20190920032507icc_case__manufactured_product_ 20190920031615butters_and_chicken_questions__3_ x20190920032335butters__if_the_wages_of_sin_are_for_death___pecuniary_gain_ 20190920032254when_the_judges 20190920032418frigaliment__chicken__case
I need the attached file questions to be answered. Page # depends on the length of each question.
Solan “When judges use the dictionary”
1. What is Solan’s issue with the court’s ruling in Chapman v. United States?
2. What was the issue in the case of Moskal v. United States?
3. What was the ruling (the majority opinion)?
4. What is the rule of lenity and how did it play into the minority opinion written by Scalia?
Reading Questions over Butters “If the wages of sin …” (pecuniary gain)
1. What does pecuniary mean?
2. Describe the Jones case. What are the facts of the case?
3. What is the legal question here?
4. In what legal decisions in the past has “for pecuniary gain” been applied?
5. What does the legislative intent appear to be regarding this phrase?
6. What is the ordinary language meaning of “for pecuniary gain”?
7. Should Jones be charged with the capital crime of homicide “for pecuniary gain”?
Questions over chicken cases:
Frigaliment case
1. In your own words, describe the case and its central issue.
2. What arguments were used on each side?
3. Which arguments do you find the most convincing and why? You may disagree with the majority opinion.
ICC case
1. In your own words, describe the case and its central issue.
2. What did the court consider on their way to the decision?
3. Do you agree with the court’s decision? What are possible complaints about their decision?
We’ll look at this case in class: George v. Adler
On 11 May 1963, Frank Adler, while within the boundaries of Marham Royal Air Force station, obstructed Albert George, a police superintendent engaged in security duties at the station. Adler was charged with contravening section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 (UK). The section provided:
No person
in the vicinity of
any prohibited place shall obstruct, knowingly mislead or otherwise interfere with or impede, the chief officer or a superintendent or other officer of police, or any member of His Majesty’s forces engaged on guard, sentry, patrol, or other similar duty in relation to the prohibited place, and, if any person acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, this provision, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
If you had been Adler’s lawyer, what argument would you have made to claim that this Act doesn’t apply? Use the dictionary to help you make your case.
If you had been on George’s side, how would you have argued?
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
