1.1 Discuss the purpose and various critiques of lifetime appointments for federal judges.

1.2 Define and discuss the value of precedent.

2.1 Define and distinguish the three types of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. 

2.2 What are the four functions central to democracy performed by freedom of expression under the First Amendment as identified by Thomas I. Emerson? 

3.1 Briefly compare and contrast the concepts of constructive and joint possession against actual (regular) possession. Discuss why you believe constructive and joint possession should or should not be permissible as legal offenses.

3.2 What is the doctrine of transferred intent, and what is the rationale for the doctrine?

 

1. 1. Discuss the purpose and various critiques of lifetime appointments for federal judges.

A life tenure or service during good behavior is one which that lasts throughout the lifetime of the office bearer (in certain situations, subject to forced retirement at a certain age), except if the office bearer is kicked out of office for grounds under unusual circumstances or wishes to quit individually. Life tenure is granted to some judges and representatives of the upper chambers (for example, legislators for life). The fundamental objective of life tenure is to protect the appointee from outside influences. Life tenure is also granted to some leaders of state, such as kings and presidents for life. Once chosen by the presidency and approved by the Senate, federal judges in the United States enjoy life tenure (Chemerinsky, 2019).

Critiques

• The average life expectancy was significantly shorter when the lifetime appointments were initially established.
• For younger individuals, it is vital to give way to chances.
• The justice system has become a politicized armed force.
• Lifetime appointments contribute to the notion that judges are bound by their position and can influence partisan prejudices till death.
• While retention elections are very demanding and probably disruptive, better judges are being held accountable.
• Lifetime nominations are egotistical and unjust to the growth of democracy.
• The bench must be continuously replenished by various judges who reflect the nation correctly.
• While it is difficult in many respects, the present election of judges fosters regular citizen participation.
• While some judges might perform well with an appointment for life, a missing judge, who was lax and did not work tirelessly, would be tough to unseat.

1. 2. Define and discuss the value of precedent.

A precedent is a concept or systematic and orderly rule enforced in a preceding legal case which is either obligatory or compelling on a court or other authority when determining later cases with comparable questions or circumstances without going to court. Common-law judicial systems holds a high importance on resolving cases in accordance with consistent fundamental norms, such that comparable circumstances generate similar and foreseeable conclusions, and precedent adherence is the method by which that aim is achieved. The concept that binds judges to precedents is referred as stare decisis. Common law precedents are the third type of law, in the manner of legislative power (in UK language) or in the form of policy law (in US) on the equal basis of statutory law. Judges should, thus issue judgments in accordance with prior court rulings on the same topic, as fairly as feasible. Almost all of the English common law was adopted as the basis of American law by the Constitution. There are still situations involving regulations established in instances determined more than 200 years ago (Epstein & Walker, 2018). For later decisions involving comparable conflicts, every case determined in the Court of Common Law becomes a precedent or guidance. These judgments are not legally binding and can pass laws that override unfavorable judicial decisions. Without the Supreme Court's determination that these statutes are unconstitutional, they shall exclude the common law. Instead of the previous instances, judges judging the cases are constrained by the new legislation. A common law system's advantage is that the legislation can be adjusted to situations that the government has not considered. Two drawbacks exist. The judges must first take the preceding instances into account. If not, then what the law is, cannot be predicted. The next is that it is difficult to live up to the ruling in question with hundreds of cases being determined every day. It is not rare for numerous courts, without a proper method of coordinating their view, to decide cases on the same issue at the same time. The courts often come to diverse judgments concerning the law. for instance;  The San Francisco State Court could prohibit Zone out from being used on the job, whereas the Los Angeles courts could authorize Zone out. Until the Supreme Court of California addresses the problem, there are separate laws for medical professionals in two different areas. This kind of divide occurs also between federal appeals courts, often with three or four sections of the country, according to a distinct federal law understanding.

2.1 Define and distinguish the three types of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

When a person believes that the federal govt or a state government has infringed his equal rights, that person may file a civil suit seeking redress against such a governmental entity. Depending on the sort of prejudice claimed, the claimant must first demonstrate that the governing body prejudiced against the claimant. The individual must demonstrate that the regulating body's conduct caused genuine injury to the individual. Following proof of this, the court will generally examine the federal action in one of three methods to determine if the governmental body's conduct is acceptable: (Larsen, 2018 ).

Strict Scrutiny

This is the greatest level of examination of government acts or legislation by courts. In order to escape a challenge which breaches constitutional equivalence of safety, the United States High Court has decided that laws or government acts discriminating based upon race, national origin, religion and alienation must go above this degree of scrutiny. This greater standard of examination is also used when a "fundamental right," such as the right to marriage, is endangered by a legislation.

• There is a legitimate purpose behind the contested policy; and the law or legislation is tightly adjusted to get its outcome. Strict scrutiny demands government to show it:

Intermediate Scrutiny

In addition to rigorous analysis, the judicial attention on contested law is less stringent. To ensure that a legislation may pass intermediate examination, it must: • serve an essential goal of the government and • play a significant role in attaining that goal.

In 1976, the US Supreme Court first adopted this criteria where law distinguishes on the basis of sex or gender. This standard of proof was given to matters concerning sexuality by certain federal courts and state supreme courts. Like severe monitoring, intermediate examination likewise placed the state on the obligation of evidence.

Rational Basis Review

it represents the lowest degree of examination accorded to contested legislation, and traditionally a constitutional statute has required relatively less. According to the rational test, the individual who challenges the law (not the administration) must either prove: • The government does not have a vested interested in the law or politics; or • There is no reasonable rational relationship between the law and its interests.

Courts who use the test are very deferential to the government and typically find law to be rational as long as it has a reasonable, rational foundation – even if it is not ever supplied by the state. This test generally applies to laws and legislation that are contested by age, handicap, wealth, or crime, as well as illogical or arbitrary prejudice.

2.2 What are the four functions central to democracy performed by freedom of expression under the First Amendment as identified by Thomas I. Emerson?

1. Freedom of speech encourages people to accomplish themselves by enabling them to explore cognitive innovative thinking.
2. Freedom of expression ensures a vibrant exchange of views in which a variety of points of view are voiced and taken into account when making decisions.
3. Private freedom of speech supports social stability by allowing people to be acknowledged and help shape the policymaking processes. This encourages tolerance of the outcome and minimizes incidences of violence (Loveland, 2018).
4. Freedom of expression ensures a constant flow of creative ideas and allows the state to detect and address newly emerging challenges.

3.1 Briefly compare and contrast the concepts of constructive and joint possession against actual (regular) possession.

Drug offences is a criminal offense involving  the unlawful possession of a controlled drug. Drug possession consists of two main types: actual possession as well as constructive possession.

The term "actual possession" refers to having the drug in their bodily custody or control. Actual drug ownership would be possessing the drug in one's pocketbook or literally in the hand.

Constructive possession on the other hand occurs when a person has the ability to deliberately own an illicit material. an instance is when narcotics are found in the dash board and all occupants have the potential to access it. As a result; Constructive drug offences can result to several persons being prosecuted in the same case, as several persons can at the simultaneously exert control over the drug

Discuss why you believe constructive and joint possession should or should not be permissible as legal offenses.

Courts will consider the entirety of the facts in evaluating whether the trial has shown the intent required to prove constructive possession. This implies they will consider factors including how nearest the element is to the plaintiff, whether the litigate any assertions, whether officers discovered the plaintiff creating quick movements that indicate attempt to conceal the element, and whether the plaintiff exhibits signs of culpability such as anxiety. It is possible for the courts to examine if a criminal prosecution may tie the accused to the place from where the drug or weapons were discovered by the police. the level of visible smuggling will be important. It should thus be allowed as legal violations.

3.2 What is the doctrine of transferred intent, and what is the rationale for the doctrine?

Transferred intent is a judicial theory that states that when the purpose to offend one party accidentally leads a second person to be harmed, the offender is still held liable. To be found legally accountable, a court must thus establish that the culprit had ill intent, implying they presumably knew that their acts would cause harm to the next person and desired that harm to transpire. For instance, if an assassin plans to kill Peter but inadvertently shoots Michael, the intent is shifted from Peter to Michael, and the assassin is presumed to have a criminal intent. Nonetheless, Tort law also applies to transferred intent. In Tort Law, five categories typically apply: violence, attack, unlawful imprisonment, infringement of the land, and infringement of sticks. In general, any purpose to inflict one of the 5 tortures that leads to the accomplishment of one of the 5 tortuous acts, even though the actual tort target is not the original tort's initial target, is deemed to be a deliberate act (Mason & Stephenson, 2017).

Transferred intentions are utilized when a criminal intends to harm a victim, but subsequently injures the second victim inadvertently. In this scenario, the intention of the defendant shifts to the real victim from the immediate target and can be utilized to provide for the human aspect of the crime the defendant is accused of. The theory of transferred intent is applied exclusively for concluded crimes and is not employed for trial offenses.