|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 25, 2015 18:49:24 GMT
WELCOME, PLEASE ADD YOUR INSIGHTS FROM ANY LESSON. PLEASE NO PROFANITY
|
|
|
|
Post by Denisovich1956 on Jun 25, 2016 16:19:31 GMT
Let me play the advocatus diaboli... What if in scenario #1 the roles were reversed and Burgess' daughter needed the life saving medicine? It is still stealing, however, the law written on Burgess' heart for the love of his daughter would tip the balance. We need peoples elders (courts) to see both sides. Burgess still stole... however there were extenuating circumstances. Today's courts would have him rot in prison... which is not right
|
|
|
|
Post by Joel Busher on Jul 13, 2016 2:07:52 GMT
Denisovich, your scenario has been long debated. For example, if A was dying of starvation does A have a right to steal food from B in order to survive? Some legal scholars would say "yes" based on the higher law of self-preservation while others would agree but add that A has a duty of paying in value of what he took when able while others would say that A has no right at all. In scenario 1, Burgess is more than guilty of stealing when he uses a deadly weapon, an aggravating circumstance. I believe the court's would look at both sides of the story and consider Burgess motive, but in scenario 1 there is no hint of Burgess' motive, the assumption is that Burgess is a criminal thug looking for quick cash.
|
|
