Answer:
The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in civil matters while the Court of Criminal Appeals has final appellate jurisdiction for criminal matters. For information on court proceedings and procedural rules, see our Texas court rules page.
Answer: In the post 9/11 environment society has been consumed by the question of whether torture is acceptable under extreme circumstances. The “ticking bomb” metaphor was regularly employed by various figures in the US as an argument to justify the use of torture in interrogations during the term of the Bush Administration. It is an argument that has been used to justify torture in a set of very extreme and detailed circumstances. This paper will argue that the “ticking bomb” metaphor does not provide a convincing argument to justify the use of torture under extreme circumstances. First, definitions of torture and the “ticking bomb” metaphor will be provided. Second, this essay will discuss the use of torture by the US in the War on Terror. Third, the arguments for the use of torture under extreme circumstances, and the flaws of allowing torture under extreme circumstances will be addressed.
Explanation:
any act by which severe pain suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (United Nations 1997).
Torture is prohibited in any circumstance under a variety of international laws, conventions, and norms. It is spelt out in not only the UN Convention against Torture, but also the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the law of armed conflicts, and the Geneva Conventions (Ip 2009: 36). The prohibition of torture is further enshrined in domestic laws of many of the countries who have ratified these treaties. However, the “ticking bomb” metaphor is used to justify torture in certain extreme situations. The concept of the “ticking bomb” was first conceptualised in a fiction novel written by Jean Larteguy in 1960 (Kovarovic 2010: 254). It describes a scenario whereby the torture of a suspect is considered necessary to obtain information to prevent a future catastrophic event from occurring (Kovarovic 2010: 254). The scenario is usually described as one where terrorists have planned an attack that is going to occur very soon and a large number of people will be killed unless the authorities obtain critical information from the source they have captured (Ip 2009: 40). It is essentially torture that has been sanctioned by the state in exceptional circumstances (Bufacchi and Arrigo 2006: 354). Torture is still considered to be wrong in these circumstances, but it is viewed as a necessary or lesser evil (Ip 2009: 40). Proponents of the “ticking bomb” scenario argue that “torture may be wrong…but mass murder is worse, so the lesser evil must be tolerated to prevent the greater one” (Roth 2005: 197).
Judicial discretion rests on the assumption that a judge should be given ample leeway in determining punishments that fit both the crime and the criminal.
The ability of the court to make certain legal decisions at their discretion is known as judicial discretion. The idea of the power separation states that one feature of judicial independence is the judges' discretionary authority.
One of the most significant powers of the court is judicial discretion, which allows judges to make decisions in certain situations without adhering to any set rules or recognized laws.
One example of the independence of our court is the idea of discretionary power.
By enabling the judge to take into account unique circumstances in situations when the law is insufficient or silent, its careful application enhances justice and can support an equitable judicial procedure.
To know more about judges, visit:
brainly.com/question/29218261
#SPJ4
The new abortion law states that only states have the rights to decide on the abortion laws that they have in their states.
<h3>What was the Roe V wade ruling?</h3>
This was the ruling that was formerly used to say that abortions was legal in the United States. This law was overturned recently. This gives the states the rights to decide if they would want to continue allowing abortions or not.
For the states that would rule it as illegal, it means that women would no longer have the rights to terminate the pregnancies that they do not want. The reason I would say abortion is important is because it may be useful in issues where the pregnancy is a high risk for the carrier.
Read more on Roe V Wade here: brainly.com/question/3870089
#SPJ1
Answer: dexter season 1 episode 15
Explanation:
