Question 1: 1. In what way did the Kansas–Nebraska Act repeal the Missouri Compromise?

            To begin with, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was originally established and implemented by the United States’ congress to give the citizens of Nebraska and Kansas the authority to choose for themselves whether to allow slavery to continue within their borders or not. Ideally, the reason for that is to assist in repealing the Missouri Compromise of the late 1820 that was noted to prohibit slavery. In return, it ended up infuriating the majority in the northern parts who had already considered the Missouri Compromise as being a long-standing agreement that united them.  In the southern part, people had greatly supported the pro-slavery agreement (Roy, 1953). 

            On the other hand, there was an urgent demand to organize the western territories in an effect way. The relentless trend towards the need of expanding the western territory had ultimately ended up pushing ranchers, farmers, and prospects towards the pacific. Regardless of the means that were used to access the north and the south, there was the need of ensuring that a railroad has been developed to link the pacific and the eastern states.  Despite that, it was impossible to pass rail lines through the unstructured Nebraska territory that lied north of the Missouri Compromise in which slavery was greatly prohibited.

            Additionally, the reason as to why this act was passed was to aid in reorganizing these two territories with or without slavery something that was termed as popular sovereignty. Although it ended up contracting the Missouri Compromise, it left an open question concerning slavery. The reason for that is because there was the need of ensuring that it has satisfied a group of the powerful southern senators who were approved the Missouri Compromise. As a means of repealing the 1820 Missouri Compromise lines, there was the need of uniting both the Nebraska bill and the Kansas bill because each had a different agenda (Roy, 1953). 

            It should be understood that although the Missouri Compromise ended up drawing an imaginary line that in return considered the northern part to be a free territory.  To counter the effect of this, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed so as to aid in intruding the idea of the popular sovereignty. The popular sovereignty was to give the residents of the newly formed states the potential of deciding whether to allow slavery within their borders or not. Ideally, this is to imply that the intention was to allow slave trade to be carried on in these two territories (Roy, 1953). Last, but not least, it was important to repeal the Missouri Compromise because in the process of advocating for slavery, it had in return devastated the life of the people. It has also deprived the republican the potential to influence the world as well as enabled the establishment of free institutions.

Question 2: Why did Lincoln consider the act the result of “covert real zeal for the spread of slavery?

            The position Abraham Lincoln had on slavery was one of the means he used to express his moral ideas about the dangers of slave trade.  Although he had initially tried to come up with the idea of fostering the eventual extermination of slavery through stopping it from expanding any further in the Unites States’ territory, there was the need of ensuring that he had also proposed the idea of compensated emancipation. One of the issues behind that was the fact that the expansion of slavery into the newly formed western lands could end up blocking free labor. He also believed that it was wise to administer a controlled extinction of slavery through voluntary colonization rather than following the ideas of the abolitionists who demanded compensation to the owners (Good, 2009). 

            On the other hand, the idea Abraham Lincoln had was that even if it was difficult to end the institution that was already introduced to manage slavery, it provided no concrete reason or reasons as to why it was important to own slaves.  Considering his views, it was absolutely unjust as well as it has the likelihood of making Americans to be hypocrites.  As much as he was against slavery, he did not believe that it was important to emancipate compensation to the slave owners. The reason for that is because since the extent of the time it was to take was also unpredictable, there was the need of ensuring that the slaves were free and sent back to the motherland (Good, 2009).  Although that a strategy was not monetary or timely possible, it was important to free them, guarantee them equality and freedom, and let them stay among themselves.

            Nonetheless, inaction to it was perceived to foster the spread of slavery. According to his opinions, despite the fact that their nation was established on fundamental doctrines of freedom, slavery could have offered others the right to brand them hypocrites because of fostering a system of slavery. In addition to that, this system also had the potential of depriving America the just influence it had on the rest of the world as well as opposing the founding principles that were established during the Declaration of Independence. The correlation that existed between racial equality and abolition should be regarded as being the graphic organizer.

                                                            References

Good, T. S. (2009). Lincoln for president: An underdog's path to the 1860 Republican nomination. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland.

Roy, P. B. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press

David Walker's Appeal

Q1.

According to Walker, the Christian Americans dehumanized the people of color and called them beasts of burden (Hinks, 2010). The slaves and people of color were denied educational opportunities and they were also restricted from participating in social and political activities.  For example, throughout the American Republic, there was no colored President, a Governor, or any government officials but rather, people of color held low offices of the Constable (Hinks, 2010). The White Christians also prohibited the people of color from marrying whites. The people of color did not own property even a barren land but they worked day and night and they got paid little money. They used the money to purchase a small piece of land but later a white man would come and drive out the owner of the land (Hinks, 2010). The people of color experienced insupportable insult from whites. The white Christians insulted them by telling that they are descendants of Monkeys, they are inferior both in their bodies and minds, and they are unfortunate.

However, despite these afflictions and sufferings, Walker's views about God were that the Lord lives, he rules in heaven and on earth, he hears the cries and tears of the oppressed, and he is just and holy (Hinks, 2010). Concerning slavery, Walkers believed that God will one day act on behalf of the oppressed and arrest the oppressors. God will bring destructions upon the oppressors and make them fights against themselves (Hinks, 2010). Their unity and happiness will be destroyed and conflict will emerge from political usurpers. On the other hand, the oppressed and their children will rise up and live happily and comfortably. 

Q2.

According to Walker, Slavery was the source from which the miseries progressed in that terror and devastation spread out throughout the nations. Today, countries such as Spain, Portugal, France, and of course the United Stets enjoyed the labor of the slaves (Hinks, 2010).  In particular, the American people practiced slavery and they were completely satisfied to see the people of color and their children under misery. Walker and the other free African America were affected in that they survived in the midst of slavery and this means that their freedom was minimal. They could not express themselves concerning slavery and this means that they experienced slavery and lived under discriminatory laws. Even though they had the opportunity to live in urban centers and enjoyed economic opportunities, they were kidnapped, they were denied voting rights, and freedom of movement, and experienced other wretched practices and threats of slavery (Hinks, 2010). Another important thing to note is that slavery affected slaves in that they could not marry whites, they suffered from unpaid labor, they could not participate in political practices, and they could not enjoy any form of freedom (Hinks, 2010). African American families were severely affected in that the families separated and father, mother, and children could live in separate places due to enslavement.

Q3.

Walker makes an appeal to the men of color and tells them that they should enlighten the White people and act to show them that they are free and happy. Rather than showing the white that they are inferior and of the lowest kind, they should rise up and go to Southern and Western regions and give evidence that they are no longer slaves (Hinks, 2010). They should proclaim their freedom and happiness. Walker also advised that people of color to accept their poverty and marginality and be thankful to God and believe that there will be higher attainments in the future (Hinks, 2010). The people of color should prove to the Americans that they are ‘MEN' and enlighten their mind for them to understand that indeed the people of color have achieved freedom.

Q4.

Walker sees the white Christians of America as the enemies of African Americans as they were pretenders to Christianity. For example, Walker uses religion to show that it is the only element that can bring union and freedom, but Christians were the major oppressors (Hinks, 2010). Thus, Walker says that Christians Americans treated people of color like brutes and they acted as hypocrites in that rather than teaching people the word of God, they violated it.  On the other hand, Walker sees free blacks as the allies of African Americans (Hinks, 2010). The free blacks in the free African populations engaged in forceful rescues and helped the slaves find their freedom.  Showed their manpower and battled for abolition.

Q5.

Concerning the future of the U.S, Walker says that in the future, the African Americans will come out of the cruel and tyrannical government and the U.S will become humble.  God will put them down and they will never treat the people of color as brutes.  In projecting such a future, Walker justifies his reasoning by asserting that the U.S was affected by the great powers of Great Britain (Hinks, 2010). During the war, the U.S encountered costly defeats but at the end of the war, the U.S overpowered the enemies and developed national confidence. Walker states that the African Americans are suffering the way America suffered under the powers but in the future, the people of color will overpower the murderous government and have a secured future.

Reference

Hinks P. Peter. (2010). David Walker’s Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World. Penn

State Press

 Summary

 The American Highest Court case Marbury v Madison recognized the standard legal evaluation- the authority of the national courts in declaring jurisdictive and executive activities unconstitutional. John Marshall recorded the writings of the case (Bamzai, 2016).

 The name and style of the case

 In Marbury v Madison, the law court made a pioneered ruling a unique ruling that had never been made in US, that a court could declare an act of congress invalid if the act does not adhere to principles of the constitution (Bamzai, 2016). William Marbury was selected for the justice of peace position for Columbia district during the last days of Adam’s term. When Madison, secretary of state  refuted delivering Marbury’s directive, Marbury fired back with three of other supporters, petitioning the injunction of mandamus convincing delivery of the directive.

 The principal magistrate, standing for undisputed court, refused the request and consequently did not issue an injunction. Even though, the chief justice realized the requesters had the right to their demands, he still upheld his judgement through the constitution and did not waiver from what was right (Bamzai, 2016). Hence, he did not grant the Superlative Law court the authority to issue injunctions of mandamus. Unit 13 of the Magistrates Act (1789) states that one can issue a writ, but that part of the act was unpredictable and failed to align with the principles of the constitution. Therefore, the writ became invalid. The direct effect of the decision was blocking the authority of the courts; its long-term impact is increasing the court’s authority via creating the rule. Since the Marbury v Madison, the Superlative Law court was the ultimate authority in terms of the jurisdiction of the congress regulations.

The parties to the legal action

 Congress lacks the authority of permitting laws that dominate the constitution, through the expansion of the range of the Supreme Court’s initial prerogative (Orren, & Walker, 2013). Thomas won the 1800 presidential elections against John Adams. Before Jefferson ascended into office in March 4, Adams together with the congress enacted a judicial act, which generated district courts, in the process expanding the circuit courts, adding the number of judges to each and every single circuit court, giving the president an added influence over the selected federal judges and reducing the supreme court magistrates reduced from five to six. This regulation suggestively was an effort by Adams and his party-political plan to hinder the opposition from making interfering in government power (Feldman, 2013). After the changes, the president had the power of appointing 16 circuit judges and 42 other magistrates commonly referred to as midnight judges. The newly appointees got support from the senate; nevertheless, their appointments were not under the constitution unless, the secretary of state permits them.

 The facts of the case

 The case had a powerful impact on the American Supreme Court after it publicly declared an act of the congress invalid. The case set a precedent for legal appraisal written by John marshal in the year 1803 (Orren, & Walker, 2013). Another fact was that the president appointed William Marbury as justice for peace. Marbury was also one of the ‘midnight appointees’. He got his commission at the start of Jefferson’s appointment. After the inauguration and assuming his duties, Jefferson directed James Madison, to suppress Marbury’s commission. Marbury appealed the case at the Supreme Court and lobbied for the issue an injunction of Mandamus.

 The procedural history of the case

Madison did not complete the former president’s selection of Marbury as justice of peace. Marbury immediately appealed to the Superlative Law court for a reasonable solution in terms of a injunction of mandamus (Feldman, 2013). The Superlative Law court upheld that even though Marbury had the constitutional right to a solution, Unit 13 of the courts act 1789 extended the authority of the superlative court of law, which  was illegal and outside of the constitution.

 Before this case, absence of regulations rendered it unconstitutional (Feldman, 2013). The key importance of the Marbury v Madison was that it assisted in defining the initial authority of the American Supreme Court. In terms of procedural history, Marbury made his way to the Supreme Court to compel Madison, the secretary of state for the sake of delivering the directive.

 The issues

            Whether the legal case was the first of its kind to declare an act of congress void hence consolidating the policy of legal evaluation. The court decision caused a pendulum effect, which reverberated through the American future, as the law was one of the elements used for establishing American constitutions (Orren, & Walker, 2013). Days before Jefferson ascended into office, the congress generated a 16 circuit judge positions and an indefinite number of new positions, which Adams continued to fill with federalists in an attempt to preserve the party’s power and influence of judicial activities while at the same time covering up the corrupt deals. Marbury and his attorneys argued that validation and closing the commission completed the deal and the delivery in case of a constituted formality. Nevertheless, in the existence of a formality or not, the definite part of parchment, Marbury failed to enter into the roles of the office.

 The holdings

Most of the scholars questioned whether Marshall would have dropped the case due to his prior services as secretary of state during Adam’s tenure. Perhaps, later on the legal principles would call for recusal (Feldman, 2013). However, at that point in time, only monetary associations affiliated to the case guided the judges step away as Marshall did in terms of the legality of the issues which he had a vested interest.

 Analysis

 For the sake of staying on the same page, a injunction of mandamus refers to a court order directed a government personnel, commanding him or her to obey official duties appropriately or rectify an abuse (Feldman, 2013). Marbury utilized the provisions under the judicial act 1789 to facilitate his rights to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refuted Marbury’s request as the chief justice Marshall affirmed that the judicial act 1789 was not constitutional for it granted the Supreme Court power  that was prohibited by article III of the American constitution. More so, he stood his ground and claimed that the constitution failed to provide the Supreme Court the authority to issue writ of Mandamus. In other words, the judicial act of 1789 recognized the national judicial of America. According to the article III part I, the American constitution prescribes that the authority of the judicial system relies on the Supreme Court and lower courts.

 Dissents

The dissenting opinions relied on whether the court should have the last say in matter pertaining the judiciary (Feldman, 2013). Some think that the congress act should have all the power and not necessarily aligned to the constitution for the greater good of the nation in some emergency situations. Hence, the need for approving laws from both the court and the congress.

References

Bamzai, A. (2016). Marbury v. Madison and the Concept of Judicial Deference. Mo. L. REv., 81, 1057.

Feldman, S. M. (2013). Chief Justice Roberts's Marbury Moment: The Affordable Care Act Case (NFIB v. Sebelius). Wyo. L. REv., 13, 335.

Orren, K., & Walker, C. (2013). Cold Case File: Indictable Acts and Officer Accountability in Marbury v. Madison. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 241-258.

                                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Plaintiff-Appellee: Rosita M. Charles

Defendant-Appellant: Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation

Judges handling the case: Gould and Mckeown as the circuit judges and Battaglia as the district judge

Matters before the court: The office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation had appalled district court demanding the summary of judgment of Rosita Charles.  The United States district Anthony J. Battaglia was the one who chaired the case with designation. The reason as to why the office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation was denied their requirements is basically to first take into consideration the need of the thousands of the Navajo tribal members who were displaced from their ancestral homes just because of what was stipulated by the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act (Johansen & Pritzker, 2008).

Deposition

            It is this decision that was perceived to have the ability of casting light on the arbitrary or the unfair processes that was used by the office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to reject the benefits that R. Charles and the members of the community could have received as they were promised in the process of being driven away from their homelands. Despite that, although such benefits did not have the potential of fully compensating the damages made as a result of violating human rights, at least it was the best means of ensuring that ONHIR have adhered to the basic standards of justice and fairness (Wilkins, 2003). 

            As much as this case is concerned, the court ended up reversing the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation’s denial for the court publication for the relocation benefits. The idea for that was to demand or to ensure that the case to the ONHIR have received a reward for all the relocation assistance given. According to the reasoning of the judges, it was important to first review the decision arrived by the ONHIR so as to aid in determining whether such reasoning was an abuse of discretion, capricious, or arbitrary. Otherwise, in case such a decision was to be if it was not being in accord with the law of the state. The same reasoning or decision was required to be supported by considerable evidence or else to be disapproved (Wilkins, 2003). 

Observations of the court lawyers

            Initially, before relocating people from their land, the federal government had promised them to be compensated. The way approved to be used to compensate them was to build for them homes and also offer them other associated relocation benefits. In order to be liable for such benefits, each person was to prove that he or she was the legal resident of that place. According to the views of the judges, there is a jurisdiction which existed during that period (Mark, 2015). Because of that, it was important for the judges handling this case to reverse the guarantee provided by the district court authorizing the provision of summary of the judgment as well as affirming the reasons as to why ONHIR was denied the relocation assist benefits demanded. Ideally, the recurring and considerable contact standards that the ruling judges applied was not perceived to the appropriate means of handling the case taking into consideration the current regulations that applies. The best court ruling standard that could have been used is basically the intent to residue with ultimately integrates the reasoning of the judges with the manifestations of such intent (Johansen & Pritzker, 2008). 

            This then implies that under this standard, it is evident that the determinations of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to reject the benefits that they were to receive from R. Charles are something that was ultimately supported by considerable evidence.  Therefore, it undeniable that R. Charles had become the owner and controller of the household back in the late 1983. Later on, she ended up joining Many Farms Chapter. During the hearing of this case, she ended up testifying that she continued visiting her aunt in her place of residence. Regardless of that, the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation had no option but to depend on the voluntary decision made by R. Charles to link with the Many Farms Chapter during the time she was given the responsibility of becoming the head of household (Mark , 2015).

            Later on, the conclusion that was arrived at by Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation is that R. Charles had ultimately failed to comply with the burden offering the relocation assistance rewards once she had been proven to be the head of household. Ideally, this is due to the fact that she had become the legal inhabitant of her aunt’s place. In accordance with the considerable difference that was afforded by the agency determinations, the court judges acknowledged that there was no any reversible made by the concluding decision by the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) (Johansen & Pritzker, 2008).         

                                                            References

Johansen, B. E., & Pritzker, B. (2008). Encyclopedia of American Indian history. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.

Mark ,Q. S. (2015). An Introduction to Native North America - Pearson eText. Routledge Press

Wilkins, D. E. (2003). The Navajo political experience. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.

                        Analyze the goals and objectives of the NSA / CSS

1. Manifestation of principled performance – in the process of accomplishing their missions, the role NSA/CSS entails committing themselves towards a steadfast and principled advance to performance. This takes into consideration acting lawfully through complying with rules and regulations as well as protecting public trust. The same is always fostered through exercising transparency, accountability, and integrity.
2. Implementation of better business practices – In order to achieve this; it is the responsibility of the organization to ensure that they have provided timely and detailed information aimed at informing tactical and optimal investment decisions. In return, organization accountability is also maintained in the act of accomplishing such decision which enables them to achieve related performance improvements.
3. Developing and leading proficient workforce – In order to overcome the existing cryptologic challenges, the organization takes the responsibility of attracting, developing, as well as engaging outstanding diverse employees.
4. Preparation for the future endeavors – The organization takes the responsibility of delivering the capabilities of the next generation as well as implementing solutions to tackle the challenges that might arise afterwards. Such solutions are also aimed to be driven from inventions to operations which in return has the ability of supporting the missions of the U.S. Government and national security
5. Excelling in the modern operations – The organization takes the responsibility of enabling better policymaking, efficient state security actions, and the freedom of action of the United States in cyber space. To achieve that, the organization exploits electronic systems and signals of other states to protect privacy as well as civil liberties (Federation Of American Scientists, 2019). 

Explain what you believe to be the most important goal / objective for the protection of national security interests.

            Out of all the above goals, the most important one is the preparation for the future endeavors. The reason for that is because it is the one which will enable the organization to have the ability of identifying targeted future technological trends. In so doing, it will be easier for the enterprise to integrate breakthrough researches that will allow them to predict any issue concerning technological perishability. This in return has the likelihood of influencing future investment priorities (Federation Of American Scientists, 2019). 

                                                            Reference

Federation Of American Scientists. (2019). Striving For A Safer World Since 1945. [online] Available at: https://fas.org/irp/nsa/strategy.pdf. [Accessed 19 May 2019].

The people V. Henry Ginsberg

The setting of the case took place in the 19^th century at the time when gambling took place in an uncontrolled environment. The current way of gambling is different from the 19^th century due to advancement in technology. Gambling is now legal in most parts of the world, unlike in the 19^th century where it took place illegally. The illegality of gambling back then was not taken seriously as a harmful vice; therefore, it made it easy for activities such as robbery and corruption to take place. The case between the people V. Henry Ginsberg is an example of gambling can lead to robbery. Joseph Goldstein, Louis Scharf, Benjamin Bochner witnessed against Edward Ginsberg who was the accused. The case provides a platform to find out why gambling can result in corruption, crime, and injustices. Organized crime in history is linked to gambling. There are still controversies as to concerning the extent to which gambling could lead to crime. Legalizing of gambling in the current generation has even made it hard to identify vices that come with gambling.

Crime on trial

The case involved two parties, which are the people and Jacob Ginsberg. The people represent the prosecution while Jacob Ginsberg was the defendant. The assistant attorney general James Donohue represented the people while Abraham Horowitz was the defense lawyer. The trial took place on December 19, 1921, and was title as robbery in the first degree. Witnesses who testified against the defendant were Joseph Goldstein, Louis Scharf, and Benjamin Bochner. The three witnesses stated that they were survivors of the robbery. The three claim to have lost money during the robbery, which includes $210, $65, and $6000 respectively. Benjamin Bochner who had not been subpoenaed appeared from the middle of the hearing and requested to testify against Jacob Ginsberg. Edward Ginsberg, who was on defenders side, claimed that Bochner had tried to solicit for a bribe of $500.

Defendant’s argument

Abraham Horowitz, while defending his client, argued that Bochner’s witness statement could not be used against his client since Bochner was lying that he knew Jacob Ginsberg by face. While being a question, Bochner said he had not mentioned to the police about Jacob being a crime scene. The police officer who was on duty on the day of crime did talk to the three witnesses, but the witnesses had not mentioned about Jacob Ginsberg. The police further claimed that he had inquired from Bochner about the name of the person who robbed them. In his response, Bochner said he did not know which was not true since Jacob and Bochner had known each other for nearly fifteen years. Jacob Ginsberg had a cut on his face, which made it easy to identify. Abraham stated, “And you do not know whether he had a cut on his face? Look at him,”. Moreover, the defense argued that it was against the law for Bochner to be a witness, yet he had failed to take subpoena from the district attorney general. He stated, “Did you get the subpoena in this case?”

Prosecutor’s argument

James Donohue arguments based on previous offenses committed by Jacob. The offender previously was convicted for disorderly conduct, for instance, pushing. He stated, “Pushing and jostling, isn’t that right?” He further adds that the culprits’ brother had partly reimbursed the victims for the losses incurred during the robbery. The reimbursement is a clear indicator that indeed, the robbery had taken place, and it was likely that Jacob Ginsberg was the leader. James Donohue asked, “And don’t you know that all the witnesses in this case, except Mr. Bochner, got back their money?”

Key themes

Corruption

Gambling is considered an underworld activity whose operation is controlled by crime syndicates. The personnel who run gambling, whether legally or illegally often resort to corruption for them to operate without being stopped by local officials. The case of people v Ginsberg might not have faced complains of corruption from those in authority, but there was an instance of corruption. Edward Ginsberg claimed that Bochner had solicited for a bribe of $ 500. Bochner is seen as a corrupt individual; his situation represents how gambling today is facing corruption. Most people are against gambling, but it would be hard for them to raise since the issue since most of the officials is corrupt and even elected individuals have benefitted from gambling money (Smith, Wynne, Hartnagel, 2003). Sports gambling provides an example of how gambling has resulted in corruption. The current sports gambling is facing match-fixing, which has since damaged sports reputation. Corruption is seen through ways such as bribes paid to players or match officials.

Crime

Gambling through media such as movies, Tv shows, novels, or popular culture as part of organized criminal networks (Turner, 2008). The clichés of hardcore crimes such as robbery and cheating do not apply to the current gambling environment. Criminal elements linked to gambling has shifted to new forms of crime, such as money laundering. The robbery was normally in the 19^th century where mobsters and gangs could raid gambling places for money. The case of people v Jacob Ginsberg shows how robbery with violence is associated with gambling. While taking part in a gamble, the three witnesses were robbed with guns. The accused took everything valuable, including Bochner’s diamond ring. Gamblers often carry lots of money, therefore, making it a target for robbery and violence. Money is seen as the main thing in gambling when Bochner said, “yes sir; and I always carry much money on my person, one, two or three of four thousand dollars or more. Just like the old gambling methods, the current generation of gambling involves lots of money. Gambling has therefore led to money laundering through casinos where a person can easily gamble with little money but at the end of it cash out large amount while claiming to have been proceeds of gambling.

Justice

Gambling is considered as a harmless vice; therefore, it was hard and is still hard for laws to be enforced with prioritization. The documents written from the case of people vs. Jacob Ginsberg confirms who officials in this case George Murray were not keen on taking up the case with priority. The police officer seems he had not seriously taken up the case; for instance; he knew the accused had been indicted as Henry Ginsberg. At the night of the robbery, it is reported that the police were in the neighborhood but never bothered to check what was going on at Joseph Goldstein house an indicator that rap gambling was not considered as much of a vice. According to Eadington (2003), gambling is, therefore, acceptable in modern society, which has made it hard to get justice whenever gambling-related crime takes are reported. In the case of people vs. Jacob Ginsberg, it is difficult for both the defendant and the accuser to get justice. The prosecution team claims that their clients were robbed at gunpoint losing their belonging. On the other, hand the defendant accuse the witnesses of falsely claiming that Jacob Ginsberg was indeed the leader in the robbery.

Conclusion

The people vs. Jacob Ginsberg is complex, therefore making it hard for the jury to rule out on fair and true judgment. Joseph and Louis Scharf testified that they were not able to identify the suspect during the robbery since they had hats that covered their identity. On the contrary, Benjamin Bochner claimed that he positively saw the defendant since he did not have a mask on. The conflicting statements made it difficult for the jury to come up with the conclusion of the case. Gambling today is different from the 19^th century, but the vices face through gambling back then and today are almost similar. There are high chances that gambling will continue to attract criminal activities such as money laundering, robbery with violence and corruption currently and in the future. Gambling, especially in casinos, has acted as a haven where criminals can carry out their activities without being. The vices faced due to gambling continue changing due to technology advancement. Current technology has allowed for online gambling, thus making it easy for corruption practices such as much fixing. The only way to prevent criminal activities due to gambling is to treat it as a harmful vice. Treating gambling as harmful, just like drugs or child trafficking will give way for the establishment of strong laws to control gambling.

References

Eadington, W.R.. ( 2003). Values and choices: The struggle to find balance with permitted gambling in modern society. In Reith, G.. (Ed.), Gambling: Who wins? Who loses? (pp. 31–48). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Smith, G.. Wynne, H.. Hartnagel, T.. ( 2003). Examining police records to assess gambling impacts: A study of gambling-related crime in the City of Edmonton. A study prepared for The Alberta Gaming Research Institute. Edmonton. Retrieved September 14, 2008, from http://www.ncalg.org

Turner, N.E.. ( 2008). Games, gambling, and gambling problems.  In the pursuit of winning: Problem gambling theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33–64). New York: Springer.

Introduction

            Unjust law is the one that denies the moral laws harmony. This law is usually not found in the natural law. It makes people uncomfortable and is usually found working hard to come against the law. These laws offend many people which create the need to bring solutions by the affected. Civil disobedience is doing contrary to the agreed law. Being imprisoned for impacting philosophical knowledge to people, attempts to escape from the prison to meet the opinion of the majority and poor payment for some gender are some of the forms of civil disobedience. There is civil disobedience in different aspects of life and strategies towards it can help to eradicate it.

            During the last days of Socrates’ life, he had been accused for several crimes like corrupting the young people’s minds and criminal meddling. Later he was found guilty and this had opened the door for his death condemnation. He had preferred to face death rather than going to exile (Patterson, 18). Socrates is found wondering whether escaping from the law suit and offering cash to the people who would take part in the escape would be just to them and himself and Crito. He feels that it was not just at all and he had not been ready to practice injustice whatsoever.

