phony bookkeeping systems. They claim the debt is nearly 9 trillion dollars when in actuality its 56 trillion. Since they protect themselves and each other they get away with it. If it were up to me they all would be in concentration camps.
Last week the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported:
Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”
As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order.
In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."
The documents released by the committee reveal that Cheney's office has not cooperated with an office at the National Archives and Records Administration which is responsible for overseeing the protection of classified material by the executive branch.
As the Washington Post further reported, Cheney's staff have consistently declared themselves above the law by not filing reports on their possession of classified data and even blocking an inspection of their office in 2004. The documents also reveal that after the Archives office demanded cooperation earlier this year, Cheney's staff proposed eliminating it altogether.
While Cheney has declared his office outside of the executive branch he has continued to receive funding from the bill that funds the executive branch. Instead of challenging Cheney's absurd declaration of autonomy, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel is now seeking an amendment to the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations bill in order to cut the funding to Cheney's office and thus legally separate it from the executive branch.
"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal
case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive
branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot
ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President
should be consistent." Emanuel has said.
In addition to Cheney's office declaring itself exempt from oversight, President Bush's office has also claimed it has the same status.
The LA Times reported:
An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.
It has now become chillingly clear that the President and the Vice President believe that they have absolute power over the Government of the United States and cannot be held accountable to anybody.
Previously Dick Cheney has declared both himself and Bush unaccountable to Congress, stating last year that "vice president and president and constitutional officers don’t appear before the Congress.”
It is also now clear that Bush and Cheney have broken literally hundreds of laws because they see themselves as outside of them. Last April the Boston Globe reported:
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
The Constitution assigns power to Congress to write the laws and asserts that the president has an obligation ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Take the "torture ban", which was approved last year, for example. After approving the bill, Bush issued a ''signing statement" giving his own interpretation of what the law meant and giving him the right to bypass it if he so wished.
Bush and Cheney are vastly expanding Presidential power and creating provisions that set their offices up as dictatorial bodies.
Answers:
Are they above the law? Of course not.
They are temporary occupants of their offices who, sadly, have done more damage to the laws and Constitution of this country than any terrorist group could ever hope to do. They are mean-spirited, insensitive people who have attempted to establish themselves as imperial monarchs by ignoring the clear precedents and traditions that have made us great. They have severely damaged our democratic principles and have violated any number of laws along the way.
I would add a list of their offenses here but would probably run out of room. It will take us decades to re-establish our adherance to the law and Constitution, not to mention to restore our standing in the international community. They have promoted intolerance, torture. secret dealings (e.g., oil companies involvement in the energy task force, which Cheney stonewalls to this day), and have invaded another country which was no threat to us whatsoever.
They lie consistently and have divided our country more than ever since the civil war. Their offenses are shocking, as is their arrogance.
The good news is that they will all be gone soon, but I, for one, would like them to stay around just a little longer to face charges, trials and convictions. One of their mindless supporters on here recently asked, "Since when is protecting our country a violation of the Constitution?" The answer is that the ends do not justify the means, and in any event, they are not "protecting" our country but, rather, endangering it by ignoring our Constitution and laws.
Next to this crowd, Richard Nixon looks like a saint.
No they are not above the law. Nor is any politician. But they all think they are. And not just these pols but throughout history. Now they tap people phones whicj is wrong. But what about FDR just rounding up a whole race of people and putting them in a concentration camp. Or the Congress and Presidents with their phony bookkeeping systems. They claim the debt is nearly 9 trillion dollars when in actuality its 56 trillion. Since they protect themselves and each other they get away with it. If it were up to me they all would be in concentration camps.
Dick Cheney used to hunt women?
I have a friend who claims Cheney and some hunting buddies used to hunt Jane Doe type women that no one would miss. Supposedly this went on back in Wyoming in his younger days. Anyone hear this weird story?
Oh Oh, the n s c is after me!
Answers:
How could it not be true?
I mean, we all know he somehow substituted a missle for an airplane in midair on 9-11. If he was willing to do that, hunting for "Jane Doe" women would be just the sort of thing he would do to practice.
Did he use his gun?
Hey, that's supposed to be a 'secret'.
Oh Oh, the n s c is after me!
Answers:
How could it not be true?
I mean, we all know he somehow substituted a missle for an airplane in midair on 9-11. If he was willing to do that, hunting for "Jane Doe" women would be just the sort of thing he would do to practice.
Did he use his gun?
Hey, that's supposed to be a 'secret'.
Detention unfair, what to do?
I forged a signature of a librarian, and my dean at school is giving my a 4 hour saturday detention..I told him, and continue to tell him that I didnt do it (even though I did), what can I do to get out of it, it is this sautrday, so I need so answers fast! He thinks taht I did it cause the librarian talked with him, and she said that she never signed it, and I said she did%26gt;%26gt;WHAT SHOULD I DO!?!?
Answers:
Be thankful your only doing 4 hours and not in jail for fraud. Do the time you did the crime!
yer screwwwwwwwwweeeeeed...
take your punishment. What you did was forgery. If you did that in the "real world" you could be punished with jail time. Consider yourself lucky you got off as light as you did. Next time be more mature.
Uh, do it~ Thou shalt not lie!!! You need to be punised you Butthead!
You should stop lying and take responsibility for your actions. If you were an adult and you forged a signature, you would go to jail.
Admit you are a liar and a brat, take your well-deserved punishment, and then grow up. Loser.
Tell them to **** off.
note: For further advice, watch The Breakfast Club.
John Bender rocks!!
Suck it up and go to detention.
They will know you did it, especially if it isn't axactly like her signature. I'd do the detention but always plead innocence. That way he'll wonder.
If you did forge the signature, the detention is fair. Take your punishment and deal with the consequence. OR you could just skip detention and get suspended.
Grow up and take your punishment like a man, dude.
Admit that you did it, since you did it.
If you screw up, we can't help.
this is not an unfair detention. reality check here...you forged a person's signature and you lied about it on top of that. what do you expect...a gold star? i don't understand how on earth you could think this is unfair. in the dean's eyes, a librarian, teacher, etc. has more credibility than a student. and why would a librarian lie about it? anyways, you should be lucky you didn't get suspended...this is something very serious. a dentention is nothing. so you're just going to have to sit through detention and deal with it.
Cry some more.
You screwed up.. live with it.
Is this high school or college?
Not meaning to offend but frankly you sound like a self centered spoiled brat Who refuses to take responsibility for his/her actions. I would say youre getting off easy with the Saturday detention. Take your medicine and take responsibility for your actions.
Take your punishment. You're not that special that you're above the law.
Do the crime, do the time. Be a man and own up to it.
what should you do? how about not be such a douchebag and forge signatures!
Suicide!
why hell u forge librarian siggy yeah no si ocho?
You should stop being a whiny little prick and accept the consequences of your actions. You and people like you sicken me. I will go to bed praying for two things: 1) that you get 8 hours of detention for the next 12 Saturdays; and 2) that your hand rots and falls off so that you have a permanent reminder of your cowardice. Because isn't that what this is all about? You don't have the testicular fortitude to stand up and accept that what you did was wrong.
A-Hole! Take your punishment. Also, tell me the contact info of your school and dean, so that I can complain to them about your stupid question. If I were your dean, then I would give you an expulsion for your initial bad behavior, combined with your asinine question that you posted to FreeLawAnswer.com forum. How's that? Loser!
Unless your name is Paris Hilton, you're screwed dude! You F'd up and now you're payin for it. That's the way the world works, get used to it.
Also, tell that poor libriarian that you're unendingly sorry for being such a piece trash that you'd try to tarnish his/her reputation for your benefit.
Loser.
How is this unfair? You did it now be reponsible and take the punishment. It is forgery. I am not sure what you signed but in the real world this is a crime.
Geez people put so much effort into trying to get out of the messes they get them self into instead of putting that effort into not doing things wrong in the first place.
Answers:
Be thankful your only doing 4 hours and not in jail for fraud. Do the time you did the crime!
yer screwwwwwwwwweeeeeed...
take your punishment. What you did was forgery. If you did that in the "real world" you could be punished with jail time. Consider yourself lucky you got off as light as you did. Next time be more mature.
Uh, do it~ Thou shalt not lie!!! You need to be punised you Butthead!
You should stop lying and take responsibility for your actions. If you were an adult and you forged a signature, you would go to jail.
Admit you are a liar and a brat, take your well-deserved punishment, and then grow up. Loser.
Tell them to **** off.
note: For further advice, watch The Breakfast Club.
John Bender rocks!!
Suck it up and go to detention.
They will know you did it, especially if it isn't axactly like her signature. I'd do the detention but always plead innocence. That way he'll wonder.
If you did forge the signature, the detention is fair. Take your punishment and deal with the consequence. OR you could just skip detention and get suspended.
Grow up and take your punishment like a man, dude.
Admit that you did it, since you did it.
If you screw up, we can't help.
this is not an unfair detention. reality check here...you forged a person's signature and you lied about it on top of that. what do you expect...a gold star? i don't understand how on earth you could think this is unfair. in the dean's eyes, a librarian, teacher, etc. has more credibility than a student. and why would a librarian lie about it? anyways, you should be lucky you didn't get suspended...this is something very serious. a dentention is nothing. so you're just going to have to sit through detention and deal with it.
Cry some more.
You screwed up.. live with it.
Is this high school or college?
Not meaning to offend but frankly you sound like a self centered spoiled brat Who refuses to take responsibility for his/her actions. I would say youre getting off easy with the Saturday detention. Take your medicine and take responsibility for your actions.
Take your punishment. You're not that special that you're above the law.
Do the crime, do the time. Be a man and own up to it.
what should you do? how about not be such a douchebag and forge signatures!
Suicide!
why hell u forge librarian siggy yeah no si ocho?
You should stop being a whiny little prick and accept the consequences of your actions. You and people like you sicken me. I will go to bed praying for two things: 1) that you get 8 hours of detention for the next 12 Saturdays; and 2) that your hand rots and falls off so that you have a permanent reminder of your cowardice. Because isn't that what this is all about? You don't have the testicular fortitude to stand up and accept that what you did was wrong.
A-Hole! Take your punishment. Also, tell me the contact info of your school and dean, so that I can complain to them about your stupid question. If I were your dean, then I would give you an expulsion for your initial bad behavior, combined with your asinine question that you posted to FreeLawAnswer.com forum. How's that? Loser!
Unless your name is Paris Hilton, you're screwed dude! You F'd up and now you're payin for it. That's the way the world works, get used to it.
Also, tell that poor libriarian that you're unendingly sorry for being such a piece trash that you'd try to tarnish his/her reputation for your benefit.
Loser.
How is this unfair? You did it now be reponsible and take the punishment. It is forgery. I am not sure what you signed but in the real world this is a crime.
Geez people put so much effort into trying to get out of the messes they get them self into instead of putting that effort into not doing things wrong in the first place.
Detention centers.?
ok lets say that you have a "friend" that is in a juvenile detention center until january 2008. does anybody know if they will let your "friend" get letters from people without their parents knowing?
Answers:
For my clients in a juvenile detention center, I have to give permission for anyone to be placed on the visitor, telephone, or mail lists. Unless I say OK, the juvenile can't receive visits, telephone calls, or mail, or send mail and make calls. The detention center staff cannot make the decision.
I usually restrict my permission to parents, guardians, and grandparents, as well as siblings in some situations. I have occasionally allowed aunts and uncles, depending on the relationship between the juvenile and the aunt/uncle.
I would never put a "friend" on the lists.
Why would your friends' parents care. If you were behaving appropriately you shouldn't have anything to worry about. The parenys have the right to know what goes on in their child's life. They are responsible for ensuring that their child is safe and is not doing anything illegal.
No. The parents and the authorities have compiled a list of people you can contact and who can contact you. Forget it.
write them and ask...
I think you have to be on some kind of accepted list.
Answers:
For my clients in a juvenile detention center, I have to give permission for anyone to be placed on the visitor, telephone, or mail lists. Unless I say OK, the juvenile can't receive visits, telephone calls, or mail, or send mail and make calls. The detention center staff cannot make the decision.
I usually restrict my permission to parents, guardians, and grandparents, as well as siblings in some situations. I have occasionally allowed aunts and uncles, depending on the relationship between the juvenile and the aunt/uncle.
I would never put a "friend" on the lists.
Why would your friends' parents care. If you were behaving appropriately you shouldn't have anything to worry about. The parenys have the right to know what goes on in their child's life. They are responsible for ensuring that their child is safe and is not doing anything illegal.
No. The parents and the authorities have compiled a list of people you can contact and who can contact you. Forget it.
write them and ask...
I think you have to be on some kind of accepted list.
Details on Hindu woman rights to share the father's property?
In 1985 my father's property was distributed between my 3 brothers and they have not given any share to me. They have not taken my acceptance in the Will they made. Now I am seeking the legal openion whether I can fight for my rights in the court of law. What is my rights and whether if I fight in the court shall I win the case. Please give me your answers with reference to the Indian Penel code and rights act.
Answers:
If your fathers self acquired property was disposed by him during his life time by way of will where he distributed his whole property to his three sons %26 did not give any share to you any thing out of it, if such will was not amended till the death of your father then this will holds good %26 valid if the other condition with regards to will are fulfilled, these conditions are the age of majority which is there, fit %26 sound mental condition of the testator or your father, no force or fraud involved in his making such a will it was his free will, such will should be signed by the testator/ father in presence of at least a adult witness who witnesses this will %26 signs in presence of the testator/father. Any will can be challenged on any of these grounds at the time of probation of such a will, but the person who challenges it has to prove to the satisfaction of the court of probation that any of the conditions as mentioned above were contravened at the time of making such a will. The will comes in operation only on the death of the testator/father %26 it can be enforced by getting a probation order from the competent court, who issues notice to all the heirs of the deceased testator/father. These are the necessary provisions that are provided under the Indian Succession Act for the purpose of any will. Now if no such will exist then the share of the property of the Hindu deceased father has to be shared by all the sons %26 daughters equally if there is no living mother otherwise the mother also gets her share. This is very clearly provided under the Hindu Succession Act. Now your brothers very cleverly got your father sign his will where they did not inform you what they are getting done by your father, this amounts to fraud they played with your father while getting such a will made %26 executed by him. Here you require evidence to show that such a fraud was done by your brothers with your father, your mere statement will not be sufficient for it, if you can produce such evidence that will be sufficient to show that your father was not aware of the real intentions of your brothers %26 he was made to sign a document the contents of which were not disclosed or read out to him or he was asked or made to read it %26 were not in his knowledge till his death, then only such a will can be challenged not otherwise.
Your case may become time barred. Secondly Will is made by a person for disposing his property after death. So the "will" referrred by you must have been made by your father before his death. Your brothers cannot make a will for your father, after his death.
Last but not the least a female child has equal right in the property of her parents. So if you were four siblings, (one sister + three brothers) then property would go to alll of you in equal proportion.
I know I have not addressed your query clearly, but I need more information from your end to help you in this matter.
Vijay M has answered both your queries quite comprehensively i.e. If your dad left a Will, the property devolves as per the Will. if there is no will and he was Hindu, it devolves equally among all the heirs as per HSAct.
If your father passed away in 1985, and the contents of his Will was known to you back then, why have you waited so long. I dont think any court will condone the delay of 22 years; you would have to come up with a unique grounds for "sufficient cause" to justify the delay. You say: "they have not taken my acceptance in the Will they made". Who made the Will, your dad, your brothers, who? Im sure if you give more clarity to your question, someone like Vijay M could give you the correct procedure to be followed.
Equal rights now!
please add in detail
"wether your father left any will ?"
and was that property belong to your father only.
"does he bought that ?"
Answers:
If your fathers self acquired property was disposed by him during his life time by way of will where he distributed his whole property to his three sons %26 did not give any share to you any thing out of it, if such will was not amended till the death of your father then this will holds good %26 valid if the other condition with regards to will are fulfilled, these conditions are the age of majority which is there, fit %26 sound mental condition of the testator or your father, no force or fraud involved in his making such a will it was his free will, such will should be signed by the testator/ father in presence of at least a adult witness who witnesses this will %26 signs in presence of the testator/father. Any will can be challenged on any of these grounds at the time of probation of such a will, but the person who challenges it has to prove to the satisfaction of the court of probation that any of the conditions as mentioned above were contravened at the time of making such a will. The will comes in operation only on the death of the testator/father %26 it can be enforced by getting a probation order from the competent court, who issues notice to all the heirs of the deceased testator/father. These are the necessary provisions that are provided under the Indian Succession Act for the purpose of any will. Now if no such will exist then the share of the property of the Hindu deceased father has to be shared by all the sons %26 daughters equally if there is no living mother otherwise the mother also gets her share. This is very clearly provided under the Hindu Succession Act. Now your brothers very cleverly got your father sign his will where they did not inform you what they are getting done by your father, this amounts to fraud they played with your father while getting such a will made %26 executed by him. Here you require evidence to show that such a fraud was done by your brothers with your father, your mere statement will not be sufficient for it, if you can produce such evidence that will be sufficient to show that your father was not aware of the real intentions of your brothers %26 he was made to sign a document the contents of which were not disclosed or read out to him or he was asked or made to read it %26 were not in his knowledge till his death, then only such a will can be challenged not otherwise.
Your case may become time barred. Secondly Will is made by a person for disposing his property after death. So the "will" referrred by you must have been made by your father before his death. Your brothers cannot make a will for your father, after his death.
Last but not the least a female child has equal right in the property of her parents. So if you were four siblings, (one sister + three brothers) then property would go to alll of you in equal proportion.
I know I have not addressed your query clearly, but I need more information from your end to help you in this matter.
Vijay M has answered both your queries quite comprehensively i.e. If your dad left a Will, the property devolves as per the Will. if there is no will and he was Hindu, it devolves equally among all the heirs as per HSAct.
If your father passed away in 1985, and the contents of his Will was known to you back then, why have you waited so long. I dont think any court will condone the delay of 22 years; you would have to come up with a unique grounds for "sufficient cause" to justify the delay. You say: "they have not taken my acceptance in the Will they made". Who made the Will, your dad, your brothers, who? Im sure if you give more clarity to your question, someone like Vijay M could give you the correct procedure to be followed.
Equal rights now!
please add in detail
"wether your father left any will ?"
and was that property belong to your father only.
"does he bought that ?"
Destruction and downfall of the U.S.A. I can find no greater reason for the demise than this law. Your?
thoughts on this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/immigration...
Answers:
Well, best way for a nation to die is to either be conquered from within or be conquered with the help of the corrupt and rich.
Corporations want cheap labor.
Rich want cheap labor.
Both groups own politicians.
What makes this country great is it's work ethic and respect for law.
We are bringing in people who do not have either.
Read an AP article that said 39% of all @nd generation hispanic families have atleast one member on a government program...sad.
If you think immigration is our worst problem, you need to get out more. It is our arrogance when dealing with other countries that is gonna be our demise, just like the Romans. Contempt, ignorance and egoism are our 3 virtues.
i agree, it's been going downhill ever since the europeans started coming over.
was nice here before the white folks arrived.
America has always been the melting pot for minorities from it's inception. If the Americans love their country, we will be strong.
people have become desensitized to this immigration, and this country WILL be stolen out from under us, as the majority rules in this country, and eventually, whites and blacks, won't be the majority, MEXICANS WILL.and politicians keep bringing them in with their policys, so its only a matter of time.
The law set the maximum number of visas allowed per year. What is wrong with that? The problem comes from not keeping track of those in the U.S. due to a visa. Immigrants are seeking a better life and freedom. I say let them stay work and become citizens, just like our ancestors did.
America's real problem is greed. No, not just corporate greed, but individual greed as well. What does America actually produce inside its own boarders? Food, entertainment and a few autos. We have sent our jobs to other countries because they will make the products for less money. Right now our dependence on foreign oil and foreign made products are going to contribute more to our nation's downfall than anything else.
The criminal war of aggression waged by the USA in Iraq is a far greater reason for the downfall of the Superpower.
Our country has always been a haven for those who are oppressed. The act you cite does not authorize excessive immigration, it specifies a controlled immigration policy. I see no problem with the law.
What has created a significant problem for this country is the number o f illegal immigrants that enter, day after day, year after year. So the problem if any that will lead to the demise of this nation is failure to secure our borders both from illegal immigrants and those who would destroy us because of their philosophical or religious beliefs, not from the immigration law that you cite.
then you obviously have not looked at the clinton legacy and the threat of carryover from hillary
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
that puts the law at a far far distant second.
Actually, the root of the problem is that the Seventeenth Amendment took away the balancing nature of the Senate. The immigration bill you cite wouldn't have had a chance in a Senate chosen by state legislatures, and neither would the current shamnesty bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/immigration...
Answers:
Well, best way for a nation to die is to either be conquered from within or be conquered with the help of the corrupt and rich.
Corporations want cheap labor.
Rich want cheap labor.
Both groups own politicians.
What makes this country great is it's work ethic and respect for law.
We are bringing in people who do not have either.
Read an AP article that said 39% of all @nd generation hispanic families have atleast one member on a government program...sad.
If you think immigration is our worst problem, you need to get out more. It is our arrogance when dealing with other countries that is gonna be our demise, just like the Romans. Contempt, ignorance and egoism are our 3 virtues.
i agree, it's been going downhill ever since the europeans started coming over.
was nice here before the white folks arrived.
America has always been the melting pot for minorities from it's inception. If the Americans love their country, we will be strong.
people have become desensitized to this immigration, and this country WILL be stolen out from under us, as the majority rules in this country, and eventually, whites and blacks, won't be the majority, MEXICANS WILL.and politicians keep bringing them in with their policys, so its only a matter of time.
The law set the maximum number of visas allowed per year. What is wrong with that? The problem comes from not keeping track of those in the U.S. due to a visa. Immigrants are seeking a better life and freedom. I say let them stay work and become citizens, just like our ancestors did.
America's real problem is greed. No, not just corporate greed, but individual greed as well. What does America actually produce inside its own boarders? Food, entertainment and a few autos. We have sent our jobs to other countries because they will make the products for less money. Right now our dependence on foreign oil and foreign made products are going to contribute more to our nation's downfall than anything else.
The criminal war of aggression waged by the USA in Iraq is a far greater reason for the downfall of the Superpower.
Our country has always been a haven for those who are oppressed. The act you cite does not authorize excessive immigration, it specifies a controlled immigration policy. I see no problem with the law.
What has created a significant problem for this country is the number o f illegal immigrants that enter, day after day, year after year. So the problem if any that will lead to the demise of this nation is failure to secure our borders both from illegal immigrants and those who would destroy us because of their philosophical or religious beliefs, not from the immigration law that you cite.
then you obviously have not looked at the clinton legacy and the threat of carryover from hillary
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
that puts the law at a far far distant second.
Actually, the root of the problem is that the Seventeenth Amendment took away the balancing nature of the Senate. The immigration bill you cite wouldn't have had a chance in a Senate chosen by state legislatures, and neither would the current shamnesty bill.
Destroy Ancient Egypt.?
Don't know if this is the right section but anyway,
If the Egyptian Government wanted to destroy all the ancient pyramids and every monument realting to Ancient Egypt would they be allowed to this?
I know the pyramids are a world heritage site so could they?
Answers:
Of course they could, but they would be stupid to do so because the pyramids are part of their heritage and are a big tourism draw.
This is a silly question. They would never do it but they could among world wide outcry.
Since they do own the temples, etc it seems like they could but it's also a world monument (Giza, etc) so other countries should stop them.
That's an interresting question...
Of course they could.. all that would happen is people would ***** at them for a while.
So what would you have us do. Go to war to save a pile of rock? All be it the world would not be the same and loss of historical things is shameful but the dead are dead and the living are more important.
If it happens it will have to do more with religion than anything else. Look at what the Taliban did to ancient monuments in Afghanistan.
Do not worry. Egyptians are not fools to demolish them since because of them only they are getting a large number of visitors as tourists.
But to some extent you are correct. Al Queda have destroyed The Budha statue in Afghanistan so if some fanatical Muslim group heads Egypt it could happen. If it happens nobody could do anything about it.
If the Egyptian Government wanted to destroy all the ancient pyramids and every monument realting to Ancient Egypt would they be allowed to this?
I know the pyramids are a world heritage site so could they?
Answers:
Of course they could, but they would be stupid to do so because the pyramids are part of their heritage and are a big tourism draw.
This is a silly question. They would never do it but they could among world wide outcry.
Since they do own the temples, etc it seems like they could but it's also a world monument (Giza, etc) so other countries should stop them.
That's an interresting question...
Of course they could.. all that would happen is people would ***** at them for a while.
So what would you have us do. Go to war to save a pile of rock? All be it the world would not be the same and loss of historical things is shameful but the dead are dead and the living are more important.
If it happens it will have to do more with religion than anything else. Look at what the Taliban did to ancient monuments in Afghanistan.
Do not worry. Egyptians are not fools to demolish them since because of them only they are getting a large number of visitors as tourists.
But to some extent you are correct. Al Queda have destroyed The Budha statue in Afghanistan so if some fanatical Muslim group heads Egypt it could happen. If it happens nobody could do anything about it.
Describe modern thought crimes?
modern crimes of thought or laws aimed at controlling thought and methods for dissiminating and building up propaganda pertaining to these.
Answers:
The whole concept of "hate crimes" are along this line.
It boggles my mind that if I use an ethnic slur against someone while pinching them on the butt, it's more serious than silently smashing their head with a brick.
There are those that want to make expressing any doubt about "Global Warming" a crime, also.
OK.
Answers:
The whole concept of "hate crimes" are along this line.
It boggles my mind that if I use an ethnic slur against someone while pinching them on the butt, it's more serious than silently smashing their head with a brick.
There are those that want to make expressing any doubt about "Global Warming" a crime, also.
OK.
Deposit funds with circuit court of cook county?
Answers:
That's pretty common when there is an insurance claim. The insurance company posts the fund for claimants to fight themselves over. That way the insurance company doesn't have to pay anything in litigation fees. After all, they don't care who gets the $$$.
I can think of 2 instances. The first answer mentioned insurance proceeds--it's a bit broader than that. That action is called an "interpleader." It happens when a 3rd party holds money that 2 or more persons are fighting over. The person holding the funds knows it should be given to someone and they do not have the ability to determine who should receive it, so they deposit it in the registry of the court for distribution.
The 2nd occasion is when a government condemns property through the power of eminent domain. When that happens the government must deposit the value of the property with the court when the condemnation action is filed.
Dependants and Medical Question?
My dad recently obtained custody of my half sister (no relation to my father). She has lived with him since she was 4 years old now 9.
We were hoping to put her on his medical, however the medical administrator wrote back saying we would need to have paperwork that shows that he is planning to adopt her in the future.
What kind of paperwork can I get that would show the medical administrator that he is planning to adopt?
Answers:
He needs formal custodial paperwork. (Which is less than adoption, but is pre paperwork that the birth parent must sign.) An attorney can help with this.
By the way, he will need this custodian paperwork to enroll her in school, to be able to authorize medical care in case of emergency, etc.
He reallyh needs to get on this pronto so he can make the decisions he needs for this childs welfare.
Your dad sounds like a great guy, by the way.
A copy of a completed adoption application, or a letter from an attorney stating that he has inquired about or is proceding with adoption procedings will work.
you or your dad need papers saying that he has legal coustody of your half sister.and papers saying that he really adopted he also leagally too.good luck!
We were hoping to put her on his medical, however the medical administrator wrote back saying we would need to have paperwork that shows that he is planning to adopt her in the future.
What kind of paperwork can I get that would show the medical administrator that he is planning to adopt?
Answers:
He needs formal custodial paperwork. (Which is less than adoption, but is pre paperwork that the birth parent must sign.) An attorney can help with this.
By the way, he will need this custodian paperwork to enroll her in school, to be able to authorize medical care in case of emergency, etc.
He reallyh needs to get on this pronto so he can make the decisions he needs for this childs welfare.
Your dad sounds like a great guy, by the way.
A copy of a completed adoption application, or a letter from an attorney stating that he has inquired about or is proceding with adoption procedings will work.
you or your dad need papers saying that he has legal coustody of your half sister.and papers saying that he really adopted he also leagally too.good luck!
Denying Christians the ability to discriminate an unconstitutional infringement on their 1st Amendment rights?
Does denying Christians the ability to discriminate against gays prevent them from freely "exercising" their religious beliefs that homosexuality is immoral?
Is denying Christians the ability to discrimination an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment rights?
Answers:
What she is talking about is the new bill on the floor that will guaranty jail time and or a hefty fine who involves themselves in "Hate Speech." So, if you are a practicing Christian and attend church and your pastor or priest reads from the Holy Bible a verse or two about homosexuality being an abonimation against God (Leviticus or Romans), he or she will go to jail.
To this I say, the socialist democrats strike again! The Contitution guarantees "Freedom of Speech." It does not say only if it doesn't offend some liberal piece of crap who has no moral decency, compass or a brain in his or her God given head!
Please notice how little attention the liberal news media has given this bill. Like lambs to the slaughter folks. Lambs to the slaugher.
I am a Christian and trying to figure out what on earth you are saying???
What about the rights of Gays don't they have the right to love who they love?
Your right to free speech ends when it infringes on the rights of others to realize their Constitutional rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Many Christians aren't just voicing opinions, they are working to legislate discrimination. What about equal protection under the law? That's a Constitutional amendment, too!
No, it isn't any more than not being able to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater without getting arrested is an infringement on your First Amendment rights to free speech.
I am Christian and i don't ever discriminate against gays.i will never believe it's ok and right.but i cannot love people any less for the sins they commit because we all commit sins.."he who does not sin cast the first stone".simple as that...if u people discriminate against anyone particular group they r not being Christian in the least..
No.
If all religious beliefs and practices were exempt from the law, people could ignore just about every law out there.
Christianity may command Christians not to be gay, but it doesn't command them to discriminate against gays. If you think homosexuality is immoral, don't do it. Leave everyone else alone.
