Answer:
Option C
Explanation:
Contributing to the common good is a duty of all citizens. Try this
Answer:
No, it is not fair to let financial pressures determine how much we are willing to spend to promote justice and public safety.
Explanation:
No, it is not appropriate to let financial pressures ascertain how much we are willing to contribute to promoting justice and public security.
Spending on justice and public safety is an essential public expense, an expense that is needed to maintain the composition of our enlightened society. Let’s consider the example of a correctional institution. Such an institution works towards the restoration of offenders. These institutions have to struggle with unlawful justice bureaus for funding. They also have to struggle with social welfare divisions like education for funding.
Now correctional bureaus help in advancing justice and public safety. If funding is freed from the restraints of financial pressures then these bureaus will be necessary for supporting public security and supporting justice.
Three student readings open up new avenues for discussion and inquiry. A concluding activity proposes student inquiry into arguments for and against capital punishment through internet investigation and a "constructive controversy."
Answer and Explanation:
Jusnaturalist School: According to this school, a law must, above all, directly address the promotion of justice in any type of situation, respecting the maximum natural right of the individual, which is an inalienable right that must be respected at any cost. . Based on this school, the situation shown in the question above is inadmissible, as it does not promote justice, it prevents innocent people from traveling via respecting their religion and still hurts their natural right.
Teleological School: This school has a strong political character and states that a law that achieves a social balance and promotes and is the service of protection and promotion of policies that protect society, it is valid. In relation to the case shown in the question above, this school can claim that the law is correct, since there have already been many cases of terrorism caused by Muslims, making their ban on boarding a promotion of social security.
2. When analyzing these two schools of legal thought in relation to the case shown in the question above, I came to the conclusion that the Jusnaturalist school is the one I most agree with. This is because prohibiting Muslim women from boarding an airplane because of terorist cases that they were not part of is a strong example of religious prejudice and intolerance, in addition to hurting the rights of innocent women.