            There is also another way in which justice is coming out. This where Socrates seems unwilling to escape the prison with reasons that it would show that he had been guilty for corrupting the minds of people. He did this as a way of respecting the constitution (Alican, 379). He believed that the agreement made between him and the State of Athens had been just hence doing contrary to it would be injustice. This is had been a way of courage and righteousness rather that civil disobedience.

            There have cases of improvement in terms of economical racism. Women have been facing this problem at work places but efforts to do away with the issue have enabled to improve this aspect (Bruns,n. p). In many cases recently, women are in the position to earn the same amount of dollars that any man could. The many cases of women being given inferior positions at work and also low payments have been declining with time.

            There is however several instances that show injustice in the law. This involves disobedience of the civil laws. People have gone to an extent of coming up with the things they feel pleasing. When Crito visits Socrates in prison, he brings about the civil disobedience where he tends to convince Socrates to disagree with the laws of the land (Patterson, 16). He tells him to find a way of escaping from the prison to avoid the death. He had believed that it would have been better to Socrates if he had managed to escape and avoid death even though it meant to live in exile. This is a form of civil disobedience as it would be a cause of disobedience against the Athens law which Socrates had already agreed with. He preferred to face death rather that going to exile. This had been an agreement between him and the laws of Athens. Disobeying the law by Socrates would be a form of injustice since he knew everything and decided to abide by it.

            There is a form of unjust law where Socrates is imprisoned for impacting knowledge to the youths. This is because he had sincerely not doing unjust but convicted of corruption and atheism (Alican, 300-379). He had been attempting to teach the youths much on philosophy. He faces threats that if would stop teaching the youths on philosophy, his life would have been spared but if he failed, death would follow. He exposes the anti-philosophical values of Athens when he makes a decision to exercise civil disobedience.

            Socrates would not obey the order as a philosopher of stopping to impact knowledge in the mind of the youth. He knew that it was wrong to disobey the law which had been claiming that he would face death after denial (Patterson, 16). He does not make any attempts of obeying it whatsoever. This shows acts of civil disobedience even when he had been put in prison. He had also denied it during the trial. Socrates stopping to impact knowledge on the youth is unjust because he had not been doing wrong things. As a philosopher, he attempted to do what he seemed right by making the youth bright.

            There is a form of unjust law whereby some people are discriminated in terms of economical activities. In most cases, women are given low pays and also they are the ones who get low paying jobs compared to men (Bruns, n. p). There are also high cases of women getting opportunity gaps in the black community as compared to the whites. Denial of better job opportunities is a way that portrays civil disobedience as no law has authorized this.

            Civil disobedience is seen where people crave to leave their homeland claiming that they are looking for peace from other countries. This is a great form of disobedience. Crito yearns to move away from his hometown to escape from the many cases of injustices found there (Patterson, 18). He is determined to get freedom thereby ignoring the attachments and obligations of his homeland. This shows that he is doing contrary to the laws of the land.

            There is abuse of the law where people choose to disobey the government. They tend to make their own laws which they follow. In the Mexican war, people had gone to an extent of using the government as an instrument for out and inset (Thoreau, n. p). People had been choosing execution of their will through the government. The government had been abused by the people of the land.

Conclusion

            The failure of Socrates to escape from prison by giving money to those who would assist him and a believe that his failure to escape from the prison is a way of showing respect to the constitution and righteousness  are some of the aspects that show lack of civil disobedience. However, people are used act in ways like denial to obey what the laws demand. This has been seen with a case of Socrates where he denies stopping his philosophical work as preferred by the law regardless of being threatened to face death. People also have been disobeying the government thereby doing as per their will and neglecting its laws and need to escape from own lands with claims of getting freedom from other areas. Finally, there is the fact of injustice whereby women have been getting low plays and poor job positions compared to men.

Works Cited
Alican, Necip F. Rethinking Plato: A Cartesian Quest for the Real Plato. Amsterdam: Rodopi,

2012. Print.

Bruns, Benjamin. "Changes in Workplace Heterogeneity and How They Widen the Gender  Wage Gap." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 11.2 (2019): 74-113.

Patterson, Charles H. Cliffsnotes Plato's Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo.

           Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007. Internet resource.

Thoreau, Henry D. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Tustin, Calif: Xist Publishing, 2015.         Internet resource

Comparison between the Netherlands and Sweden criminal justice drug policies

Netherlands

            The Dutch authorities goes on with a strong concern that availability of drugs is the inevitable result of the western society (Chatwin, 2016). This has led to formation of policies that that limits the demand, detrimental effects of drug use and the supply. The main aim of the policies Netherlands is to reduce the risk that result from the drug use to the user, the immediate surrounding and the society (Chatwin, 2016). The policies are formed with the idea that disadvantageous effects of drug does not come from the pharmacologic effects alone but it results also from the personality of the individual and the conditions within which the drug is used. Strong distinctions have been made to differentiate the hard and soft drug based on belief that the hard drugs puts the user in unacceptable risk than the soft drug.

Sweden

            Drug is believed to be a significant social problem which is very serious and for this reason that it hold a strong and uncompromised attitude towards drugs. The mail goal for the drug policy was to eliminate all drugs from the society. This attitude is based on the claim that drugs are not part of the Swedish culture which thus makes them unacceptable (Chatwin, 2016). The goal for making the country drug free was to limit access to drugs, reducing number of recruitments to abuse and all enable the drug abusers stop. In this country, there is no distinction between a soft and hard drugs and any non-medical use is considered as drug abuse

Recommendations

             I would recommend use of both the Dutch approach and the Sweden approach due to the fact that in the society, drugs are inevitable and there will always be use of drugs due to various conditions that may occur to an individual. The soft drugs should be highly regulated with increased prices to reduce the number of individuals who can afford the drugs. This will minimize the number of addictive cases on the other hand drugs  that are likely to cause significant negative effect to the user and to the society in general should be made illegal to avoid the consequences that comes from it such as the issue of drug dependence and massive lifestyle changes that can affect the individual negatively.

Decriminalization view

            Decriminalization of the drug does not really cause much better effect because you still have to deal with the addiction itself. It is actually surprising that allowing the use of the drugs has been proved more successful that the illegalization of the drug. I believe that decriminalization might be a good intervention but it might not apply in all areas due to the cultural differences that exist in different regions (Walmsley, 2019). There might also be a risk of rise in the cases of drug abuse and uses which might have a negative impact to the society.

I agree with Mathew Veltri’s post

References

Chatwin, C. (2016). Mixed messages from Europe on drug policy reform: The cases of Sweden and the Netherlands. Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, 11(1).

Walmsley, I. (2019). Drugs decriminalization: The art of governing drug using populations.

Doctrines of duty of care

Criminal justice personnel performs duties that expose them to liability. Note that all people are constitutionally equal and police officers may also face civil litigation since they are under the law. Under the U.S constitution, the Bill of Rights provides the citizens with rights and freedoms. As the law enforcement officers violate the doctrine of duty of care such as misuse of authority, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and deprivation of constitutional rights, they face legal actions (Dempsey & Forst, 2010). Focusing on the doctrines of duty of care, the law enforcement officers have the obligation to protect the public from foreseeable risks. When police officers are aware that the public is in imminent danger, it is a job-related duty and morally justification to rescue and promote public safety (Dempsey & Forst, 2010). However, when police fail to protect the public from harm, they are held accountable and face civil liability under the Civil Rights Law. According to the law, the accuser should provide evidence such as the records, and witnesses to prove the police misconduct.

 Focusing on vehicle pursuits, police officers have an obligation to serve the public and enforce laws. However, police officers can face liability when they are involved in a vehicle pursuit.  Note that vehicle pursuit is dangerous and can cause harm to everyone involved including passengers and bystanders (Green, 2007). During a vehicle pursuit, police officers are liable due to negligence torts- injuring the pedestrians, intentional torts- assaults and battery, and constitutional torts- failure to give the driver legal counsel. The Court states that police officer should use other alternatives such as flashers and sirens and other traffic control devices to avoid the liability (Green, 2007).  In vehicle pursuit, the citizens can file a lawsuit against the police misconduct and claim for financial return.

References

Dempsey, J. S., & Forst, L. S. (2010). An introduction to policing. Cengage Learning,

 Green R. Jack. (2007). The Encyclopedia of Police Science. Taylor & Francis

Introduction

Negotiation is a vital phase within a system comprised nearly completely of bargaining. A single figure dominates any truthful debate on the criminal justice system in the entire world presently:  an estimated 99% of unlawful perpetrators sentenced in municipal and civic courts accept the guilty plea instead of exercising the human right of standing a fair trial in a jury court. Underneath this specific statistic is the fact that exercising plea bargaining, that is, prosecuting attorneys, and trial judges give perpetrators concessions in exchange for plea bargaining. This paper will discuss the background and effectiveness of plea bargains, offer recommendations in terms of reforming the sector. More so, the paper will carry an in-depth research on effects of efficiency of the justice system, sentencing, the period of adjudication procedure among other aspects of the criminal justice system.

 Background of plea bargaining

 In pursuit of the past roots of plea bargaining, an individual may tend to think of his own perspective rather than the concept of plea bargaining itself (Tsur 198). A defender well acquainted with plea bargaining may think that plea bargaining ideal was always within the justice system. Likewise, an adversary of plea bargaining may find ease in knowing that the concept was an ancient practice of a dead and gone era. Therefore, while studying the background of plea bargaining, one should pay close attention to plea bargaining issues.