Ridiculous. All human beings have equal rights under the law. Period. If you don't like it move to a country where discrimination is allowed -- like Iran.
It is fine for Christians to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. However, it is infringement if Christians try to ban other religions and appropriate officials from performing these ceremonies for gay couples.
Well, I sorta see the approach you're using, but the argument doesn't really fit. If the government compelled christians to be homosexual, that would be violating their right to their religious belief that it's immoral. Nobody's making them be gay. But nobody's religious beliefs entitles them to impose those beliefs on others.
I know what you're saying.
We still lock up child molesters, but I guess eventually we'll be forced to let THEM pastor our churches when the libs decide that their crimes are really just "alternative" lifestyles.
Christianity and the Bible are the only things left in America keeping the libs from taking every freedom we have from us, no thanks to the special interest groups (ie. the ACLU).
Hate the sin, love the sinner. A gay person is still a child of God. Christians are to live in Christ's image--and be as Christ-like as possible. You may not agree with a person's choice as to how to live their life; but persecuting (or discriminating against them) is not the way to go about getting the word of God out there.
Use your faith to set an example on how fulfilling life is with Christ as your leader.
Just because we have freedom of speech doesn't mean that we should always use it to spread hate.
Christians can say that homosexuality is immoral.
Jesus also taught that we were to love everyone. To hate the sin and love the sinner.
Just because you accept someone who is gay doesn't mean that you condone their lifestyle. It means that you accept them as a human being. You can still reserve your right to think that what they are doing is wrong.
God loves everyone, and we are all sinners and unworthy, compared to His holiness.
I agree with the first question....what are you talking about?
You know, this is a really unique approach to an otherwise boring question! It doesn't make much sense, but it is creative all the same. Do you know something the rest of us don't ? Because laws don't ever deny ability, they deny action or force action. They cannot govern ability.Christians, or any other group for that matter, still have the right to not approve of the practice of homosexuality in their midst. Did you know that heterosexual acts have also come under fire for public portrayal? Did you read about the heterosexual couple charged under the homeland security act for being too sexual on a plane?
Have you read the first amendment? Or have you just heard like everyone that it's about freedom of speech? You really should read it. Use the link I am providing, read the amendment and then keep reading to understand the inherent principles at work there. Then, look at your question and see if it still makes any kind of coherent sense to you. And don't give up thinking creatively just because some of your initial ideas don't really pan out!! Creative problem solving is a gift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/first_amend...
Christians can "believe" anything they want. They just cannot take action on those beliefs if that action interferes with the rights of another.
I personally think most Christians are immoral but I don't discriminate against them...I just ignore them.
Americans have the right to freedom of speech. Doesn't matter if they are gay, christians or even gay christians. However being a christian discrimination is against the rules. See that falls into thy shall not judge other catogory. ONLY God had the right to judge.
Being a Christian does not give you the "get out of jail free" card when it comes to discrimination. God says to us, Love others as I have loved you, love others. You may not agree with homosexual lifestyle of another person, but you are not given the right to discriminate. God loves everyone because He made everyone. Let those who have no sins cast the first stone.
I'm assuming you have no sins...though very unlikely
If I am showing a person what the Bible (which Christians hold as the standard for living) says about "being in the life"
that's my freedom of religion; however if i tell someone that they're going to blazes for that lifestyle, it's a hate crime.
That's not discrimination.
Is denying Christians the ability to discrimination an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment rights?
Answers:
What she is talking about is the new bill on the floor that will guaranty jail time and or a hefty fine who involves themselves in "Hate Speech." So, if you are a practicing Christian and attend church and your pastor or priest reads from the Holy Bible a verse or two about homosexuality being an abonimation against God (Leviticus or Romans), he or she will go to jail.
To this I say, the socialist democrats strike again! The Contitution guarantees "Freedom of Speech." It does not say only if it doesn't offend some liberal piece of crap who has no moral decency, compass or a brain in his or her God given head!
Please notice how little attention the liberal news media has given this bill. Like lambs to the slaughter folks. Lambs to the slaugher.
I am a Christian and trying to figure out what on earth you are saying???
What about the rights of Gays don't they have the right to love who they love?
Your right to free speech ends when it infringes on the rights of others to realize their Constitutional rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Many Christians aren't just voicing opinions, they are working to legislate discrimination. What about equal protection under the law? That's a Constitutional amendment, too!
No, it isn't any more than not being able to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater without getting arrested is an infringement on your First Amendment rights to free speech.
I am Christian and i don't ever discriminate against gays.i will never believe it's ok and right.but i cannot love people any less for the sins they commit because we all commit sins.."he who does not sin cast the first stone".simple as that...if u people discriminate against anyone particular group they r not being Christian in the least..
No.
If all religious beliefs and practices were exempt from the law, people could ignore just about every law out there.
Christianity may command Christians not to be gay, but it doesn't command them to discriminate against gays. If you think homosexuality is immoral, don't do it. Leave everyone else alone.
Ridiculous. All human beings have equal rights under the law. Period. If you don't like it move to a country where discrimination is allowed -- like Iran.
It is fine for Christians to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. However, it is infringement if Christians try to ban other religions and appropriate officials from performing these ceremonies for gay couples.
Well, I sorta see the approach you're using, but the argument doesn't really fit. If the government compelled christians to be homosexual, that would be violating their right to their religious belief that it's immoral. Nobody's making them be gay. But nobody's religious beliefs entitles them to impose those beliefs on others.
I know what you're saying.
We still lock up child molesters, but I guess eventually we'll be forced to let THEM pastor our churches when the libs decide that their crimes are really just "alternative" lifestyles.
Christianity and the Bible are the only things left in America keeping the libs from taking every freedom we have from us, no thanks to the special interest groups (ie. the ACLU).
Hate the sin, love the sinner. A gay person is still a child of God. Christians are to live in Christ's image--and be as Christ-like as possible. You may not agree with a person's choice as to how to live their life; but persecuting (or discriminating against them) is not the way to go about getting the word of God out there.
Use your faith to set an example on how fulfilling life is with Christ as your leader.
Just because we have freedom of speech doesn't mean that we should always use it to spread hate.
Christians can say that homosexuality is immoral.
Jesus also taught that we were to love everyone. To hate the sin and love the sinner.
Just because you accept someone who is gay doesn't mean that you condone their lifestyle. It means that you accept them as a human being. You can still reserve your right to think that what they are doing is wrong.
God loves everyone, and we are all sinners and unworthy, compared to His holiness.
I agree with the first question....what are you talking about?
You know, this is a really unique approach to an otherwise boring question! It doesn't make much sense, but it is creative all the same. Do you know something the rest of us don't ? Because laws don't ever deny ability, they deny action or force action. They cannot govern ability.Christians, or any other group for that matter, still have the right to not approve of the practice of homosexuality in their midst. Did you know that heterosexual acts have also come under fire for public portrayal? Did you read about the heterosexual couple charged under the homeland security act for being too sexual on a plane?
Have you read the first amendment? Or have you just heard like everyone that it's about freedom of speech? You really should read it. Use the link I am providing, read the amendment and then keep reading to understand the inherent principles at work there. Then, look at your question and see if it still makes any kind of coherent sense to you. And don't give up thinking creatively just because some of your initial ideas don't really pan out!! Creative problem solving is a gift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/first_amend...
Christians can "believe" anything they want. They just cannot take action on those beliefs if that action interferes with the rights of another.
I personally think most Christians are immoral but I don't discriminate against them...I just ignore them.
Americans have the right to freedom of speech. Doesn't matter if they are gay, christians or even gay christians. However being a christian discrimination is against the rules. See that falls into thy shall not judge other catogory. ONLY God had the right to judge.
Being a Christian does not give you the "get out of jail free" card when it comes to discrimination. God says to us, Love others as I have loved you, love others. You may not agree with homosexual lifestyle of another person, but you are not given the right to discriminate. God loves everyone because He made everyone. Let those who have no sins cast the first stone.
I'm assuming you have no sins...though very unlikely
If I am showing a person what the Bible (which Christians hold as the standard for living) says about "being in the life"
that's my freedom of religion; however if i tell someone that they're going to blazes for that lifestyle, it's a hate crime.
That's not discrimination.
Denied rights to see my nephew by my sister..what can i do?
I have a nephew who is 5 yrs oldand since his premature birth my mother and I were the ones who stayed in the hospital with him 3 months after he was born and has raised him in our home for the past 5 years while his mother was running around drugged up. Recently my sister became involved with this pathetic person fresh out of prison and ever since he was able to recover his son from a crack house she wants to play mommy now and make my nephew stay with her. We have never had a problem with her spending time with her son or taking her son to her house but The way they speak to my nephew is just not right for 5 yr old to be listening to. They will call him a sissy, stupid and an asshole and literally scream at him at the top of their lungs. She also hits him like he is grown man..fully slapping him in his mouth if he says what his little heart feels. I need help, anyone's help right now, If someone knows what actions his grandmother and i can take to see him, it would be appreciated.
Answers:
Call the Children's Aid Society and report abuse. They will investigate and probably remove the child from the home. Then you and your mother can fight for custody of the child. Your doing the right thing and who knows what this guy is going to be like when he gets out of prison?? Your nephew will probably thank you for this. It's not fair that his life should be ruined just because there's is. Nice to see people who are concerned, fight for him he'll thank you for it.
First thing first, you have no legal right to withhold the child from it's mother. Also, your post is not clear as to the legal relationship between the man and the child.
Now, that being said, to correctly advise you I would need to know the state and preferably the city/county in which you reside.
EDITED BASED ON ADDITIONAL FACTS:
O.K. now that I know more about your situation here is what I advise. While it is not necessary to hire an attorney, it would be advantageous to your situation.
First, one of you needs to decide who will file the necessary actions. Both of you cannot be guardian.
Next, file a petition for guardianship where the mother lives. Your grounds are psychological parentage and physical abuse.
Pray the court appoint a guardian ad litum for the child. Then call CHild Protective services and file a complaint of abuse against the child.
In concert with the guardianship petition, the both parties should file for visitation, again based on the psychological parentage.
If nothing else, a petition to seek the court take jurisdiction over the child until such time as a home study and final determination can be made regarding the mother and her living conditions. In the worst case scenario, you can file for adoption and a concurrent termination of parental rights for her abandonment however, since she is not in the picture, that probably won't fly.
I would strongly suggest a consultation with a local (where she lives) family law attorney.
i would say take her to court.if she hits him like that then call the cops if u can take pics of him if he has any bruise that would work or call children's services and let them help any way u do it u need to get that kid away from your sis
Why haven't you reported this to your local agency that watches over children and their welfare? (Some places call it Department of Children and Familes but I think you get the idea.) And I would also call the police and get a record made of this.
Lets start with this...do not withhold the child from his mother. Winning a case is alot harder from jail. Contact a laywer, or if you cant afford to hire one, legal aid in your state. The courses you can take are
-Have his birthmother and Father declared unfit. If the man he lives with now is not his birth father, he has no claim over him what so ever.
-Say he should live with you beacuse you can provide him better medical attention, then prove it
-Say that living with his mom is dangerous to his health. If they smoke, you could win that in a heart beat. Even if they dont, if he was a premie then he probally has medical problems to consider.
-If all else fails, say the mother is abusive and call child protective services on her. Have the little boy testify at the trial if need be but try to avoid it at all costs.
Good luck, i hope this helps.
Answers:
Call the Children's Aid Society and report abuse. They will investigate and probably remove the child from the home. Then you and your mother can fight for custody of the child. Your doing the right thing and who knows what this guy is going to be like when he gets out of prison?? Your nephew will probably thank you for this. It's not fair that his life should be ruined just because there's is. Nice to see people who are concerned, fight for him he'll thank you for it.
First thing first, you have no legal right to withhold the child from it's mother. Also, your post is not clear as to the legal relationship between the man and the child.
Now, that being said, to correctly advise you I would need to know the state and preferably the city/county in which you reside.
EDITED BASED ON ADDITIONAL FACTS:
O.K. now that I know more about your situation here is what I advise. While it is not necessary to hire an attorney, it would be advantageous to your situation.
First, one of you needs to decide who will file the necessary actions. Both of you cannot be guardian.
Next, file a petition for guardianship where the mother lives. Your grounds are psychological parentage and physical abuse.
Pray the court appoint a guardian ad litum for the child. Then call CHild Protective services and file a complaint of abuse against the child.
In concert with the guardianship petition, the both parties should file for visitation, again based on the psychological parentage.
If nothing else, a petition to seek the court take jurisdiction over the child until such time as a home study and final determination can be made regarding the mother and her living conditions. In the worst case scenario, you can file for adoption and a concurrent termination of parental rights for her abandonment however, since she is not in the picture, that probably won't fly.
I would strongly suggest a consultation with a local (where she lives) family law attorney.
i would say take her to court.if she hits him like that then call the cops if u can take pics of him if he has any bruise that would work or call children's services and let them help any way u do it u need to get that kid away from your sis
Why haven't you reported this to your local agency that watches over children and their welfare? (Some places call it Department of Children and Familes but I think you get the idea.) And I would also call the police and get a record made of this.
Lets start with this...do not withhold the child from his mother. Winning a case is alot harder from jail. Contact a laywer, or if you cant afford to hire one, legal aid in your state. The courses you can take are
-Have his birthmother and Father declared unfit. If the man he lives with now is not his birth father, he has no claim over him what so ever.
-Say he should live with you beacuse you can provide him better medical attention, then prove it
-Say that living with his mom is dangerous to his health. If they smoke, you could win that in a heart beat. Even if they dont, if he was a premie then he probally has medical problems to consider.
-If all else fails, say the mother is abusive and call child protective services on her. Have the little boy testify at the trial if need be but try to avoid it at all costs.
Good luck, i hope this helps.
Denied for unemployment how can i appeal?
I was fired for missing too many days, due to morning sickness. they fired me just after i started to show so now theres no way anyone will hire me i even had a lady look at my stomach and laugh as she took my application
okay enough crying... i was only denied bc there is a high demand for security officers (what i was doing) with my background (Military).
I have the appeal form but i don't think just putting down that i have a belly will do the trick... what do you think?
also i never actually missed a day i was sent home bc i looked to sick to work although it's a little late to be arguing that point
Answers:
That really, really sucks,
Generally, under current federal law, an employer shouldn't ask job applicants if they are pregnant; a job seeker also is not required to inform an employer of her pregnancy, legal experts say. An employer also can't force a pregnant woman to take time off during her pregnancy or force her to quit because of fears the work may be hazardous to her or her fetus. Employees who go on maternity leave must generally get the same treatment as other employees with disabilities or time off.
State laws are usually even more strict. You might want to talk to a lawyer.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/...
You were fired for cause...you are ineligible for benefits.
go to the labor board and complain about your previous employer...that is some pretty harsh treatment...
Go to the state labor board and file a complaint against your former employer, or talk to a lawyer. It's illegal to harrass a pregnant female. What city are you from. Laws are different between states, and it helps us more if you told us that much. It's a federal law. Some family or something act. Its suppose to be posted at work. The courts are very friendly towards a pregnant woman. Lawyers love these kinds of cases.
It depends. Was your employer aware that you were pregnant? And can you prove that their treatment of you worsened after they were notified? If so, then you could have a case for constructive dismissal or discrimination on the grounds of you being pregnant. Anyhow, easier said than done, but cheer up, it's not the end of the world, and congratulations.
If you're sick too much, you're sick too much. This wasn't because you are pregnant but because you were sick from it, big difference.
You have absolutely no cause to collect unemployment. You were fired due to your own choices and you can't find another job due to your own choices. It isn't up to the rest of us to support you during your pregnancy.
I'm so sorry..that is crappy of them!
I would go into a search mode for a dark blue or black jacket type of pantsuit that is large enough to hide what you have till you are hired.
It is possible to do this. You can hide alot under a jacket type pant suit %26 dont button it. Be creative and try on a ruffle white smock/ blouse and let it hang out just underneath the jacket that matches your maternity pants or a mid length business type skirt.
Pull your hairup and some small earrings %26 matching necklace to draw the eyes up to your face and not other areas.
Carry a big shoulder strap purse, let it hand off to one side that comes up enough to hide belly from side.
Get one of those plastic files in your hand that put in your resumes and information you would normally carry with you to an interview or seeking employment.Carry it in front of you to help with the coverup and it also keeps your hands busy. When you set down situp and keep the file in your lap up leaning against your abdomen. I hope you are getting the picture here..
Don't tell them or offer that information on your own that you are pregnant when seeking employment. You are looking for a long term career with the company, and you believe your skills would benefit the company
I don't know the answer to your question about unemployment, but I would surely try finding work at a baby store somewhere. What better sales person to have than a soon to be mommy herself.
Also I would go directly to the unemployment office in your area in person before filing this again. Find out what they recommend you do now that you have a military background and expecting a child with no job or money coming in.
What is a female military vet to do?
I am laid off too and people I have talked to all over are getting fired for anything that H.R can find on them.Now the company I was laid off of is telling their employees that they can not speak, look or talk to anyone. They must ask permission from there lead to use the restroom and all must turn in another resume. They are building and building onto the stress of the employees to get them to quit so they will not have to pay severence pay and unemployment.
Good Luck and Let us Know What Happens! I'll be watching for your Posts. :0)
Missing work is just cause and besides your state is an "at will" state meaning they can fire you at anytime for any reason. Now talk to your Doctor about him putting you on disability early then can get you some income.
okay enough crying... i was only denied bc there is a high demand for security officers (what i was doing) with my background (Military).
I have the appeal form but i don't think just putting down that i have a belly will do the trick... what do you think?
also i never actually missed a day i was sent home bc i looked to sick to work although it's a little late to be arguing that point
Answers:
That really, really sucks,
Generally, under current federal law, an employer shouldn't ask job applicants if they are pregnant; a job seeker also is not required to inform an employer of her pregnancy, legal experts say. An employer also can't force a pregnant woman to take time off during her pregnancy or force her to quit because of fears the work may be hazardous to her or her fetus. Employees who go on maternity leave must generally get the same treatment as other employees with disabilities or time off.
State laws are usually even more strict. You might want to talk to a lawyer.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/...
You were fired for cause...you are ineligible for benefits.
go to the labor board and complain about your previous employer...that is some pretty harsh treatment...
Go to the state labor board and file a complaint against your former employer, or talk to a lawyer. It's illegal to harrass a pregnant female. What city are you from. Laws are different between states, and it helps us more if you told us that much. It's a federal law. Some family or something act. Its suppose to be posted at work. The courts are very friendly towards a pregnant woman. Lawyers love these kinds of cases.
It depends. Was your employer aware that you were pregnant? And can you prove that their treatment of you worsened after they were notified? If so, then you could have a case for constructive dismissal or discrimination on the grounds of you being pregnant. Anyhow, easier said than done, but cheer up, it's not the end of the world, and congratulations.
If you're sick too much, you're sick too much. This wasn't because you are pregnant but because you were sick from it, big difference.
You have absolutely no cause to collect unemployment. You were fired due to your own choices and you can't find another job due to your own choices. It isn't up to the rest of us to support you during your pregnancy.
I'm so sorry..that is crappy of them!
I would go into a search mode for a dark blue or black jacket type of pantsuit that is large enough to hide what you have till you are hired.
It is possible to do this. You can hide alot under a jacket type pant suit %26 dont button it. Be creative and try on a ruffle white smock/ blouse and let it hang out just underneath the jacket that matches your maternity pants or a mid length business type skirt.
Pull your hairup and some small earrings %26 matching necklace to draw the eyes up to your face and not other areas.
Carry a big shoulder strap purse, let it hand off to one side that comes up enough to hide belly from side.
Get one of those plastic files in your hand that put in your resumes and information you would normally carry with you to an interview or seeking employment.Carry it in front of you to help with the coverup and it also keeps your hands busy. When you set down situp and keep the file in your lap up leaning against your abdomen. I hope you are getting the picture here..
Don't tell them or offer that information on your own that you are pregnant when seeking employment. You are looking for a long term career with the company, and you believe your skills would benefit the company
I don't know the answer to your question about unemployment, but I would surely try finding work at a baby store somewhere. What better sales person to have than a soon to be mommy herself.
Also I would go directly to the unemployment office in your area in person before filing this again. Find out what they recommend you do now that you have a military background and expecting a child with no job or money coming in.
What is a female military vet to do?
I am laid off too and people I have talked to all over are getting fired for anything that H.R can find on them.Now the company I was laid off of is telling their employees that they can not speak, look or talk to anyone. They must ask permission from there lead to use the restroom and all must turn in another resume. They are building and building onto the stress of the employees to get them to quit so they will not have to pay severence pay and unemployment.
Good Luck and Let us Know What Happens! I'll be watching for your Posts. :0)
Missing work is just cause and besides your state is an "at will" state meaning they can fire you at anytime for any reason. Now talk to your Doctor about him putting you on disability early then can get you some income.
Denied consideration for a job because I can't speak spanish?
I just applied for a job in a regional steak house chain location in Dalton Ga. But the manager, told me that even though I was well qualified for the job, couldn't consider hiring me because his entire kitchen staff spoke Spanish only, and because I don't speak spanish, I couldn't work there. The manager admitted he didn't know but two words of Spanish himself. Now, I'm just a Caucasian American guy who was born near here. and I've never seen this before! He interviewed a Mexican guy before me, who couldn't speak English, ( I'm not making this up, I swear!) " I almost hired him.." the manager said, "but he didn't have a social security card". Is there something wrong with this picture? I don't think I'm being prejudiced, but I'm really upset. Can it be that they don't have to learn English to come to America to work, but I, an American citizen, has to learn their language to work with them?
Answers:
Sorry, but language skills are not a protected class, therefore someone can be discriminated against for not being able to speak the appropriate language. Furthermore, the US does not have an "official" language (and some localities have even passed ordinances approving of two or more "official" languages--Spanish almost always being one of them).
Not to offend you, but it doesn't sound as though you were qualified for the job. If everyone speaks Spanish, how do you expect to communicate with them if you cannot speak Spanish. Think of this analogy: if you were applying to be a secretary in a deaf-rights lobbying firm. Everyone in the office speaks ASL (American Sign Language) and no one speaks English. Would you consider yourself qualified for that job?
And guess what, by not being a member of the minority, grab your ankles...
Well, it IS the employers decision on who to hire. You just have to understand that what the manager is speaking ("I want someone who speak spanish") isn't exactly what he means ("I want someone who will work long hours for crappy pay").
I had almost the same thing happen. I was working for a temp agency after I retired out of the Army, and a very high pay position opened up. When I didn't get it, the temp agency coordinator said "They said they wanted someone with a British accent [this position is in Texas, for chrissakes] because most of their business is done in Europe". I replied to her: "You mean, I'm not a 17 year old girl with big ****, right?".she just nodded.
While it may suck for you, unfortunately you just weren't qualified. Sorry and better luck next time.
I feel you. I wish you could mention the name of the steak house without fear of repercussions, because I would boycott them.
I really agree with you and yes I would consider that prejudice. I'm not a prejudice person either, but i do believe that the English language should be taught to them instead of non speaking Spanish people learning their language. Are you sure they are legal?
Unfortunately, you don't meet the needs of that employer.
That said, I'd be tempted to call the local Department of Immigration and Naturalization Service and report that restaurant as potentially employing a lot of illegal aliens. Legal immigrants would likely have learned to speak at least some English before they were naturalized. If none of the workers speak English, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that they have fake IDs and SSNs and 90% of them are illegal.
I know your telling the truth, I see that happening in the city I live in too. This is called 'reverse discrimination', file it, and sue the guy. This is a prime example of exactly what is happening already and is only going to get worse, if some thing is not done to stop Congress now!
Well, if you can't communicate with your fellow workers, how are you going to function in the job? The manager wants someone who will be able to communicate with the other workers.
Low-skilled jobs are often filled by people from other cultures, because the locals (in your case English-speaking) get the better jobs. So if you want a job where you can speak to your co-workers, you need to look higher up the chain. Or else learn Spanish.
Why not contact the local newspaper and share your story?
I'm certain the citizens of Dalton would be very interested.
Maybe they will boycott the restaurant.
I hope so.
I'm willing to bet that most of the kitchen staff are illegal aliens with false documentation. It is very common in Dallas area restaurants.
Call the INS and ask them to investigate the restaurant and the manager.
.
Wow...this sucks for you. It's a true case of a double standard - unfortunately because the crew was hispanic and spoke spanish - he needs someone who can speak spanish - point understood.
However - I guess I would question why this manager even bothered interviewing you - knowing he was looking for someone bilingual.
I totally understand why you're upset - this is very frustrating.
You have every right to be upset! Unfortunately there really isn't anything you can do at this time.
Good luck to you!
Please, calm down!!
This is not unusual at all. Many companies that are located in an area where the population speaks a native language require their employees to speak that language.
Many companies require their new hires to have a second language.
If the restaurant is located in an area where there is a high Hispanic population and most of the employees speak Spanish it is perfectly fine if he requires new hires to speak it too.
Quit crying and go find another job in another neighborhood.
You should try a restaurant is South Philadelphia where if you don't speak Italian, you can barely order dinner off the menu.
Get over it.
Answers:
Sorry, but language skills are not a protected class, therefore someone can be discriminated against for not being able to speak the appropriate language. Furthermore, the US does not have an "official" language (and some localities have even passed ordinances approving of two or more "official" languages--Spanish almost always being one of them).
Not to offend you, but it doesn't sound as though you were qualified for the job. If everyone speaks Spanish, how do you expect to communicate with them if you cannot speak Spanish. Think of this analogy: if you were applying to be a secretary in a deaf-rights lobbying firm. Everyone in the office speaks ASL (American Sign Language) and no one speaks English. Would you consider yourself qualified for that job?
And guess what, by not being a member of the minority, grab your ankles...
Well, it IS the employers decision on who to hire. You just have to understand that what the manager is speaking ("I want someone who speak spanish") isn't exactly what he means ("I want someone who will work long hours for crappy pay").
I had almost the same thing happen. I was working for a temp agency after I retired out of the Army, and a very high pay position opened up. When I didn't get it, the temp agency coordinator said "They said they wanted someone with a British accent [this position is in Texas, for chrissakes] because most of their business is done in Europe". I replied to her: "You mean, I'm not a 17 year old girl with big ****, right?".she just nodded.
While it may suck for you, unfortunately you just weren't qualified. Sorry and better luck next time.
I feel you. I wish you could mention the name of the steak house without fear of repercussions, because I would boycott them.
I really agree with you and yes I would consider that prejudice. I'm not a prejudice person either, but i do believe that the English language should be taught to them instead of non speaking Spanish people learning their language. Are you sure they are legal?
Unfortunately, you don't meet the needs of that employer.
That said, I'd be tempted to call the local Department of Immigration and Naturalization Service and report that restaurant as potentially employing a lot of illegal aliens. Legal immigrants would likely have learned to speak at least some English before they were naturalized. If none of the workers speak English, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that they have fake IDs and SSNs and 90% of them are illegal.
I know your telling the truth, I see that happening in the city I live in too. This is called 'reverse discrimination', file it, and sue the guy. This is a prime example of exactly what is happening already and is only going to get worse, if some thing is not done to stop Congress now!
Well, if you can't communicate with your fellow workers, how are you going to function in the job? The manager wants someone who will be able to communicate with the other workers.
Low-skilled jobs are often filled by people from other cultures, because the locals (in your case English-speaking) get the better jobs. So if you want a job where you can speak to your co-workers, you need to look higher up the chain. Or else learn Spanish.
Why not contact the local newspaper and share your story?
I'm certain the citizens of Dalton would be very interested.
Maybe they will boycott the restaurant.
I hope so.
I'm willing to bet that most of the kitchen staff are illegal aliens with false documentation. It is very common in Dallas area restaurants.
Call the INS and ask them to investigate the restaurant and the manager.
.
Wow...this sucks for you. It's a true case of a double standard - unfortunately because the crew was hispanic and spoke spanish - he needs someone who can speak spanish - point understood.
However - I guess I would question why this manager even bothered interviewing you - knowing he was looking for someone bilingual.
I totally understand why you're upset - this is very frustrating.
You have every right to be upset! Unfortunately there really isn't anything you can do at this time.
Good luck to you!
Please, calm down!!
This is not unusual at all. Many companies that are located in an area where the population speaks a native language require their employees to speak that language.
Many companies require their new hires to have a second language.
If the restaurant is located in an area where there is a high Hispanic population and most of the employees speak Spanish it is perfectly fine if he requires new hires to speak it too.
Quit crying and go find another job in another neighborhood.
You should try a restaurant is South Philadelphia where if you don't speak Italian, you can barely order dinner off the menu.
Get over it.
Demoted after being told I was temp, wasn't told I was temp!!?
I have been working for the company (river island) for 2 years.
One month ago I was promoted from level 1 to level 2 supervisor and tool on the exra shift.
Now I have been told by the new managers that it was only temporary.
I was never told this, I have not visited my family for months so I can gain supervisory experience, as my work is at the weekend.
Now I am being replaced, I have been demoted back to level 1 with a pay drop also. I am still expected to work the same hours despite me not having worked them before I started the level 2/supervisor episode.
Am I within my rights to refuse with one days notice (I only found out thursday, I am due to work the weekend but back at level 1.)
This feels unfair and I feel walked over, my managers wont speak to me as they are buisy learning the ropes.
They think all the 1 year plus staff are theives as retail has a bad reputation, they dont say this outloud. I am not a thief but feel this is why they have done what they did to me.
Answers:
It seems very unfair what's happened to you. There must be a way for you to fight this decision but is it worth all the agro and heartache? Proving anything is an uphill struggle when it's one persons word against anothers.
What I would do if I was in your boots would be to find another job asap. You've got over 2 years experience working for the same company, plus you've got supervisor experience even if it was only a 'temporary' position. You can do better than working for a company which clearly doesn't value its employees.
Get applying for as many supervisor and trainee/assistant manager positions as you can find. You've nothing to lose but everything to gain.
I would talk to a attorney.The first visit is usually free.The attorney will know about the law in your case.i would say you have a case.
there taking the mick out of you a job done the same before i didnt go back in to work the next day they said i left them in the lerch but i said no you cant take my position away
Hi there.
So sorry to hear of your predicament.
You should check your contract and find out the actual details. (If you were promoted, you should have been offered to sign a new contract.)
As far as I'm aware, you have the right refuse one day's notice. If it is true, and you weren't made aware of the position being temporary, then you DO have the right to claim unfair dismissal. You can check this at any Citizen's Advice Bureau, or at River Island's HO.
Good luck :)
This is the capitalist practise that we all have to deal with. Just do it as you need to pay your rent and things and meanwhile apply for a new job and as soon as you get one, tell them that you are leaving. And leave. But expect no better from employers anywhere. It is a use use use type situation. When they need you they are nice to you and when they finish they want to sack you. Like who**ng without the pleasure.
They can demote you to street level if they want. They cannot, however, raise your pay and then lower it again without written agreements, contracts, rules in the handbook, etc. If they demote you, they have to pay you the same unless they can demonstrate incompetence, negligence, etc.
This is an odd situation, and you are certainly able to refuse to work the shift, but the employer can also refuse to offer you continued employment if you don't accept the conditions under which they are offering it.
I would try to find out from the person who was your boss when you were a supervisor whether you were viewed as a good performer or not. A performance review might also give you this info.
I'm also confused if you were promoted a month ago since you stated that you haven't seen your family for "months" because you were trying to gain supervisory experience.
At any rate, your experience may be more marketable at another company that it is within your own - it may be time to consider making a change.
Good luck.
I do not know what Country you are in, but in the UK, and I am sure this is the same in the US, where you work for any company for 2 years or more, even dead on the 2 years or one day over, and regardless of whether you are permanent or a temp, you are deemed as a permanent member of staff, with full and due entitlement to all benefits and considerations enjoyed by permanent staff.
They seen to have you as a sucker get out asap find another job first and see a solicitor
That is the choice because it is a case of like it or lump it
Check your contract of employment, get in touch with ACAS or get advice from citizens advice. Ask for a copy of the grievance procedure and make your issues known to your employer the correct way. Citizens advice can help you with this as they have employment law specialists available. Good luck.
One month ago I was promoted from level 1 to level 2 supervisor and tool on the exra shift.
Now I have been told by the new managers that it was only temporary.
I was never told this, I have not visited my family for months so I can gain supervisory experience, as my work is at the weekend.
Now I am being replaced, I have been demoted back to level 1 with a pay drop also. I am still expected to work the same hours despite me not having worked them before I started the level 2/supervisor episode.
Am I within my rights to refuse with one days notice (I only found out thursday, I am due to work the weekend but back at level 1.)
This feels unfair and I feel walked over, my managers wont speak to me as they are buisy learning the ropes.
They think all the 1 year plus staff are theives as retail has a bad reputation, they dont say this outloud. I am not a thief but feel this is why they have done what they did to me.
Answers:
It seems very unfair what's happened to you. There must be a way for you to fight this decision but is it worth all the agro and heartache? Proving anything is an uphill struggle when it's one persons word against anothers.
What I would do if I was in your boots would be to find another job asap. You've got over 2 years experience working for the same company, plus you've got supervisor experience even if it was only a 'temporary' position. You can do better than working for a company which clearly doesn't value its employees.
Get applying for as many supervisor and trainee/assistant manager positions as you can find. You've nothing to lose but everything to gain.
I would talk to a attorney.The first visit is usually free.The attorney will know about the law in your case.i would say you have a case.
there taking the mick out of you a job done the same before i didnt go back in to work the next day they said i left them in the lerch but i said no you cant take my position away
Hi there.
So sorry to hear of your predicament.
You should check your contract and find out the actual details. (If you were promoted, you should have been offered to sign a new contract.)
As far as I'm aware, you have the right refuse one day's notice. If it is true, and you weren't made aware of the position being temporary, then you DO have the right to claim unfair dismissal. You can check this at any Citizen's Advice Bureau, or at River Island's HO.
Good luck :)
This is the capitalist practise that we all have to deal with. Just do it as you need to pay your rent and things and meanwhile apply for a new job and as soon as you get one, tell them that you are leaving. And leave. But expect no better from employers anywhere. It is a use use use type situation. When they need you they are nice to you and when they finish they want to sack you. Like who**ng without the pleasure.
They can demote you to street level if they want. They cannot, however, raise your pay and then lower it again without written agreements, contracts, rules in the handbook, etc. If they demote you, they have to pay you the same unless they can demonstrate incompetence, negligence, etc.
This is an odd situation, and you are certainly able to refuse to work the shift, but the employer can also refuse to offer you continued employment if you don't accept the conditions under which they are offering it.
I would try to find out from the person who was your boss when you were a supervisor whether you were viewed as a good performer or not. A performance review might also give you this info.
I'm also confused if you were promoted a month ago since you stated that you haven't seen your family for "months" because you were trying to gain supervisory experience.
At any rate, your experience may be more marketable at another company that it is within your own - it may be time to consider making a change.
Good luck.
I do not know what Country you are in, but in the UK, and I am sure this is the same in the US, where you work for any company for 2 years or more, even dead on the 2 years or one day over, and regardless of whether you are permanent or a temp, you are deemed as a permanent member of staff, with full and due entitlement to all benefits and considerations enjoyed by permanent staff.
They seen to have you as a sucker get out asap find another job first and see a solicitor
That is the choice because it is a case of like it or lump it
Check your contract of employment, get in touch with ACAS or get advice from citizens advice. Ask for a copy of the grievance procedure and make your issues known to your employer the correct way. Citizens advice can help you with this as they have employment law specialists available. Good luck.
Democracy, can it be improved?
Rule of the people by the people.
Now that we can set up referendum programmes by internet, shouldn't politicians/governments seek more consent from the public before introducing new legislation and other important matters which affect our lives......like going to war.
Answers:
YES! We elect politicians based on the expectation that they shall represent our views in their decisions. Naturally, two immediate problems result from this:
(a) politicians nowadays seek prestige/power over the good of the people
(b) many voters aren't as informed as they should and could be
Online referendums won't work. Why? Well, considering the sophistication of computer hackers nowadays, something's bound to go wrong. Moreover, anybody could log on and pretend to be American voicing his/her opinion, even some freaky terrorist guy with a laptop hiding in the mountains. Besides, what politician has the time to look at what some acne-stricken university student wrote on the Internet? I'm being extreme here, I know, but we have to look at the implications of these things before we put them into action.
A final note: democracies are fundamentally flawed in another war - the loudest voice gets heard. And we have to remember that the loudest voices aren't always the ones with the nation's best interests at heart, nor are they the most informed. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
Ideally, we wouldn't have politicians voting for us. Just the three levels of government: municipal (mayors), state (governors), and federal (the president). It would be a lot more efficient.
Only by making it mandatory to vote. I know the civil liberty advocates will quote your freedoms under your constitution.
Now that we can set up referendum programmes by internet, shouldn't politicians/governments seek more consent from the public before introducing new legislation and other important matters which affect our lives......like going to war.
Answers:
YES! We elect politicians based on the expectation that they shall represent our views in their decisions. Naturally, two immediate problems result from this:
(a) politicians nowadays seek prestige/power over the good of the people
(b) many voters aren't as informed as they should and could be
Online referendums won't work. Why? Well, considering the sophistication of computer hackers nowadays, something's bound to go wrong. Moreover, anybody could log on and pretend to be American voicing his/her opinion, even some freaky terrorist guy with a laptop hiding in the mountains. Besides, what politician has the time to look at what some acne-stricken university student wrote on the Internet? I'm being extreme here, I know, but we have to look at the implications of these things before we put them into action.
A final note: democracies are fundamentally flawed in another war - the loudest voice gets heard. And we have to remember that the loudest voices aren't always the ones with the nation's best interests at heart, nor are they the most informed. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
Ideally, we wouldn't have politicians voting for us. Just the three levels of government: municipal (mayors), state (governors), and federal (the president). It would be a lot more efficient.
Only by making it mandatory to vote. I know the civil liberty advocates will quote your freedoms under your constitution.
Delinquents?
The hypothesis that delinquents and criminals must be taught both practical and emotional skills necessary to partaken in illegal activities is known as _____________??
Answers:
NAturalization theory
voodoo
Rehabilitation.
Answers:
NAturalization theory
voodoo
Rehabilitation.
Deleted Question: Do Republicans label everyone who disagrees with them as Terrorists?
Question Details: yep if we ain't with the dim bulbs than we must be with them fictitious super human fire retardant 19 arabs that came back from the dead to blow up WTC 7.
Answers:
No. I am a "liberal" or "moderate" Republican, and many of my Republican friends say that I am not a REAL Republican because I am not a "conservative." I really give them a lot of fits. They say that I am a "Republican In Name Only" and have no right to call myself a Republican.
Nobody has called me a terrorist yet.
No I do not believe Republicans label anyone who disagrees with them a "Terrorists". I do believe that we need to watch somewhat what we say because we are in a war and that damages our country and our troops. The radical people that say terrible things against our troops and country are putting our troops at risk. This is exactly what the real terrorists of the world want us to do is to fall apart and become separated. The separation of our country will only cause defeat and loss of good men and women who are patriots. Go and look through history and she how our country has made it where we are by helping other. The French still honor our veterans from the first World War. When our men and women visit the memorials from World War I in France they are praised and thanked by the whole town because they couldn't believe that a American would leave his home and family to help them to be free. I feel we could learn a lesson by reading our history Little more. We need to unite no matter what our ideals my be we are in a war and we need to win for our countries sake and our troops sake!
Answers:
No. I am a "liberal" or "moderate" Republican, and many of my Republican friends say that I am not a REAL Republican because I am not a "conservative." I really give them a lot of fits. They say that I am a "Republican In Name Only" and have no right to call myself a Republican.
Nobody has called me a terrorist yet.
No I do not believe Republicans label anyone who disagrees with them a "Terrorists". I do believe that we need to watch somewhat what we say because we are in a war and that damages our country and our troops. The radical people that say terrible things against our troops and country are putting our troops at risk. This is exactly what the real terrorists of the world want us to do is to fall apart and become separated. The separation of our country will only cause defeat and loss of good men and women who are patriots. Go and look through history and she how our country has made it where we are by helping other. The French still honor our veterans from the first World War. When our men and women visit the memorials from World War I in France they are praised and thanked by the whole town because they couldn't believe that a American would leave his home and family to help them to be free. I feel we could learn a lesson by reading our history Little more. We need to unite no matter what our ideals my be we are in a war and we need to win for our countries sake and our troops sake!
Delegated legislation?
what is delegated legistration?can u all give me some examples related with construction industry?
Answers:
A law passed by Parliament/Congress sometimes allows a Minister/Secretary of State/Municipal Coucils to formulate legally binding rules. These 'rules' are made pursuant to powers 'delegated' to the person wielding the power.
An example in the construction industry is a Building Code.
I typed it in the search engine and found out all about it. Now it's your turn.
Answers:
A law passed by Parliament/Congress sometimes allows a Minister/Secretary of State/Municipal Coucils to formulate legally binding rules. These 'rules' are made pursuant to powers 'delegated' to the person wielding the power.
An example in the construction industry is a Building Code.
I typed it in the search engine and found out all about it. Now it's your turn.
Definition for Jurisdiction?
I need a 2-4 sentence definition for jurisdiction
Answers:
Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to decide matters based of geographic area, the nature of a complaint or offense, or the citizenship of the principals involved in the dispute or infraction. Jurisdiction can also apply to law enforcement organizations such as the police or government agencies who enforce specific areas of law.
Thats a long winded answer in my owns words. You could find a shorter more precise answer in a course book on law but it might not be 2 sentences.
1.Law The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.
2. Authority or control: islands under U.S. jurisdiction; a bureau with jurisdiction over Native American affairs.
The extent of authority or control: a family matter beyond the school's jurisdiction.
3.The territorial range of authority or control.
Jurisdiction - The territory within which legal power can be exercised
If you are talking about court jurisdiction then your teacher needs to be more specific.
Is he/she talking about subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction which are two completely different animals.
Answers:
Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to decide matters based of geographic area, the nature of a complaint or offense, or the citizenship of the principals involved in the dispute or infraction. Jurisdiction can also apply to law enforcement organizations such as the police or government agencies who enforce specific areas of law.
Thats a long winded answer in my owns words. You could find a shorter more precise answer in a course book on law but it might not be 2 sentences.
1.Law The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.
2. Authority or control: islands under U.S. jurisdiction; a bureau with jurisdiction over Native American affairs.
The extent of authority or control: a family matter beyond the school's jurisdiction.
3.The territorial range of authority or control.
Jurisdiction - The territory within which legal power can be exercised
If you are talking about court jurisdiction then your teacher needs to be more specific.
Is he/she talking about subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction which are two completely different animals.
Define DUAL AGENCY, and exemplify?
Answers:
Lets use real estate for the example.
When an agent lists a house for sale, he becomes the vendor's agent.
When another agent introduces a prospective purchaser to the property and that individual buys the house, then the agent that introduced the purchaser becomes the purchaser's agent.
If the agent that listed the house also found a purchaser for the home then that agent is acting for both the buyer and the seller and a dual agency is created.
I hope that helps
i would guess that would pertain to the art of cross dressing and or transvestism/transsexualism as if that ain't being a double agent i dint know what is %26gt; smile you re on candid camera !
Deferred adjudication probation?
i am on deferred adjudication probation which means if I don't get into trouble it goes off my record. I am having a hard time believing that they just throw the paperwork in the trash. Who does and who doesnt get to know about that part of my life?
Answers:
Your original ARREST will still be on record, as will your fingerprints. At the end of your probation, your case will be dismissed so you will have no CONVICTIONS. If anyone asks, you will have to tell them and explain the difference. I know some states allow you to get a record of convictions expunged after a few years, but I don't think you can ever expunge an arrest record. If you are a juvenile then your record will probably be sealed anyway, only a court order can unseal it.
It is a matter of public record!
Usually it means that you have not been convicted and should not be on your record, though the arrest will be. It won't be for the purposes of a check, except to police!
I imagine those records where a not-guilty or no finding issued would be kept according to the courts policy! Some records are put into storage and others are shredded! Depends entirely on your court system, or the law!
Some courts, for major charges, keep them forever!
There will be no record of a conviction and when you fill out a job application asking about convictions you can legally say no!
Answers:
Your original ARREST will still be on record, as will your fingerprints. At the end of your probation, your case will be dismissed so you will have no CONVICTIONS. If anyone asks, you will have to tell them and explain the difference. I know some states allow you to get a record of convictions expunged after a few years, but I don't think you can ever expunge an arrest record. If you are a juvenile then your record will probably be sealed anyway, only a court order can unseal it.
It is a matter of public record!
Usually it means that you have not been convicted and should not be on your record, though the arrest will be. It won't be for the purposes of a check, except to police!
