Loading...
What is the CONSENSUS MODEL of Justice?
Quiz by S F
Customize this quiz to suit your class
Instantly translate to 100+ languages
Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.
Give this quiz to my class
What is a crime A crime is generally defined as an act or omission that is prohibited by criminal law Two critical ingredients of a crime are: 1) the commission of an act (Actus reus) 2) the mental intent to commit the act (Mens rea) A crime occurs when a person Commits an act or fails to commit an act when under a legal responsibility to do so Has the intent or mens rea to commit the act Does not have a legal defence or justification for committing the act and Violates a provision in criminal law The Social construction of crime Important to distinguish between behaviours that may be considered deviant by society and crimes Deviance is behaviour that is contrary to the norms and values of the larger society Crime is behaviour that breaks the law Deviance includes: Criminal behaviour and Wide range of other behaviours not against the law: May be frowned upon by the larger society What is viewed as deviant changes over time Crime includes: Social construction of crime Legal status of behaviours is not determined by behaviour itself but result of social response to the behaviour/persons/groups engaged in it Criminologists often conduct historical analyses to understand how social, economic and political environments may influence legislation Moral entrepreneurs Often play a key role in criminalizing certain activities Individuals, groups or organizations, seek action against certain groups of people/behaviours and bring pressure on legislators to enact criminal statutes The Origins and Application of the Criminal Law Differing perspectives on where criminal laws come from/ applied via the criminal justice system are reflected in two models 1) Value consensus model 2) Conflict Model Value consensus model Behaviours are defined as criminal/punishment imposed, reflect opinions/limits of tolerance Application of law, society reaffirms acceptable behaviours/social cohesion Conflict Model Crime and punishment reflect the power some groups have to influence, formulation/application of criminal law rich/privileged have an advantage in influencing law reform/criminal justice system The Canadian Legal System Is a common law system, with exception of Quebec which has a civil law system (Based on the French Code Napoleon) Common law is law based on custom, tradition, practice and generally unwritten Precedent is a judicial decision may be use as a standard in subsequent similar cases Canadian Courts Canadian courts organised in a hierarchy Supreme court of Canada is the highest court Stare decisis- principle whereby higher courts set precedents that lower courts must follow “To stand by what was decided” Like cases should be treated alike All courts below SSC bound to apply that same ruling in subsequent cases Criminal Law Body of law deals with conduct considered so harmful to society as a whole that it is prohibited by statute and prosecuted and punished by the government Functions of the Criminal Law In Canadian society, Criminal law provides the following functions Acts as a mechanism of social control Defines the parameters of acceptable behaviour Reduces the risk of personal retaliation Assists in general and specific deterrence Prosecutes criminalized behaviour Protects groups interests Principles of Canadian Law The Rule of Law The requirement that governments as well as individuals be subjected to Traced back to the English Magna Carta The essence of the rule of law is that No one person is above the law All persons are bound by the law All are entitled to protection by the law The law should be observed and enforced equally There is a standard to which criminal justice officials must adhere and will be held accountable Criminal Law Vs. Civil (Tort) Law Summary Crime is a social construction and is a reflection of changing time and mores Criminal law is not static and what behaviour legislatively defined as criminal can change overnight There are instances in which controversy arises when the criminal law is applied to issues of ethics, morality and religion The criminal law was identified as one type of public law and the functions of the criminal law were set out The rule of law and the charter of rights and freedoms are two key parts of the foundation of the criminal justice system There are several principles that also provide the foundation for Canadian law The role, principles origins and application of the criminal law were examined and a number of case studies were presented to illustrate the dynamic nature of the criminal law in a diverse society 1. Yield Farming Yield Farming is like a way to "farm" rewards using your cryptocurrency. Here’s how it works: What It Is: Yield farming involves lending or staking your cryptocurrency assets in a DeFi platform to earn rewards, usually in the form of additional cryptocurrency. How It Works: You deposit your crypto into a DeFi platform, such as a liquidity pool. These platforms often use your assets to provide liquidity for other users who want to trade or borrow cryptocurrencies. In return, you earn rewards—often paid in the platform's native token. The more you contribute, the more you can earn. Why People Do It: Yield farming can provide high returns, sometimes much higher than traditional savings accounts or investments. However, it also comes with higher risks, including the volatility of cryptocurrencies and the potential for losses. 2. Staking Staking is a bit simpler and often less risky than yield farming. Here’s the breakdown: What It Is: Staking is the process of participating in the operation of a blockchain network by locking up a certain amount of cryptocurrency. How It Works: You hold (or "stake") your cryptocurrency in a blockchain network that uses a Proof of Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism. By staking your crypto, you help maintain the network's security and operations, like validating transactions. In return, you earn rewards, typically paid in the form of the same cryptocurrency you staked. Why People Do It: Staking is generally seen as a way to earn passive income with crypto. It’s often considered less risky than yield farming because you’re supporting the network rather than providing liquidity for trading. Key Differences: Complexity: Yield farming is usually more complex and involves moving assets across different platforms, whereas staking is typically more straightforward. Risk: Yield farming can be riskier due to market fluctuations, smart contract vulnerabilities, and the complexity of the strategies involved. Staking tends to be less risky but still carries the risk associated with the cryptocurrency itself. Rewards: Yield farming often offers higher potential returns but with greater risk. Staking usually provides more stable and predictable rewards. Summary: Yield Farming: Earn rewards by lending or staking your crypto in liquidity pools. Higher potential rewards, higher risk. Staking: Earn rewards by locking up your crypto to support a blockchain network. More straightforward, generally lower risk. Both methods offer ways to grow your crypto holdings, but it’s important to understand the risks and do your own research before getting involved“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.Democratic Constitution in South Africa Struggle against Apartheid • Apartheid was the name of a system of racial discrimination unique to South Africa. • This system was particularly oppressive for the blacks. → They were forbidden from living in white areas. • Since 1950, the blacks, coloured and Indians fought against the apartheid system. • The African National Congress (ANC) was the umbrella organisation that led the struggle against the policies of segregation. • In 1964, Nelson Mandela and seven other leaders were sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964 for daring to oppose the apartheid regime in his country. Towards a New Constitution • As protests and struggles against apartheid had increased, the white regime changed its policies. • After 28 years of imprisonment, Nelson Mandela released from jail. • At the midnight of 26 April 1994, democracy was adopted as a form of government in South Africa. • After two years, a constitution came out which gave to its citizens the most extensive rights available in any country. Why do we need a Constitution? • A constitution is necessary because: → It generates a degree of trust and coordination that is necessary for different kind of people to live together. → It specifies how the government will be constituted, who will have power to take which decisions. → It lays down limits on the powers of the government and tells us what the rights of the citizens are. → It expresses the aspirations of the people about creating a good society. Making of the Indian Constitution • In 1928, Motilal Nehru and eight other Congress leaders drafted a constitution for India. • In 1931, the resolution at the Karachi session of the Indian National Congress dwelt on how independent India’s constitution should look like. • Factors contributed to the making of our Constitution. → Ideals of French Revolution → The practice of parliamentary democracy in Britain → The Bill of Rights in the US → The socialist revolution in Russia The Constituent Assembly • In July 1946, Elections to the Constituent Assembly were held. → The drafting of the document called the constitution was done Constituent Assembly. → Dr. Rajendra Prasad was the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly. → In December 1946, the first meeting was held. • After the country was divided into India and Pakistan, the Constituent Assembly also got divided. • The Assembly adopted the Constitution on 26 November 1949 but it came into effect on 26 January 1950. • To mark this day we celebrate January 26 as Republic Day every year. • The Constituent Assembly worked in a systematic, open and consensual manner. → First some basic principles were decided and agreed upon. → Then a Drafting Committee chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar prepared a draft constitution for discussion. → More than two thousand amendments were considered. Philosophy of the Constitution • The Constitution begins with a short statement of its basic values which is called the Preamble to the constitution. The preamble focuses on: → Justice, social, economic and political. → Liberty of thoughts, expression, belief, faith and worship. → Equality of status and of opportunity. → Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.What is the main purpose of family traditions according to the text? A) To showcase wealth B) To connect generations and preserve cultural identity C) To compete with other families D) To change cultural practices How are traditions typically passed down in many cultures? A) By modernizing them B) By adding new practices C) By maintaining core elements while adding unique touches D) By discarding old customsWhat is the hebrew translation for the following words: accurate, agency, agent, ahead of, attend college, balance, bomb, description, mile, network, nuclear, once again, open, oppose, order, power, public, secretary, shadow, shock, spy, state, step, sunset, trarget, the West, turn down, victory, well known, What is the difference between democratic and non-democratic government?What is the process by which plants make their own food using sunlight?