 Social researchers clarify plea bargaining issues while at the same time relate the overall ideologies of administrative dealings, which occasionally give historical backing for their conclusive findings (Tsur 199). On the other hand, sociologist philosophies of the courtroom’s changing aspects are frequently subject to past rejections. More so, the perspective that plea bargaining is an economic necessity would gain credibility of only people accept it existed since humans could stand trial.

All through, till the 18^th century, jury cases took place without utilizing an attorney. A judge was the center of every court case in such a court systems. The perpetrator could not access legal advice. In some cases, a lawyer steered the trials, but in numerous occasions, a judge took charge of most of the criminal trials (Tsur 199). Furthermore, the defendants would express themselves uninterruptedly at each court hearings and even respond accordingly to witnesses brought out by the prosecutors. Because of lack of an attorney’s counsel, cases took a shorter time. Courtrooms tried 12-20 crime cases per day. Correspondingly, no one saw the need for a plea bargaining systems infused in the system.

 In the 1960s, the breakthrough trial of Gideon v Wainwright expressively altered the manner in which prosecutors handled criminal cases. In that particular trial, the courtroom decided that perpetrators have the right to an attorney and legal guidance (Helm, Rebecca, and Valerie 367). Presently, defendants can access legal counsel from attorneys in all their cases while another lawyer representing the state. Plea bargains are essential as they facilitate legal representation.

 An additional significant difference between how judicial systems deal currently with criminal trials and how justice systems dealt with them long time ago is the gradual progression of Miranda rights. Most of the times, lawbreakers receive basic legal counsel such as, whatever one says can be used against him or her in the court of law guidance (Helm, Rebecca, and Valerie 367). This reading of rights takes place immediately an officer arrests an offender and before interrogation. Therefore, due to reading of rights before making an arrest, offenders are well aware of their rights, which in turn helps prevent self-incrimination, which laid the basis for the fifth amendment in the American constitution. In fact, most offenders remain silent during an arrest and depend on personal lawyers for protection. With fewer ammo to utilize against the perpetrators, the need for plea bargains remains relevant.

Presently, there are numerous issues influencing the acceptance of plea bargains contracts. In addition, courts deal with more cases than before hence the need for plea bargaining than before (Covey 98). Correspondingly, prosecutors have little free time on their hand to review most of the cases streaming in from various quarters then prepare and proceed with a broad trial. Even if the prosecutors have a fighting or winning chance, it is wise to take the plea bargain deal and save more time while avoiding overbearing that comes with handling one case for a long time.

Civic defenders frequently encounter comparable situations. Administrators assign them numerous cases even though they cannot meet with the client until the actual date of the trial. Therefore, public defenders try to get rid of the cases by entering into plea bargains (Covey 99). On other hand, well known, in demand private attorneys may have numerous cases at a go hence plea bargaining remains the only option of reducing the chunk of work.

 Most of the times, jury trials can go as high as $1million for both sides that is the prosecutor and the offender defense attorney (Brown 58). The Supreme Court in America documented that, if all criminal cases were to stand a complete court trial, then the government would need to build more court building Thus, most judges motivate prosecutors and defense attorneys to enter plea bargains among themselves to reduce burden and easily resolve the cases.

 Modern trends

 Due to the constant burdens, plea bargains settle many cases without any query. Currently, only handful of trials essentially ends in a bench hearing. Numerous court cases deal with thousands of criminal and petty larceny cases. Researches revealed that an estimated 90% of convictions in unlawful trials within America stemmed from plea bargaining (Brown 60). Then, it is convincing, to examine the concepts of plea bargaining so as to improve comprehension on the roles and functions of plea bargaining within the legal system and define its implications on community wellbeing.

Previous studies on plea bargaining conducted by economists concentrated on its maintenance of financial capitals. For instance, (Turner 456) argue that the circumstances under which one can enter into a plea bargain is when it benefits him or her. In most instances, the plea bargains are beneficial for both sides of the case. Other experts incorporate time, expenses, and case proceedings as a basis for accepting. Simply put, time, costs, and long court trials may motivate all side of the case to look into amicable solutions.

 While the preservation of capitals designated for the judicial system unquestionably is a vital aim, justification of plea bargaining steers some hard legitimate difficulties. The benefits resulting from plea bargaining are not dependent on judicial setups, systems or even challenges. First of all, plea bargaining functions as a protection instrument for blameless perpetrators and the government (Turner 123). One directive, of any legal procedure in any part of the world is making sure that innocent people do not end up in jail. This fact usually appears as an argument against plea bargaining, due to the fact that innocent offenders may end up pleading guilty lured by light punishment. Even though flawed verdicts are expensive when it comes to social welfare so is a trial, which produces inaccurate results.

According to legal experts, prosecutorial struggles to encourage guilty pleas play a vital part in the management of criminal justice. In major jurisdictions prosecuting attorney give unique concessions- normally in terms of discharges of certain charges or minimized convictions endorsements to defenders who accept to plead guilty hence surrendering constitutional rights to stand trial or face jury. This Plea bargaining usually deals with cases at a first rate (Turner 167). The court systems acknowledge that plea bargaining is necessary for actual operation of rare legal matters and prosecutorial resources. Prosecuting attorneys residing in huge cities confront the ever-increasing cases (Bibas 1055). The accessible adjudicators, trial assistants, and courtrooms can barely handle all the cases that pass through them since the criminal system rarely litigate cases. Even though some perpetrators may willingly plead guilty because of conscience purposes, most of the defenders enter their pleas expecting prosecutorial concessions. Eliminating the inducement to plead guilty would exert an unbearable tension on the entire system.

 Recommendations and policy change

While criminal courts handle more work even though, they remain understaffed with personal, plea bargaining is gaining popularity even though some sections of the community not agree with plea bargaining gives people a chance of settling the cases amicably without any query. Most people are of the opinion that plea bargaining should be made part of the deal even before the case commences trial (Bibas 89). At the end of the day, everyone seeks justice and plea bargaining gives both sides of the case a chance to resolve their act while adhering to legal matters and within legal jurisdictions thus every party ends up benefitting.

 The government spends a lot of money ensuring the court system does not run out of resources and the system does not experience strain while handling cases (Batra 67). In spite of all of government’s efforts, the court system cannot conduct complete criminal cases hence the need of introducing various ways of encouraging significant ways of handling cases hence plea bargaining remains relevant and effective way of resolving court cases and reducing pressure on prosecutors and other people.

 In most court systems, plea bargaining can start at any phase of the criminal case procedure. For instance, plea deals can start at any point so long as the perpetrator is under arrest and before the prosecutor records the charges. Plea negotiations are likely to lead to deals before the jury settle on a solution (Batra 78). If the jurors fail to arrive at an absolute answer, both sides of the case may have to initiate a plea bargaining and decide on the nitty gritty details. Sometimes people decide to take a plea deal after the judges find the perpetrator guilty and he or she takes an appeal.

In terms of regulating the number of wrongful convictions, people need to consider alternative ways of initiating plea deals. The essence of not disputing charges against a criminal, automatically enters into a plea bargaining. In fact, authorities record a no guilty plea on criminal archives (Batra 109). Nevertheless, when a victim sues the perpetrator, in a public court, one cannot enter a plea bargaining.

 Policy change

Policing a governmental decree of the civil operations. It evaluations forms and sufficiency of statements of a particular claim under liberal pleading rule. However, since a federal rule tries to be adoptive to the successes of code pleading and at the same time avoid failure. In general, if another time is not specified by the rule, the time meant for serving a reaction is as articulated. An appellant should supply an answer in a period of 21 days after the summoning and charge .If it has a duration put off service, within the 60 days after the requesting for the waver or within   the 90days after it was released it to the defendant located in any location with the United States of America (Batra 110). Another party must serve the court with a counterclaim within   their first 21 days after being served with pleading. In addition, a party should   reply to an answer within 21 days after receiving the order unless an order states anything different from the obvious.

A complaint can be dismissed if it the plaintiff does not prove beyond any doubt with facts or evidence of his claims(Batra 119). In considering a motion for dismissal or plea bargaining, when it fails to define a claim, all facts or allegations of the complainant are assumed to be truth and all logical inferences are generated in favor of on moving party e.g. Rhodes v Robinson. Although, a legal conclusion ca not be made until the facts of the case are laid bare before the court.

For instance, In a case of Aatrix verses Green shades, the federal institution reversed and remanded the court’s rule 12(b)(6) on grounds that the complaint’s factual allegations termed as true, blocked resolving  the eligibility query .Plaintiff Aatrix claimed that patents meant for systems and methodology for designing ,generating and upgrading information  into a consumable format and reports. The defendant Green Shades moved to dismiss the court for the case under law 12(b) (6) on the grounds that a declared patent was not qualified beneath portion 101 of the patent (Tsur 198). Aatrix debated that the  case should be thrown out of the court and should be termed as premature if the generation of the claim was absent. The court granted Green shades their request and held each claimed made the Aartrix ineligible under section 101.Aatrix moved in for an appeal and an amendment but the court t denied their request hence their amendment was futile. And the two sides had to decide on a good a out of court settlement. This just one of those examples which show the need for plea bargaining instead of completing a court trial.

Sufficiency of complaint or information

Before proceeding with a case to a due procedure of hearing, the complaint made should be seen as sufficient. While federal pleading standards have for a while, required that a complainant have enough facts that are plausible (Tsur 300). A complaint or information’s sufficiency states that that the names of the accused persons or individuals; designating of the offense given by the statute; the action or omission complained of as constitutes the offenses; the names of the offended parties; the approximated date of the commission of the offenses and the location where the offenses were perpetrated.

Works cited

Tsur, Yacov. "Bounding reasonable doubt: implications for plea bargaining." European Journal of Law and Economics 44.2 (2017): 197-216.

Helm, Rebecca K., and Valerie F. Reyna. "Logical but incompetent plea decisions: A new approach to plea bargaining grounded in cognitive theory." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 23.3 (2017): 367.

Covey, Russell D. "Plea Bargaining and Price Theory." Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 84 (2016): 920.

Brown, Darryl K. "Judicial power to regulate plea bargaining." Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 57 (2015): 1225.

Turner, Jenia Iontcheva. "Plea bargaining." (2017).

Bibas, Stephanos. "Designing plea bargaining from the ground up: Accuracy and fairness without trials as backstops." Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 57 (2015): 1055.

Batra, Rishi Raj. "Judicial Participation in Plea Bargaining: A Dispute Resolution Perspective." Ohio St. LJ 76 (2015): 565.

Brady v Maryland

            During criminal proceedings, the due process is a legal  requirement that allows the prosecutors to disclose the evidence to show that the defendant is guilty and they also release evidence to show that the defendant is innocent (Del, 2007).  However, the Brady v Maryland affected both police and prosecutors in that they failed to provide evidence to show that the murder was committed by the companion. The prosecutor was involved in an unlawful act of suppressing the evidence and thus he violated the due process (Del, 2007).  As a result, the Court reversed the conviction.  Failure to disclose favorable evidence led to postconviction challenges. Thus, the police and prosecutor violated the due process, the disciplinary rules, and undermined the adversarial system.

According to the 14th amendment, the prosecutors have an obligation to disclose any favorable evidence. Failure to adhere to the constitutional requirement may ruin one's career and face punishment. Since the 14h amendment is the backbone of the criminal justice system and the prosecutors have a professional responsibility, he or she should face the disciplining authority (Del, 2007). There is a disciplinary system whose role is to punish the officials who violate the ethical standards. Punishment can be associated with a loss of integrity. Note that prosecutors should adhere to ethical rules and they should avoid the violation of a disciplinary rule (Del, 2007).  Failed to adhere to the rules, one may be punished through disbarment. Since the act of concealing evidence leads to serious harm to the party and criminal system, prosecutors deserve to be disbarred. In the U.S, the Supreme Court employs the exclusionary rule when prosecutors violate the due process (Del, 2007). The purpose of this technique is to deter prosecutorial misconduct.

Reference

Del, C. R. V. (2007). Criminal procedure: Law and practice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

                                                            Abstract

            Establishing the principle of informed consent, it means that the UK Supreme Court in Lanarkshire Health Board versus Montgomery belatedly ended up following the Australian decision of Whitaker versus Rogers, a decoupling the responsibilities of informed patients concerning the material risks of the clinical treatment from Bolam. Basically, the primary commitment to patients’ autonomy corresponds with the medical laws established for the purpose of protecting the rights of capacitated patients. It is the same treatment that aid physicians to come up with treatment decisions, which others might consider being bizarre because they are likely to harm the patient.

            Therefore, it is apparently anomalous that the Supreme Court had to rely on therapeutic exception (TE) simply because it had the potential of suggesting the primary paternalistic approach to be used. Regardless of this view, some of the international examples principally suggest that use of the TE do not essentially clash with clinical commitment to patient’s autonomy. In other nations, such an exception end up alleviating the various objective test of materiality through assisting physicians in exceptional situations to offer protection to patient’s autonomy or interests. Likewise, in other countries, the main objective of the TE entails protecting those incapable of autonomous from any perceived harm. However, in Wales and England, the unconventional mechanism can equally be interpreted for the purpose of protecting a patient or patients from harm. Because of such views, it can be lawfully argued that the therapeutic exception (TE) is unjustified, unnecessary, and obfuscatory.

            Nevertheless, from medical point of view, the duty of the physicians entails offering patients with advice as well as obtaining permission before treating the patient. Unfortunately, we can acknowledge that has changed significantly taking into account the decision arrived by the Supreme Court in the case involving Lanarkshire Health Board versus Montgomery. It, therefore, implies that it is not sufficient for physicians to comply with is perceived to be responsible practices within their area of specialization. The only option that they have is to act according to what the patient could convincingly expect. Logically, the yardstick it fundamentally set by the patients and not by the medical profession.

            It can equally be argued that the Supreme Court in Lanarkshire Health Board versus Montgomery is one of the landmark decisions founded by the Supreme Court in favor of informed consent or approval for the patient who required counseling to persuade her to undergo clinical treatment.  As a result of that, the Supreme Court efficiently conscribed the realm of the Bolam test. Traditionally, in the context of clinical services and in cases concerning consent, such a test had made it difficult for plaintiff asserting negligence to effectively bring a claim that could replace clinical opinion with that of the patient.

                                                            Introduction

            In March 2015, a considerable change in the law occurred that had profound implications for physicians and patients trying to discuss the options for their treatment as well as seeking consent or permission for them. From the medical point of view, it is vital for physicians to be informed the extent at which the law has been altered so as to keep on ensuring that they continue complying with their onerous duties (Karen, 2017). The Supreme Court in Lanarkshire Health Board versus Montgomery case assisted in redefining the legal relationships that exist between physicians and patients. Ideally, it assisted to enshrine or protect some of the law principles that existed before in the good medical practice (GMC) practice (Ruth et al., 2014).

            As far as the guidance was to be implemented, it implies that it could have induced any significant changes to GMC practice. However, the reality could have been that some of the busy physicians under considerable time pressures may not have the potential of offering enough consideration to the consent process. Due to the fact that the time offered within the NHS practice for clinical consultations is perceived to be inadequate, it means that the medical profession will be forced to try and change its practices. The reason for that is because that has the potential of enabling them to continue complying with legal responsibilities (Hobson, 2016).

                                                                        Facts

            In October 1999 and in a hospital at Lanarkshire, Nadine Montgomery was lucky to give birth to her first child. Due to shoulder dystocia followed by hypoxia during birth, it was unfortunate that the baby she gave birth to had severe disabilities. What followed is that she claimed that it was the Lanarkshire Health Board that had caused all that. She claimed that the obstetrician who had assisted her to give birth was negligent. Conversely, her accusation was that physicians had negligently failed to first advice her about the prevailing risks of vaginal delivery as compared to elective caesarean section (Hobson, 2016). Because of that, the obstetrician failed to encourage her to accept such an option as compared to vaginal delivery so a way of responding to abnormalities in the cardiotocography (CTG) trace.

            Medically, cardiotocography (CTG) is one of the medical techniques that are used for the purpose of recording uterine contractions and fetal heartbeat during pregnancy. Although there is no approved evidence suggesting that the general monitoring the pregnancy risks in women, the whole process has to be performed with caution. Within this context, it means that it all has the ability of assessing and improving fetal wellbeing. Therefore, according to her allegations, the risk of shoulder dystocia that her new born body had after delivery ranged between 9-10% that average. The same risk, taking into account prolonged hypoxia was clinically found to be less than 0.1%. Although it can be perceived to be extremely low, the same risk was materialized at the end of the day (Patrick & Henrik, 2018).

            Being having a degree in molecular biology, it made her to be described as being an intelligent woman as far as this case is concerned. As a result of that, she had the potential of weighing up some of the prevailing clinical advice regarding the option the hospital considered to be more effective during delivery. Taking into account the evidence that the obstetrician gave, it is evident that she failed to advice her about shoulder dystocia. According to the physician, such a risk was relatively small. Consequently, if she could have advised her to take such an option, it means that a large percentage of women with the same situation could have ultimate voted for caesarean delivery. Therefore, taking into account the patient’s interests, it implies is that it is her wishes that ended up outweighing the doctor’s assessment. Although in the first instance, such a claim failed, the Supreme Court found out that neither the hospital’s management of labor nor the advice was negligent (Jackson & Oxford University Press, 2016). 

                                                            Bolam Test

            In the late 1957 and during the hearing of the case concerning Bolam test, although now a conventional clinical test, it was affirmed that, a medical physician cannot be considered guilty of negligence in case he or she could have administered treatment that complies with the rules established by medical profession. Alternatively, it was equally affirmed that such a physician could have considered the views of the law that asserts that it he or she decided to act in accordance to the existing medical practice he or she will not be negligent (Dominic et al., 2008). The reason for that is because there are various opinions that can be used as the basis of the same argument.

            Likewise, notwithstanding challenges, it implies that the Bolam tests have for long been regarded as the ultimate criteria through which any clinical negligence actions are based upon. In Wales and England, especially in Hong Kong and UK, judges always rely on the reasoning of the physician that could have compelled him or her to take such a step. Considering the case of City and Hackney Health Authority versus Bolitho health in 1998, the court found out that it is such a situation that had initially fostered the modification of the court reasoning. During the hearing of this case, it was advocated that all the bodies of the clinical opinions ought to be respectable, reasonable or responsible so as to ensure that it have instilled defensible and logical (Levene & Chervenak, 2008). 

            Conventionally, Bolam test has applicable in two situations. The first one entails determining the medical standards that was used to approve administering such a procedure. The second one involves informing the patient about the nature and extent of the medical procedure that the physician proposes and the risk that will follow if she does not comply with it (Karen, 2017). Taking into account the first condition, it means that plaintiff bringing such a claim will not be in the position of succeeding in case the existing respectable body of clinical judgments has the potential of supporting the medical procedure or standards used. Regardless of other medical opinions that might be available, or the presence of multiple medical practitioners, it is evident that his or her claim will be based on the procedure undertaken (Jones, 2004).

            On the other hand, taking into account the second condition, the physician cannot be accused of negligence in case what he or she did or failed to say complied with the prevailing body of clinical judgment or opinion. As a result of that, it implies that the medical opinion, (Bolam test), is not applicable to the provision and disclosure of information any more, including the risk that was stated in the second situation (Marc et al., 2011).

                                                            Argument

            In medical profession, the definition of negligence was initially termed as the Bolam test taking into account the case of Bolam versus the Friern Hospital Management Committee that was held in 1957. During the hearing of this case, the test that was conducted was to ascertain whether the involved physician had acted in accordance to the accepted code of conduct that that were initially implemented or approved by the medical professionals who are skilled in such a field. The application of this test on Bolam was not only to enhance diagnosis or treatment but basically to examine the advice that the doctor had provided. Therefore, the primary question that lingered in Montgomery is whether such a test had the ability of providing the exact reason as to why the test was applied taking into account the physician’s duty of first advising the patient about the risks associated with it (Birju, 2014).

            Considering the case Sidaway versus Maudsley Hospital and Bethlem Royal Hospital board of governors versus Sidaway and the Maudsley Hospital that was held in 1985, the Supreme Court’s precursor had ascertained that the doctor’s reasoning did. Accordingly, the existing opinion of the Law Lords approved that it was enough for the physician to explain some of the underlying risks in a way that complied with their medical profession. Medically, this is to imply that it is the duty of the physician to decide and inform the patient about the positive and the negative consequences of the medical attention to be provided (Claudia, 2015). In other words, such a situation can be regarded as being the position or the opinions of the obstetrician that was immediately required to rectify such a situation. 

            In Sidaway, it was evident that the majority opinion of Lord Scarman is the one that ended up introducing a huge responsibility on the concerns of the patient. According to his reasoning, it was the duty of the doctor to take reasonable health care that could in return had respected the rights of the patient when it comes to deciding whether or not to incur such a risk (Peter, 2013). Although such a decision could not have involved clinical considerations, the truth is that it was important for the patient to be informed about the prevailing factors. For instance, research indicates that the relative significance attached to quality of health care or the relief of pain as compared to bodily integrity, physical appearance, or length of life varies greatly (Imogen & Jonathan, 2018).

            Other notable examples indicate that the circumstances or the views of a person have the ability of impacting their thoughts towards the suggested treatment or the reasonable alternatives.  As a matter of medical reasoning, it means that the physician cannot be in the position of making objective clinical views of these issues. It is such a reasoning that somehow deters him or her from taking the right decision concerning the best medical attention to be provided (Peter, 2013).

            Nevertheless, it was on the majority position that continued to prevail until the case of Ms Montgomery. Before that, it was evident that it was the duty of the doctor to ensure that he or she has explained and advised the patient about the risks that was to follow in a way that complied with the reasoning of the body of clinicians. Therefore, it was not necessary for the patient to be informed about the test to be carried out (Harpwood, 2005). 

                                                The change in court ruling

            The UK Supreme Court in Montgomery later realized that the majority of the English courts had started reasoning differently in ruling such cases. In return, when it comes to the need of advising the patient about the underlying treatment, the Bolam test was found to be undermined just because of the decisions that were arrived at. The court also realized that there were considerable changes in legal, medical, and social landscape since the Sidaway case. The first change the court found out is that there existed various cultural approaches that were used in establishing and maintaining physician-patient relationships (Claudia, 2015). The reason for that is because people have been perceived to be independent bearers or rights that govern their lives. When it comes to the need of making personal choices, patients are perceived to the one embracing those rights and not being submissive recipients of health care procedures approved by medical profession. In addition, they have to be considered as the main customers exercising choices and not what the health care profession approves to be the right choice (Samanta, 2016). 

            The next reasoning is that the majority of patients are capable of seeking medical information as compared to traditional times. Ideally, it was realized that they are conversant with the signs, symptoms, examinations, therapeutic options, side-effects, and risks of the treatment to be given. Other than accessing the internet, they have had the opportunity of depending on information leaflets and patient support organization to gather more information about treatment (Camillia, 2017). Moreover, the law requires that it is mandatory for medical suppliers to ensure that they have not only put labels on the products that they supply but also ensure that each content has information leaflets. The reason for that is because it is assumed that with such information, it is possible for patients to have the ability of understanding the conditions of their ailment before weighing up the recommended treatment options (Herring, 2018). 

            Thirdly, with the continued development in medical profession, protocols such as good medical practice (GMP) have been established. From the perspective of this guidance, it implies that one of the duties of clinicians entails partnering with patients, listening, and responding to their distress and preferences. It is, therefore, important for physicians to ensure that they have provided to patients all that they need or want using the mechanism that enables them to understand its implications. Furthermore, this implies that it is vital to respect the rights of the patients when reaching a reasonable decision with the physician about their medical attention and care (Samanta, 2016). 

            Fourthly, it is evident that the Human Rights Act 1988 was the one that assisted in developing the Human Rights law. As a result of that, it has been realized that the courts had extremely become conscious about the values of self-determination, for example, in cases dealing with issues of termination of treatment. Moreover, taking into account what the European Convention on Human Rights states, it is important for doctors and their health institution to ensure that they have the rights of patients for personal life as well as other global instruments (Laura, 2014).

            Therefore, this means that the landscape has extremely changed taking into account the nature of the relationship that has to be established between physicians and patients. The clinical paternalism, that patients rely on upon guidance from physicians, has paved way to the extent of regarding patients to be independent decision-makers. It is this scenario that enables them to filter out the non-clinical and medical concerns into their medical decisions.

                                                            The Decision

            The UK Supreme Court in Montgomery finally ended up rejecting the application of Bolam test to the physician’s duty of first advising the patient. Taking into account that test, it means that it was not based on the fact that the physician had acted according to the approved medical standards but on the expectations of the patient, that is what she desired to know. A person who is capable of making sound judgment is ultimately entitled to choose the form of treatment he or she wishes to undergo (Samanta, 2016). Because of that, it was logical for the physician to seek her consent before administering treatment that could otherwise interfered with her body functioning. As a result of that, it implies that doctor given the responsibility of taking reasonable care was to ensure that the patient has been informed about the underlying material risks that could involve as a result of the recommended treatment as well as that associated with variant or alternative treatments (Levene & Chervenak, 2008). Basically, in situations concerning such a case, the test of materiality mainly takes into account the fact whether a sensible person would be able to add the implication to the risk, or physician should have been reasonably, informed that the patient in question was likely to attach the significance of the test to it (Herring, 2018). 

            According to the law, the most significant part of this test was mainly its material consideration. The reason for that is because the same material facts are evaluated by referring to the patient in question or the reasonable person (the concerned obstetrician) who took care of the patient. According to medical review, it was found out that the shoulder dystocia risks was she had ranged between 9-10% implying that that could have caused serious injury to her baby was perceived to be 0.1%. This means that whether such a risk was material it could not have been an issue of percentages. The reason for that is because all that will have to rely on the effect that the same risk have on the life of the patient, the manner in such a treatment benefits the patient, alternatives as well as other risks that might evolve from the same alternatives. Depending on the characteristics of the patient, it means that such reasoning is fact-sensitive (Karen, 2017). Therefore, it was found out that a risk of 0.1% was extremely low to be perceived material.

            This then means that the advisory responsibility of the concerned physician cannot be assumed to be an exercise of material proficiency. This is because the physician will only have the potential of understanding all that is material to the particular patient through talking as well as listening to her opinions. What is material can either be termed as being medical or not. As a result of that, there are three main exceptions concerning this rule (Claudia, 2015). The first exceptions dealt with a situation where the particular patient informs the physician that she does not desire to be advised about the risks involved. The second one takes into consideration the treatment exception, that is id the general disclosure of the associated risk it found to be harmful to the health of the patient. The last one is necessity, for example, when it comes to the situation demanding immediate treatment for unconscious patients. Regardless of that, it should be kept in mind that these exceptions ought to be narrowly regarded so as not to be abused (Claudia, 2015).

            Therefore, taking into account the details of obtained from the case of Ms Montgomery, it means that she had the right of seeking medical advice concerning the risk of shoulder dystocia. The reason for that is because it is the one that could have given her the opportunity of making personal decisions concerning the risks that she could have to endure at the end of the day. Later the court found out that if she could have been advised properly, she could have accepted to deliver her baby using the caesarean method. The damages made were valued at £ 5.25 million.

                                                            Implications

            The court had no option but to reject the paternalistic and medical-centered approach to that consent. Since the same test is perceived to be what a reasonable body of physicians could advise, it means that it important to consider using a test whose standards are based on the prevailing practices of the clinical profession. Ideally, such a test have been currently substituted with one which considers patients as being individuals who have the potential of making personal decisions that are based on both clinical and non-clinical considerations (Birju, 2014). The acknowledgement that non-clinical factors might be essential to a particular patient is significant just because there are some factors a physician will not know unless he or she has discussed with the patient. Therefore, it implies that the autonomy of the patient is what has extensively substituted paternalism. This is an important shift in law since it aid in reflecting changes in the modern healthcare culture (Claudia, 2015).

            Nonetheless, there are several considerable implications for National Hospital Services and hospital practitioners. The first one is seeking consent should be perceived as a mechanism through which the patient is given the opportunity of playing a greater role. It is crucial for medical practitioners to ensure they have dedicated enough time in finding out all that is material to the patient concerned. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that the patient has been informed about the significance of the prevailing condition, the predictable advantages of the anticipated treatment as well as other alternatives (Strong & Williams, 2011). Despite that, it is the responsibility of doctors to the patient has understood other matters of greater importance, including the quality of life of the patient, the general impact or impacts of they have on appearance and on the values of the patient. This will require engaging in proper dialogue so as to enable her to assess the impacts that the medical attention to be given have on those factors (Dominic et al., 2008).

            As a result of that, taking consent should not only be a subject of running swiftly through a normal form shortly before operation. Such a procedure will have to be conducted at an appropriate. This is to imply that when it comes to conducting elective procedures, this will have to be conducted earlier before real admission of the treatment, maybe during pre-operative review. For instance, it is difficult to recognize the manner in which focused patient decisions are established when he or she could have already made emotional commitment to the recommended procedure, arranging traveling time, and post-operative procedure (Laura, 2014). Since the decision could have already been made, it is will be the duty of the physician to go on with the procedure. This means that some of the tasks delegated to junior doctors will have to be postponed first. Furthermore, consent will have to be fully recorded and in case standard forms are to be utilized it is important to look for an extra space to aid in recording detailed discussion. In recording standard benefits and risks, the doctor will have to ensure that such a written record have had the ability of reflecting the priorities of the patient (Imogen & Jonathan, 2018).

            The second implication suggests that consultations in which discussion for treatment is based on should often be lengthy. In most cases, the type of discussion needed by the Supreme Court in Montgomery takes a lot of time. The implication for that is that it will result into stretched NHS materials or resources. In this scenario, it is evident that what the Supreme Court ended up considering are some of the potential objections from the health care profession. One of it is that there was no enough time to maintain lengthy discussion during consultation. Uncompromisingly, this view assisted in ascertaining that it is important for doctors to respect patients’ dignity (Peter, 2013).

            The third implication is that it is possible for medical institutions to be in a situation in which it is the patients who vote for costly medical treatment. Such patients could end up expressing preferences for extra examinations or for medical attention that could have been approved by physicians so as to costly constrains. An apparent example of such a treatment is the caesarean sections. The main concern of the obstetrician who attended Ms Montgomery was that in case she informed diabetic patients about the dangers associated with shoulder dystocia and the minute brain injury the baby could have got, it could be possible for them to vote for caesarean sections (Birju, 2014). Although that physician could have exaggerated, the probability is that she was right that it could have resulted to a significant increase.  Since the hearing of the Ms Montgomery’s case, several other cases erupted. Moreover, in those cases, the plaintiff claimed that they could have voted for caesarean sections in case they could have been informed that the treatment to be provided by the hospital was inadequate. Therefore, such a decision might as well end up increasing costs for the prolonged NHS service (Karen, 2017).

            The fourth implication is that at times physicians are required to be more aware about the need of first consulting their patients in case the anticipated risks changes during the treatment. But in reality, it implies that is alteration in the law in such a situation. Physicians, however, need to keep in mind that the need for obtaining patient’s consent is a continuous exercise and when it comes to changing situations it might not be easy (Jackson, 2018).  For instance, in the Barths Health NHS Trust versus Tasmin the plaintiff claimed it case the CTG was abnormal, it could have been important for the hospital to offer her a caesarian section as the alternative means for sampling the foetal blood. Unfortunately, the court ended up rejecting this allegation because the doctor did not have enough information for advising her unless the foetal blood sample was obtained. The obstetrics of the plaintiff commented by stating the requirements of the modern law are changing with time. Labor is one of the dynamic processes that a woman undergoes. As a result of that it is not logical to have lengthy discussion with the patient as the risks will keep on changing during the discussion (Ellershaw & Wilkinson, 2011).

            It, therefore, means that it is the autonomy of the patient that has taken the center stage of the patient-doctor relationship.  Consumerism is one factor that is considered to be the less attractive part of the patient’s autonomy. The reason for that is because autonomy is perceived to have the ability of respecting the rights of the patient to be informed properly and make personal decisions. Another primary emphasis of consumerism is patient choice. It is the choice of consumers to use their money to purchase commodities and/or services as they desire or wish (Patrick & Henrik, 2018). Conversely, from the perspectives of NHS healthcare, obviously it will not be their resource (money) they are utilizing. Ultimately, the choices they make are financed by limited resources that are used for the purpose of responding to the needs of the whole population. This then means that uncontrolled consumerism risks offer a person a high degree of preference that would end up prejudicing the interests of their community. Ideally, one of the existing challenges will entail finding a principled autonomy that will have the ability of balancing individual rights with the duty of recognizing the needs of other people (Elizabeth, 2014). It demands the need of recognizing the limited nature of National Health Service (NHS) resources as well as the fact that it is possible to encounter more justifiable claims from other patients to limited resources.

                                                            Conclusion

            In case consumerism is perceived to be the downside of patient’s autonomy, it implies that social welfare will become the upside of paternalism. Traditionally, the National Hospital Service (NHS) was established on the foundation of principles of community welfare. Despite that, it has been changing into an extent of becoming a better consumer based means of improving healthcare. Ultimately, there should be a balance between community welfare and autonomy. It has been realized that there are other services that the community healthcare system cannot manage to provide because of the existing finite resources For example, one of the main responsibilities of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) entails assessing the advantages of drugs in relative to cost. Likewise, the same principle concerning the need of balancing benefits and balancing costs will also be applicable in other forms of treatment despite of the wishes of the patient.

            With years to come testing the extent at which the autonomy of the patient paves way to community welfare is one area of concern. The blunt statement that was made by Lady Hale that the healthcare profession ought to respect the choice of the patient unless she does not have a legal capacity to make personal decision is completely true in relation the delivery of Ms Montgomery. The reason for that is because some medical examinations and treatments a particular patient will demand but difficult to have. As far this case is concerned, it implies that Montgomery aid in representing one of the main landmarks in the law that reinforces the rights of the patient over the medical treatment they want. It is also an important challenge to both the modern healthcare profession and the National Hospital Services.

                                                            References

Birju, K. (2014). Q&A Torts: Questions and Answers. Edition        11, illustrated, revised, annotated. Routledge

Camillia, K. (2017). Mental Capacity in Relationship: Decision-Making, Dialogue, and Autonomy Volume 34 of Cambridge Bioethics and Law. Cambridge University Press

Claudia, C. (2015). Beginning Medical Law: Beginning the Law. Routledge Press

Dominic  W, Julian S, Tony H, & Judith H. (2008). Medical Ethics and Law: The Core Curriculum. Elsevier Health Sciences

Elizabeth, M. C. (2014).  The ‘Hippocratic’ Corpus: Content and Context. Routledge Press

Ellershaw, J., & Wilkinson, S. (2011). Care for the dying: A pathway to excellence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harpwood, V. H. (2005). Modern Tort Law 6/e. Taylor and Francis Press

Herring, J. (2018). Medical law and ethics. Oxford University Press

Hobson, C. (2016). No (,) More Bolam Please: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. Modern Law Review, 79(3), 488–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12194

Imogen, G & Jonathan, H. (2018). Great Debates in Medical Law and Ethics: Palgrave Great Debates in Law. International Higher Education

Jackson, E. (2018). From ‘Doctor Knows Best’ to Dignity: Placing Adults Who Lack Capacity at the Centre of Decisions About Their Medical Treatment. Modern Law Review, 81(2), 247–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12328

Jackson, E., & Oxford University Press. (2016). Medical law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jones, R. (2004). Oxford textbook of primary medical care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Karen, D. (2017). The Umbilical Cord Blood Controversies in Medical Law: Biomedical Law and Ethics Library. Taylor & Francis, 2017

Karen, D. (2017). The Umbilical Cord Blood Controversies in Medical Law: Biomedical Law and Ethics Library. Taylor & Francis Press

Laura, S. (2014). Handbook of Social Media and the Law. CRC Press

Levene, M. I., & Chervenak, F. A. (2008). Fetal and neonatal neurology and neurosurgery. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.

Marc S, Kay W, & John, T. (2011). Text, Cases and Materials on Medical Law and Ethics. Routledge Press

Patrick, C & Henrik, P. O. (2018). Legal Authority Beyond the State. Cambridge University Press

Peter, D.C. (2013). Comparative Healthcare Law. Routledge Press

Ruth C, Mairi L, & Darren, S. (2014). The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know: Genetic Privacy and Responsibility: Cambridge Bioethics and Law. Cambridge University Press

Samanta, A. R. U. H. (2016). Medical law concentrate - law revision and study guide. Oxford University Press

Strong, S. I., & Williams, L. (2011). Tort law: Text, cases & materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.