I imagine those records where a not-guilty or no finding issued would be kept according to the courts policy! Some records are put into storage and others are shredded! Depends entirely on your court system, or the law!
Some courts, for major charges, keep them forever!
There will be no record of a conviction and when you fill out a job application asking about convictions you can legally say no!
Defamation?
I have had an allegation made about me at work that is totally untrue. it has been made by a person who repeadtedly make allegationsabout individuals. This allegation is particually nasty, can anyone give me advise on steps i can take.. Thanks
Answers:
without knowing what the allegation is it is hard to say. Although, you need to talk with the person at your work who handles the allegations. Explain to them that it is false and just be prepared to give your side of the story. Also, file harassment against them that way you have one against them too. Point out that they constantly do this type of thing with a lot of people. If you are union then I would talk to your union rep. If not, I would get an attorney ready to file or to represent you when it goes to the internal part. The attorney can be ready to file suit against the company if they would fire you.
If it represents anything sexual, you may be able to pursue sexual harassment charges. I would talk to your supervisor.
Report the matter to your Supervisor or Manager. He or She would probably call the person in for a disciplinary hearing and sort out the matter. If that doesn't work and the problem falls on deaf ears, you should open a case of Defamation of Character at your local police station.
First of all, as you have been told, without knowing the specific allegation there is no way to answer your question.
Secondly, even if the allegation rises to the level of sexual harrassment, you cannot sue the company without a "Right to sue" letter from the EEOC.
THe first step is to allow the company to mitigate the damages and to resolve the issue. If they do, then the matter, as far as the EEOC is concerned, is over.
Also, if the company does not resolve the issue, you still must have proof that the allegation is of such a nature to create a hostile work environment and that the company was complicit in the actions before any such lawsuit will be accepted.
An 'attorney will be ready to sue' is simply not correct. Most attorneys will not accept such a lawsuit without a large fee and proof that the case is winable.
Answers:
without knowing what the allegation is it is hard to say. Although, you need to talk with the person at your work who handles the allegations. Explain to them that it is false and just be prepared to give your side of the story. Also, file harassment against them that way you have one against them too. Point out that they constantly do this type of thing with a lot of people. If you are union then I would talk to your union rep. If not, I would get an attorney ready to file or to represent you when it goes to the internal part. The attorney can be ready to file suit against the company if they would fire you.
If it represents anything sexual, you may be able to pursue sexual harassment charges. I would talk to your supervisor.
Report the matter to your Supervisor or Manager. He or She would probably call the person in for a disciplinary hearing and sort out the matter. If that doesn't work and the problem falls on deaf ears, you should open a case of Defamation of Character at your local police station.
First of all, as you have been told, without knowing the specific allegation there is no way to answer your question.
Secondly, even if the allegation rises to the level of sexual harrassment, you cannot sue the company without a "Right to sue" letter from the EEOC.
THe first step is to allow the company to mitigate the damages and to resolve the issue. If they do, then the matter, as far as the EEOC is concerned, is over.
Also, if the company does not resolve the issue, you still must have proof that the allegation is of such a nature to create a hostile work environment and that the company was complicit in the actions before any such lawsuit will be accepted.
An 'attorney will be ready to sue' is simply not correct. Most attorneys will not accept such a lawsuit without a large fee and proof that the case is winable.
Defamation of Character Question?
I work in drug and alcohol counseling services as part of county human services. One of my duties is to assist with aftercare for the county jail. We have a religous based outreach group in our area which does work in the jail as well with ex-inmate. A new client of mine asked if she could continue her counseling (mandated by parole) with one of the leaders of this group (no formal education or licensure, not an actual counseling practice). The next week she came back saying that because she was not able to make one of the bible studies because of child care issues this individual went to my client's parole officer and employer stating that she had relapsed, when in fact she did not. I did some checking up and this org has some fairly extremist attitudes. Would this be a valid defamation issue, no one is looking at prosecuting but I would like her to have something to hold over this individual's head incase it happens again.
Answers:
Sounds more like an opinion then an affirmation of fact
Probably no case for defamation
Better than a defamation case, you can hold over this idiots head the fact that you're in a position to make recommendations that would terminate their ability to perform counseling at the county jail. In fact, I would do that anyway. They sound like a dangerous bunch and they need to be stopped before someone gets hurt.
Focus on the specific person as to whether she wants to continue with a group that would do this to her.
religion shows you care
First of all, it is not defamation, though it may be some other type of tort. 2d, as a drug counselor you should know better than to assume your client is telling the you truth. Suggest you investigate first %26 take any problems you discover to your supervisor.
No it is not defamation, nor is it slander. It is opinion.
What YOU need to do now for your client is to contact the parole officer and set the record straight.
Answers:
Sounds more like an opinion then an affirmation of fact
Probably no case for defamation
Better than a defamation case, you can hold over this idiots head the fact that you're in a position to make recommendations that would terminate their ability to perform counseling at the county jail. In fact, I would do that anyway. They sound like a dangerous bunch and they need to be stopped before someone gets hurt.
Focus on the specific person as to whether she wants to continue with a group that would do this to her.
religion shows you care
First of all, it is not defamation, though it may be some other type of tort. 2d, as a drug counselor you should know better than to assume your client is telling the you truth. Suggest you investigate first %26 take any problems you discover to your supervisor.
No it is not defamation, nor is it slander. It is opinion.
What YOU need to do now for your client is to contact the parole officer and set the record straight.
Declaration of trust?
if a declaration of trust was intended to be put in place, but was never signed and the couple have since split, would it stand in a court of law or woulld the property be split evenly ?
Answers:
Basic principles for a trust to exist have always been clarity and certainty. There are very important rules all designed to ensure the trustees have proper legal title and that the beneficiaries are clearly identified. If not done properly you'll have an incompletely constituted trust. I'm not sure if you are hoping that a trust can still be established despite some apparent lack of signature on what or where, or that it must automatically fail for whatever reason. If this lack of a signature is due to some fault outside the control of the settlor or trustees or if the trustee comes into possession of the trust property via the will of the deceased settlor as executor or trustee you might be able to save or establish a trust which had apparently not been properly constituted. After that the disposition of any property will follow the various rules of disposition, inheritance etc.
I think I would concur with ice to a certain extent. This sounds like the intention to execute an express trust. The absence of this does not exclude the possibility of a constructive trust or some other equitable interest.
This is a very complex area of law and is something that should be placed in the hands of a specialist equity and trusts solicitor.
Good luck
Answers:
Basic principles for a trust to exist have always been clarity and certainty. There are very important rules all designed to ensure the trustees have proper legal title and that the beneficiaries are clearly identified. If not done properly you'll have an incompletely constituted trust. I'm not sure if you are hoping that a trust can still be established despite some apparent lack of signature on what or where, or that it must automatically fail for whatever reason. If this lack of a signature is due to some fault outside the control of the settlor or trustees or if the trustee comes into possession of the trust property via the will of the deceased settlor as executor or trustee you might be able to save or establish a trust which had apparently not been properly constituted. After that the disposition of any property will follow the various rules of disposition, inheritance etc.
I think I would concur with ice to a certain extent. This sounds like the intention to execute an express trust. The absence of this does not exclude the possibility of a constructive trust or some other equitable interest.
This is a very complex area of law and is something that should be placed in the hands of a specialist equity and trusts solicitor.
Good luck
Debate Case.?
A man comes into a store and slips on a wet floor. He breaks his arm and has to stay off work for 2 weeks. His arm does not heal wee and he has a slight loss of mobility. His job is in a furniture removal business and he doesn't feel like he is up to the job anymore. He wants to sue the store for the pain he was caused plus compensation for having to find new work.
The store manager says the floor was mopped by a mentally retarded worker who used too much water. He said he was trying to help mentally retarded people fine useful jobs and this personwas new. There was a sign saying Caution-wet floor but it had not been placed in a good spot where customers could see it right away.
The prosecuting council wants the store owner to pay full compesation of $100,000
The defending cuoncil wants the amn to be paid only $10,000, if anything.
The jury has to decide if any compensation should be paid and if so how much.
pls help me! this is for my L.A. class..im on the prosecuting side.
Answers:
The store has already admitted knowledge and causation of the dangerous condition. I can't say which figure is better, since I don't know what the man's actual damages are. But given the either/or presented, I'd have to give him what he's asking for, since the store blew away their own defenses.
It doesn't matter if a talking monkey was the one mopping the floor. It's the store's responsibility to provide a safe environment for it's patrons. They failed to do so. They have to pay full compensation.
The store manager says the floor was mopped by a mentally retarded worker who used too much water. He said he was trying to help mentally retarded people fine useful jobs and this personwas new. There was a sign saying Caution-wet floor but it had not been placed in a good spot where customers could see it right away.
The prosecuting council wants the store owner to pay full compesation of $100,000
The defending cuoncil wants the amn to be paid only $10,000, if anything.
The jury has to decide if any compensation should be paid and if so how much.
pls help me! this is for my L.A. class..im on the prosecuting side.
Answers:
The store has already admitted knowledge and causation of the dangerous condition. I can't say which figure is better, since I don't know what the man's actual damages are. But given the either/or presented, I'd have to give him what he's asking for, since the store blew away their own defenses.
It doesn't matter if a talking monkey was the one mopping the floor. It's the store's responsibility to provide a safe environment for it's patrons. They failed to do so. They have to pay full compensation.
Death Penalty?! What's your opinion about it?
Me and my friends were asked to debate on this subject at school. Some were against, some in favor and some didn't have an opinion at all.
Everyone defended their own opinion without hearing the other ones. That was until someone against death penalty give an example that made everyone think about it and that let some people without knowing what to say.
Here is that person's question: "If you are in favor of death penalty, then what do you do to a prisoner that killed a rapist inside the jail?? Taking in count that you are in favor of death penalty when someone kills another person and that this prisoner killed someone who had done something worse!!"
This a question directed to everybody. So just give your own opinions!
* Sorry for my english! Hope you understand it!
Answers:
Rapists, murderers should all face it.
But what really upsets me,
Liberals view: Women have a right to make their child live or not! But for death penalty: EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO LIVE!
hypocrites.
Depends on how atrocious the crimes were.
Simple: No one has the right to decide and choose who gets to die and live, no matter what the case may be.
Even the incarcerated have civil rights and don't deserved to be put to death on the opinions and judgment of the prosecutors, jury or judge.
KILL THEM ALL... The person was not in prison for being a model citizen.
Three strikes and your out. I would get rid of a lot of the dead weight in jail. execute more prisoners and save us all some money.
I am against the death penalty in any cases. No matter what they have done, killing them does not bring back the loved one, and that type of justice doesn't seem right.
If someone think so little of another human to kill them in some horrible manner, what makes you think that they cherish their life? We are imposing what a 'normal' person believes when we kill another.. as if it were the most severe punishment. However, in the mind of someone that kills others...
Prosecuting a 'death penalty' case is MUCH more expensive than keeping someone locked up in prison until they are no longer a threat to society.
Laws are laws... if an inmate kills another inmate while both are behind bars... it's STILL murder and the inmate deserves a FAIR TRIAL for this murder---and must suffer ANY consequences that come out of this trial---EVEN if the person he killed was a rapest!! If the penalty for this is death, so be it... Most prisoners know the laws better then MOST of us on the outside..if they KNOW they will face a death penalty for committing a murder in prison, and they COMMIT one, well, they lose! You can sentence someone to death, but that doesn't mean they will actually BE executed. look at Scott Peterson---it's been 2 years this past MARCH since he was sentenced to death..Ted Bundy spent 10 years on death row before he was electrocuted in Florida... so no one would be executed right away... there would be numerous appeals and MAYBE eventually an execution if the inmate didn't die of natural causes first...
I don't know why this question rendered everyone speechless it is pretty simple.
Here are the answers yes there are several:
1st ) The prisoner who killed the rapist was not acting in accordance with the law, he is not sanctioned by the state to perform state executions, so what he did was unlawful, and he should face the terms of murder just as every other murderer should face. In my opinion it should be the death penalty.
2nd) You never gave the details of the murder. Now if the prisoner was acting in self defense, and his life was in jeopardy then he has every right to defend himself. However the jury will look at if the force used (IE. killing the other guy) was justified. if a jury feels that the force was justified, then what he did was not against the law. It was legal what he did, yet again he is not a stated authorized executioner.
3rd) If a jury finds that he used excessive force, then he would probably only get a manslaughter charge, which most people feel that it should not be punishable by death.
Again since the details are left out, one can only speculate.
But to wrap up the answer, you can not have vigilante justice out there. People should be allowed to defend themselves in a justified manner. However when people take the law into their own hands, then anarchy breaks out, and nothing good comes from lawlessness.
Everyone defended their own opinion without hearing the other ones. That was until someone against death penalty give an example that made everyone think about it and that let some people without knowing what to say.
Here is that person's question: "If you are in favor of death penalty, then what do you do to a prisoner that killed a rapist inside the jail?? Taking in count that you are in favor of death penalty when someone kills another person and that this prisoner killed someone who had done something worse!!"
This a question directed to everybody. So just give your own opinions!
* Sorry for my english! Hope you understand it!
Answers:
Rapists, murderers should all face it.
But what really upsets me,
Liberals view: Women have a right to make their child live or not! But for death penalty: EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO LIVE!
hypocrites.
Depends on how atrocious the crimes were.
Simple: No one has the right to decide and choose who gets to die and live, no matter what the case may be.
Even the incarcerated have civil rights and don't deserved to be put to death on the opinions and judgment of the prosecutors, jury or judge.
KILL THEM ALL... The person was not in prison for being a model citizen.
Three strikes and your out. I would get rid of a lot of the dead weight in jail. execute more prisoners and save us all some money.
I am against the death penalty in any cases. No matter what they have done, killing them does not bring back the loved one, and that type of justice doesn't seem right.
If someone think so little of another human to kill them in some horrible manner, what makes you think that they cherish their life? We are imposing what a 'normal' person believes when we kill another.. as if it were the most severe punishment. However, in the mind of someone that kills others...
Prosecuting a 'death penalty' case is MUCH more expensive than keeping someone locked up in prison until they are no longer a threat to society.
Laws are laws... if an inmate kills another inmate while both are behind bars... it's STILL murder and the inmate deserves a FAIR TRIAL for this murder---and must suffer ANY consequences that come out of this trial---EVEN if the person he killed was a rapest!! If the penalty for this is death, so be it... Most prisoners know the laws better then MOST of us on the outside..if they KNOW they will face a death penalty for committing a murder in prison, and they COMMIT one, well, they lose! You can sentence someone to death, but that doesn't mean they will actually BE executed. look at Scott Peterson---it's been 2 years this past MARCH since he was sentenced to death..Ted Bundy spent 10 years on death row before he was electrocuted in Florida... so no one would be executed right away... there would be numerous appeals and MAYBE eventually an execution if the inmate didn't die of natural causes first...
I don't know why this question rendered everyone speechless it is pretty simple.
Here are the answers yes there are several:
1st ) The prisoner who killed the rapist was not acting in accordance with the law, he is not sanctioned by the state to perform state executions, so what he did was unlawful, and he should face the terms of murder just as every other murderer should face. In my opinion it should be the death penalty.
2nd) You never gave the details of the murder. Now if the prisoner was acting in self defense, and his life was in jeopardy then he has every right to defend himself. However the jury will look at if the force used (IE. killing the other guy) was justified. if a jury feels that the force was justified, then what he did was not against the law. It was legal what he did, yet again he is not a stated authorized executioner.
3rd) If a jury finds that he used excessive force, then he would probably only get a manslaughter charge, which most people feel that it should not be punishable by death.
Again since the details are left out, one can only speculate.
But to wrap up the answer, you can not have vigilante justice out there. People should be allowed to defend themselves in a justified manner. However when people take the law into their own hands, then anarchy breaks out, and nothing good comes from lawlessness.
Death Penalty?
What are alterative to the death penalty?
Answers:
Life imprisonment. We need to allow everyone - even the most vicious of criminals - the opportunity for a change of heart and redemption. To execute might be an easy solution, but who gives any of us the right to take a life?
Life in Prison?
life?
Life in Prison, or some other countries chop off one of the limbs.
Life in prison. I guess thats about it.
caneing and stoning
Life in prison. It costs way more to put someone to death (for them to live on death row and to eventually be put to death)than to keep them in prison there whole life. Plus it has been proven that the death penalty does not deter crime.
If you're referring to put an end to life then there is none.. but death penalty is wayyyyyy too easy a way out for a criminal... But in any other way to compensate death is also wayyyyy too inhumane...
I'm guessing life in prison without paroll... that is if given a choice, which i highly doubt
nothing
God said if if blood by man is shed by man his blood shall be shed
meaning if you murder u get killed simple as that
making them wait 50 years in prison would be bad but not as bad as 50 extra years in hell (im not saying all murderers will go to hell. im just saying that it is a sin and will be punished for it, but possible for him to ask for forgiveness)
Prevention.
If it were a possibility, I think the criminal should spend a few hours his/her victim's family and friends, and prior to the meeting, the family and friends should spend an hour or two with a bottle of whiskey. Then we'll see what happens!
Rehabilitation, incarceration, mental institutions...
NONE of which, in my personal opinion, are suitable for SOME types of offenders. As far as I'm concerned, people who, for example, rape and/or beat children (and I'm not talking about a spanking or disciplining, I'm talking about broken bones etc), kill innocent people through REPEATED drunk driving etc, do NOT have the right to abuse the system put in place by my tax dollars to sit around and eventually be unleashed on society at large to do the same thing again. SOME PEOPLE DO NOT GET BETTER - and as far as I'm concerned, repeat offenders of heinous, violent, premeditated crimes do not deserve to live.
Having said that, I think the real problem with the death penalty is its application. First of all, I don't see the point of letting someone sit on death row for 25 years. I mean, come on - by that time, who KNOWS whether or not that person is still the same or not, which is to say nothing of the waste of time, resources etc spent on keeping someone incarcerated for that period of time.
What is much more aggravating to me, however, is the clear bias present in the application of the death penalty. Not only are the majority of people on death row BLACK - a disturbingly high percentage of them are proven NOT GUILTY after they've already been executed!! THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS and NOT an exercise of justice.
I think the death penalty is only warranted, justified and can only hope to be the disincentive for heinous crimes it's intended to be if:
(a) a person if found, beyond ANY doubt, any circumstantial evidence etc, to be guilty of the charge(s) brought against that person
(b) has been proven to be a repeat offender, having committed the same or similar crime(s) more than once (for example serial rapists etc), therefore demonstrating the futility of any attempts at rehabilitation
(c) is a manifest, evident threat to society - regardless of age, gender, race etc
I would like to see that the people who get the death penalty are not some misguided african american young men who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. I would like to see that the people who get the death penalty are people who abuse, rape and kill innocent people - not out of self-defense but out of pure evil or for the hell of it. And those people should not be sitting around watching tv and getting 3 squares a day for the next couple of decades - those people need to be done away with once and for all!
Answers:
Life imprisonment. We need to allow everyone - even the most vicious of criminals - the opportunity for a change of heart and redemption. To execute might be an easy solution, but who gives any of us the right to take a life?
Life in Prison?
life?
Life in Prison, or some other countries chop off one of the limbs.
Life in prison. I guess thats about it.
caneing and stoning
Life in prison. It costs way more to put someone to death (for them to live on death row and to eventually be put to death)than to keep them in prison there whole life. Plus it has been proven that the death penalty does not deter crime.
If you're referring to put an end to life then there is none.. but death penalty is wayyyyyy too easy a way out for a criminal... But in any other way to compensate death is also wayyyyy too inhumane...
I'm guessing life in prison without paroll... that is if given a choice, which i highly doubt
nothing
God said if if blood by man is shed by man his blood shall be shed
meaning if you murder u get killed simple as that
making them wait 50 years in prison would be bad but not as bad as 50 extra years in hell (im not saying all murderers will go to hell. im just saying that it is a sin and will be punished for it, but possible for him to ask for forgiveness)
Prevention.
If it were a possibility, I think the criminal should spend a few hours his/her victim's family and friends, and prior to the meeting, the family and friends should spend an hour or two with a bottle of whiskey. Then we'll see what happens!
Rehabilitation, incarceration, mental institutions...
NONE of which, in my personal opinion, are suitable for SOME types of offenders. As far as I'm concerned, people who, for example, rape and/or beat children (and I'm not talking about a spanking or disciplining, I'm talking about broken bones etc), kill innocent people through REPEATED drunk driving etc, do NOT have the right to abuse the system put in place by my tax dollars to sit around and eventually be unleashed on society at large to do the same thing again. SOME PEOPLE DO NOT GET BETTER - and as far as I'm concerned, repeat offenders of heinous, violent, premeditated crimes do not deserve to live.
Having said that, I think the real problem with the death penalty is its application. First of all, I don't see the point of letting someone sit on death row for 25 years. I mean, come on - by that time, who KNOWS whether or not that person is still the same or not, which is to say nothing of the waste of time, resources etc spent on keeping someone incarcerated for that period of time.
What is much more aggravating to me, however, is the clear bias present in the application of the death penalty. Not only are the majority of people on death row BLACK - a disturbingly high percentage of them are proven NOT GUILTY after they've already been executed!! THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS and NOT an exercise of justice.
I think the death penalty is only warranted, justified and can only hope to be the disincentive for heinous crimes it's intended to be if:
(a) a person if found, beyond ANY doubt, any circumstantial evidence etc, to be guilty of the charge(s) brought against that person
(b) has been proven to be a repeat offender, having committed the same or similar crime(s) more than once (for example serial rapists etc), therefore demonstrating the futility of any attempts at rehabilitation
(c) is a manifest, evident threat to society - regardless of age, gender, race etc
I would like to see that the people who get the death penalty are not some misguided african american young men who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. I would like to see that the people who get the death penalty are people who abuse, rape and kill innocent people - not out of self-defense but out of pure evil or for the hell of it. And those people should not be sitting around watching tv and getting 3 squares a day for the next couple of decades - those people need to be done away with once and for all!
Death Penalty?
Do you think the us should have the death penalty? , Does the death penatly get help get rid of crime?
Answers:
I used to be pro-death penalty, but I have changed my stance, for several reasons:
1. By far the biggest reason is this: Sometimes our legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the criminals who are being released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. No matter how rare it is, our government should not risk executing one single innocent person.
2. Because of the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute a prisoner than to imprison them for life.
3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best (I have seen studies that have actually shown the opposite effect--that violent crimes actually INCREASE in societies that employ the death penalty).
4. I also agree with those who say that death is too good for the dregs of our society. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON鈥橳 have, until they rot of old age.
5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
And on and on. Then again, Numbers 15:35 prescribes the death penalty for those who work on Sundays.
The death penalty eliminates repeat offenders.
I for the death penalty, but since it takes longer than 20 years to execute someone nowadays, it costs too much and now I am for giving life sentences..
Yes and yes.
i do agree with the death penalty, especially with murderers, if they are prepared to take someones life then the same should be done with them.
Yes
For those who get a death sentence they don't every commit another crime.
We are all headed in the same direction. Might just as well expedite it for some...I guess you could just put me down for a "yes".
Well, all those executed have not done any more crime, so I guess it does stop crime that way.
YES IF DONE EXPEDIENTLY
It doesn't get rid of crime,,just bad eggs we don't need anyway! :-)=
No. The death penalty is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder.
No. It isn't a deterent. If it was, all of the death rows in all of the prisons would be empty and people wouldn't be killing each other on the streets.
It is merely an act of revenge. Life in prison without parole is just as effective - and you don't have to kill anybody.---And it is cheaper too.
No and no. Unless you consider that the dead person cannot commit another crime as a good reason to have a death penalty.
A agree with the death penalty. I don't believe that it should be used where there is not irrefutable proof - ie: DNA, Video or photographic evidence. I don't think it should be used based solely on eyewitness testimony - particularly where the accused was not known to the eyewitness before hand. Too many people have been cleared of crimes by DNA recently for me to comfortable with putting someone to death without that kind of proof. However - if the proof is available especially where there was a rape/murder of a child I wholeheartedly agree with implementation of the death penalty. I'll even flip the switch.
First, I believe the death penalty is constitutional, since the Constitution requires that due process be afforded before one is deprived of life, liberty or property. This implies that as long as due process is afforded that one may be deprived of life. I can't conceive how depriving one of life can therefore be termed cruel or unusual punishment.
A long time ago I was taught that there were 3 legitimate goals of criminal punishment, 1) to remove the offender from the public so he would not harm others, 2) to deter the offender from committing the offense in the future and 3) to deter others from committing similar offenses.
I was also taught that retribution was not a legitimate goal.
Certainly the death penalty removes the offender from the populace. It not only deters but absolutely prevents the offender from committing crimes in the future. Both of these goals however can be achieved through life incarceration.
Lastly, studies have indicated that murder is not deterred by the possibility of capital punishment as opposed to incarceration.
To me then, it would appear that the legitimate goals of punishment are met by both capital punishment and life incarceration. Since capital punishment is so final, and with new techniques available to investigate crimes revealing so many miscarriages that have in the past occurred, what is the point?
The only one I can think of is retribution, which is not a laudable goal of any government.
No there should not be death penalty .Its primitive ,barbaric and makes govt. no better than the offender .Studies have consistently shown it does not lower murder rates .With today's justice system the defendant has little chance of defense against prosecutors and police, the courts let lie and fabricate evidence all the time , with a state appointed public defender .In all criminal court cases .South Dakota now has the most people in prison per capita in the world. ( Land of the Free ) Not hardly .Juries are manipulated by the court into believing they are to convict people for govt. When juries were put in our justice system so citizens could protect each other from bad govt. and unjust laws by finding the person not guilty .Judges do not tell juries they have a right to judge the law and find the person not guilty, if they do not believe the law is a good .(Jury Nullification ) 200 people we were going to execute on death row the DNA tests proved were innocent would prove this .Who takes responsibility for the innocent people murdered before DNA . In court any possible doubt should be considered reasonable when govt. is given every advantage and the defendant none .
Yes, because it keeps most people from committing serious crimes. Most people are more afraid of death than jail.
I feel mixed about the death penalty. My religon (Episcopalian) is against it, and I think its wrong generally but for a child who has been raped and murdered, I think God should take care of them
Answers:
I used to be pro-death penalty, but I have changed my stance, for several reasons:
1. By far the biggest reason is this: Sometimes our legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the criminals who are being released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. No matter how rare it is, our government should not risk executing one single innocent person.
2. Because of the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute a prisoner than to imprison them for life.
3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best (I have seen studies that have actually shown the opposite effect--that violent crimes actually INCREASE in societies that employ the death penalty).
4. I also agree with those who say that death is too good for the dregs of our society. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON鈥橳 have, until they rot of old age.
5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
And on and on. Then again, Numbers 15:35 prescribes the death penalty for those who work on Sundays.
The death penalty eliminates repeat offenders.
I for the death penalty, but since it takes longer than 20 years to execute someone nowadays, it costs too much and now I am for giving life sentences..
Yes and yes.
i do agree with the death penalty, especially with murderers, if they are prepared to take someones life then the same should be done with them.
Yes
For those who get a death sentence they don't every commit another crime.
We are all headed in the same direction. Might just as well expedite it for some...I guess you could just put me down for a "yes".
Well, all those executed have not done any more crime, so I guess it does stop crime that way.
YES IF DONE EXPEDIENTLY
It doesn't get rid of crime,,just bad eggs we don't need anyway! :-)=
No. The death penalty is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder.
No. It isn't a deterent. If it was, all of the death rows in all of the prisons would be empty and people wouldn't be killing each other on the streets.
It is merely an act of revenge. Life in prison without parole is just as effective - and you don't have to kill anybody.---And it is cheaper too.
No and no. Unless you consider that the dead person cannot commit another crime as a good reason to have a death penalty.
A agree with the death penalty. I don't believe that it should be used where there is not irrefutable proof - ie: DNA, Video or photographic evidence. I don't think it should be used based solely on eyewitness testimony - particularly where the accused was not known to the eyewitness before hand. Too many people have been cleared of crimes by DNA recently for me to comfortable with putting someone to death without that kind of proof. However - if the proof is available especially where there was a rape/murder of a child I wholeheartedly agree with implementation of the death penalty. I'll even flip the switch.
First, I believe the death penalty is constitutional, since the Constitution requires that due process be afforded before one is deprived of life, liberty or property. This implies that as long as due process is afforded that one may be deprived of life. I can't conceive how depriving one of life can therefore be termed cruel or unusual punishment.
A long time ago I was taught that there were 3 legitimate goals of criminal punishment, 1) to remove the offender from the public so he would not harm others, 2) to deter the offender from committing the offense in the future and 3) to deter others from committing similar offenses.
I was also taught that retribution was not a legitimate goal.
Certainly the death penalty removes the offender from the populace. It not only deters but absolutely prevents the offender from committing crimes in the future. Both of these goals however can be achieved through life incarceration.
Lastly, studies have indicated that murder is not deterred by the possibility of capital punishment as opposed to incarceration.
To me then, it would appear that the legitimate goals of punishment are met by both capital punishment and life incarceration. Since capital punishment is so final, and with new techniques available to investigate crimes revealing so many miscarriages that have in the past occurred, what is the point?
The only one I can think of is retribution, which is not a laudable goal of any government.
No there should not be death penalty .Its primitive ,barbaric and makes govt. no better than the offender .Studies have consistently shown it does not lower murder rates .With today's justice system the defendant has little chance of defense against prosecutors and police, the courts let lie and fabricate evidence all the time , with a state appointed public defender .In all criminal court cases .South Dakota now has the most people in prison per capita in the world. ( Land of the Free ) Not hardly .Juries are manipulated by the court into believing they are to convict people for govt. When juries were put in our justice system so citizens could protect each other from bad govt. and unjust laws by finding the person not guilty .Judges do not tell juries they have a right to judge the law and find the person not guilty, if they do not believe the law is a good .(Jury Nullification ) 200 people we were going to execute on death row the DNA tests proved were innocent would prove this .Who takes responsibility for the innocent people murdered before DNA . In court any possible doubt should be considered reasonable when govt. is given every advantage and the defendant none .
Yes, because it keeps most people from committing serious crimes. Most people are more afraid of death than jail.
I feel mixed about the death penalty. My religon (Episcopalian) is against it, and I think its wrong generally but for a child who has been raped and murdered, I think God should take care of them
Death Penalty?
What is your opinion regarding the use of the death penalty as a form of punishment?
Is there some other form of punishment you think would be better?
Answers:
I used to be pro-death penalty, but I have changed my stance, for several reasons:
1. By far the biggest reason is this: Sometimes our legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the criminals who are being released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. No matter how rare it is, our government should not risk executing one single innocent person.
Really, that should be reason enough for most reasonable people. If you need more, read on:
2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.
3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best (I have seen studies that have actually shown the opposite effect--that violent crimes actually INCREASE in societies that employ the death penalty).
4. I also agree with those who say that death is too good for the dregs of our society. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age.
5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. 1 Peter 3:9 argues AGAINST “eye for an eye”-type justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I am unconditionally against capitol punishment. The government says we can't kill people, yet as punishment for killing someone, they go and kill you. That is total hypocrisy.
For people who would get the death penalty, I think they should just get a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
In response to people who say the death penalty is a good deterrent to prevent murders, look at Texas. They execute the most people in the country every year, yet have the highest crime rate. Doesn't seem to work.
SCOTT- if you ONLY see it as a form of prevention, why don't we just put everyone to death? That way, no one can be murdered.
Korey- DNA is not always 100%. Mistakes could be made when comparing DNA's or the DNA cops find at the scene supposedly "connecting" someone to a crime may have gotten there innocently.
People who say the death penalty should also be painful, are you aware of the protection from "cruel and unsual punishment," guarenteed by the eighth Amendment?
I say give the guilty a fair trial and burn em.....No repeat offenders....Nuf Said
I disagree with it only because we can make errors in judgement and you can't get out on appeal from death. Megan's Law for example was written about someone who raped and killed children. I would have no problem executing someone like that. Hell, I would pull the switch myself and not lose any sleep. But life imprison should be punishment enough.
Let the worst of the worst rot for the rest of their natural lives.
No, I think the death penalty is the most effective way to keep people from committing crimes.Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone knew they wouldn't be severely punished for their crimes.
Well the Death Penalty is never carried out except in Texas so it really does not make any.difference.
Form of death Penalty.Very painful!
Death Penalty...YES. Better? How about hard labor? I also think making criminals sit on death row for years and years is unethical and a ridiculous demand of taxpayers.
seems like it puts an end to a repeat offender to me!
The first answerer pretty much summed it up.
Who are the real killers if the government kills a guy for killing somebody because killing somebody is against the law?
The message we are supposed to learn from capital punishment is that life is valuable. But for every murder, there is another unneedless death.
And don't even get me started about the methods - some people sit there squirming and dieing for 30 minutes because of messed up lethal injections. How is that ethical.
I don't see the death penalty as a form of punishment, but rather a form of prevention. I've never heard of a person executed to come back and commit another crime.
One only need to put them self in the place of a death row inmate. You are poor, were poorly represented, and completely innocent. Now they are strapping you into the electric chair, or to the gurney. You know that most people who get the death penalty truly deserve it, but that matters little to you as they are about to snuff out your life for a crime you didn't commit. You will more than likely be forever defined as a hideous murderer, yet everyone says that the death penalty is just. I am sure that there is a special place in Heaven for the falsely executed, and a special place in Hell for his executors. This too, however, is little consolation as they hit that switch.
If DNA proves that a capital offense has been committed, AND a jury finds the defendant guilty, then the death penalty should be used.
If DNA evidence is not available, then they should not use the death penalty because too many cases have been coming into light whereas the prosecutors made very bad errors and the DNA evidence now proves the defendant innocent.
The death penalty is an effective method of preventing certain types of offenses, and an appropriate response to those crimes. There are, however, some problems I have with the way it is currently administered:
1) The time period from conviction to execution is far too long. This adversely effects the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent and makes the suffering of the family's victims longer.
2) There seems to be a disparity concerning the victims' age and the administration of the death penalty. Murderers of younger victims (basically children) are less likely to be sentenced to death than murderers of adults. This makes no sense, and those who brutalize young children should be more likely to be sentenced to death than less.
3) There has been a movement in recent years to make the death penalty more humane. This is unnecessary and wrong-headed. Those who murder other people, particularly in a heinous manner, should not receive a humane, painless death. If it is painful--and they know this up-front, they are more likely to be deterred in their criminal activity.
The death penalty also offers prosecutors more of a bargaining tool in plea negotiations. Taking it off the table is doubly erroneous for this reason as well.
i think it is perfectly fair if you murder someone...
as to whether wrongfully taking taking a life merits his/her own life in return,believing one way or the other is a consequence of your mindset which formed by your to absorbing,in part, the thinking and opinion of others around you.religious notions about god,the nature(violent) of man in a state.the death penalty is more forfeiture than punishment ,,,,the anticipation of the convicted is partial punishment.,,,,,the government allows you the right to defend life,property,loved ones,at cost of life to the attacker(defence of property sometimes with less than lethal force)
I'm gonig to say that I disagree
A hot poker up the butt.
The Death Penalty is good...people who murder others should be punished severely. But not like, tortured or anything. That's not cool, but they shouldn't just let some rapist that killed a child just be sentenced for life. It's just not right.
The death penalty is not an effective way of preventing or reducing crime and it risks executions of innocent people.
Some people who answered your question are confused about the difference between deterrence and preventing recidivism (also called incapacitation.) Here are answers to questions often asked about the system, with sources listed below.
What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.
Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.
Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not.
So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.
But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, largely because of the legal process. Extra costs include those due to the complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (involving 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases and subsequent appeals. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.
What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??
Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
So, why don't we speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.
But don’t Americans prefer the death penalty as the most serious punishment?
Not any more. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning about the system and we are making up our minds based on facts, not eye for an eye sound bites.
Is there some other form of punishment you think would be better?
Answers:
I used to be pro-death penalty, but I have changed my stance, for several reasons:
1. By far the biggest reason is this: Sometimes our legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the criminals who are being released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. No matter how rare it is, our government should not risk executing one single innocent person.
Really, that should be reason enough for most reasonable people. If you need more, read on:
2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.
3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best (I have seen studies that have actually shown the opposite effect--that violent crimes actually INCREASE in societies that employ the death penalty).
4. I also agree with those who say that death is too good for the dregs of our society. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age.
5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. 1 Peter 3:9 argues AGAINST “eye for an eye”-type justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I am unconditionally against capitol punishment. The government says we can't kill people, yet as punishment for killing someone, they go and kill you. That is total hypocrisy.
For people who would get the death penalty, I think they should just get a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
In response to people who say the death penalty is a good deterrent to prevent murders, look at Texas. They execute the most people in the country every year, yet have the highest crime rate. Doesn't seem to work.
SCOTT- if you ONLY see it as a form of prevention, why don't we just put everyone to death? That way, no one can be murdered.
Korey- DNA is not always 100%. Mistakes could be made when comparing DNA's or the DNA cops find at the scene supposedly "connecting" someone to a crime may have gotten there innocently.
People who say the death penalty should also be painful, are you aware of the protection from "cruel and unsual punishment," guarenteed by the eighth Amendment?
I say give the guilty a fair trial and burn em.....No repeat offenders....Nuf Said
I disagree with it only because we can make errors in judgement and you can't get out on appeal from death. Megan's Law for example was written about someone who raped and killed children. I would have no problem executing someone like that. Hell, I would pull the switch myself and not lose any sleep. But life imprison should be punishment enough.
Let the worst of the worst rot for the rest of their natural lives.
No, I think the death penalty is the most effective way to keep people from committing crimes.Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone knew they wouldn't be severely punished for their crimes.
Well the Death Penalty is never carried out except in Texas so it really does not make any.difference.
Form of death Penalty.Very painful!
Death Penalty...YES. Better? How about hard labor? I also think making criminals sit on death row for years and years is unethical and a ridiculous demand of taxpayers.
seems like it puts an end to a repeat offender to me!
The first answerer pretty much summed it up.
Who are the real killers if the government kills a guy for killing somebody because killing somebody is against the law?
The message we are supposed to learn from capital punishment is that life is valuable. But for every murder, there is another unneedless death.
And don't even get me started about the methods - some people sit there squirming and dieing for 30 minutes because of messed up lethal injections. How is that ethical.
I don't see the death penalty as a form of punishment, but rather a form of prevention. I've never heard of a person executed to come back and commit another crime.
One only need to put them self in the place of a death row inmate. You are poor, were poorly represented, and completely innocent. Now they are strapping you into the electric chair, or to the gurney. You know that most people who get the death penalty truly deserve it, but that matters little to you as they are about to snuff out your life for a crime you didn't commit. You will more than likely be forever defined as a hideous murderer, yet everyone says that the death penalty is just. I am sure that there is a special place in Heaven for the falsely executed, and a special place in Hell for his executors. This too, however, is little consolation as they hit that switch.
If DNA proves that a capital offense has been committed, AND a jury finds the defendant guilty, then the death penalty should be used.
If DNA evidence is not available, then they should not use the death penalty because too many cases have been coming into light whereas the prosecutors made very bad errors and the DNA evidence now proves the defendant innocent.
The death penalty is an effective method of preventing certain types of offenses, and an appropriate response to those crimes. There are, however, some problems I have with the way it is currently administered:
1) The time period from conviction to execution is far too long. This adversely effects the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent and makes the suffering of the family's victims longer.
2) There seems to be a disparity concerning the victims' age and the administration of the death penalty. Murderers of younger victims (basically children) are less likely to be sentenced to death than murderers of adults. This makes no sense, and those who brutalize young children should be more likely to be sentenced to death than less.
3) There has been a movement in recent years to make the death penalty more humane. This is unnecessary and wrong-headed. Those who murder other people, particularly in a heinous manner, should not receive a humane, painless death. If it is painful--and they know this up-front, they are more likely to be deterred in their criminal activity.
The death penalty also offers prosecutors more of a bargaining tool in plea negotiations. Taking it off the table is doubly erroneous for this reason as well.
i think it is perfectly fair if you murder someone...
as to whether wrongfully taking taking a life merits his/her own life in return,believing one way or the other is a consequence of your mindset which formed by your to absorbing,in part, the thinking and opinion of others around you.religious notions about god,the nature(violent) of man in a state.the death penalty is more forfeiture than punishment ,,,,the anticipation of the convicted is partial punishment.,,,,,the government allows you the right to defend life,property,loved ones,at cost of life to the attacker(defence of property sometimes with less than lethal force)
I'm gonig to say that I disagree
A hot poker up the butt.
The Death Penalty is good...people who murder others should be punished severely. But not like, tortured or anything. That's not cool, but they shouldn't just let some rapist that killed a child just be sentenced for life. It's just not right.
The death penalty is not an effective way of preventing or reducing crime and it risks executions of innocent people.
Some people who answered your question are confused about the difference between deterrence and preventing recidivism (also called incapacitation.) Here are answers to questions often asked about the system, with sources listed below.
What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.
Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.
Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not.
So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.
But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, largely because of the legal process. Extra costs include those due to the complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (involving 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases and subsequent appeals. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.
What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??
Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
So, why don't we speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.
But don’t Americans prefer the death penalty as the most serious punishment?
Not any more. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning about the system and we are making up our minds based on facts, not eye for an eye sound bites.
Death penalty?
Do you believe the death penalty should be illegal in the United States?
Answers:
I used to be pro-death penalty, but I have changed my stance, for several reasons:
1. By far the biggest reason is this: Sometimes our legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the criminals who are being released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. No matter how rare it is, our government should not risk executing one single innocent person.
2. Because of the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute a prisoner than to imprison them for life.
3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best (I have seen studies that have actually shown the opposite effect--that violent crimes actually increase in societies that employ the death penalty).
4. I also agree with those who say that death is too good for the dregs of our society. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON鈥橳 have, until they rot of old age.
5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
And on and on. Then again, Numbers 15:35 prescribes the death penalty for those who work on Sundays.
Yeah, need to bring back the guillotine.
No I don't.Then again I believe that any one who violates a child should be shot on sight and that's just one example.
No; the innocence project has been working to release the innocent from death row. Dozens of people condemned to death, on eyewitness testimony and other types of evidence, were innocent, many only rescued after decades on death row.
How can you kill one person knowing that? It could be you. It could be your son.
NO!! What should be done is this:
When a murder is committed and the suspect
is proven guilty, then the state should give the
family the opportunity to carry out the death
sentence any way they see fit. If they want
to shoot him/her in their cell, then so be it.
If they want to burn him/her at the stake,then
so be it. If they want to hang him/her, then so
be it. If they don't choose to do so, then the
state will lock him/her up forever with no
parole.
No. However, that does not mean that I believe it should be used in every case. It should only be used in cases where there is incontrivertible evidence.
Absolutely, and I'm a conservative
i think they should stone any adulterous woman like the bible says! . if you have not sinned that is! and there has been plenty of people on death row who were proved Innocent with DNA evidence! which makes me wonder what about those on death row who have no DNA left at the crime scene! are they all guilty?! and what about all those that were executed before DNA technology was used were they all guilty too?!
Answers:
I used to be pro-death penalty, but I have changed my stance, for several reasons:
1. By far the biggest reason is this: Sometimes our legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the criminals who are being released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. No matter how rare it is, our government should not risk executing one single innocent person.
2. Because of the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute a prisoner than to imprison them for life.
3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best (I have seen studies that have actually shown the opposite effect--that violent crimes actually increase in societies that employ the death penalty).
4. I also agree with those who say that death is too good for the dregs of our society. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON鈥橳 have, until they rot of old age.
5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
And on and on. Then again, Numbers 15:35 prescribes the death penalty for those who work on Sundays.
Yeah, need to bring back the guillotine.
No I don't.Then again I believe that any one who violates a child should be shot on sight and that's just one example.
No; the innocence project has been working to release the innocent from death row. Dozens of people condemned to death, on eyewitness testimony and other types of evidence, were innocent, many only rescued after decades on death row.
How can you kill one person knowing that? It could be you. It could be your son.
NO!! What should be done is this:
When a murder is committed and the suspect
is proven guilty, then the state should give the
family the opportunity to carry out the death
sentence any way they see fit. If they want
to shoot him/her in their cell, then so be it.
If they want to burn him/her at the stake,then
so be it. If they want to hang him/her, then so
be it. If they don't choose to do so, then the
state will lock him/her up forever with no
parole.
No. However, that does not mean that I believe it should be used in every case. It should only be used in cases where there is incontrivertible evidence.
Absolutely, and I'm a conservative
i think they should stone any adulterous woman like the bible says! . if you have not sinned that is! and there has been plenty of people on death row who were proved Innocent with DNA evidence! which makes me wonder what about those on death row who have no DNA left at the crime scene! are they all guilty?! and what about all those that were executed before DNA technology was used were they all guilty too?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)