BUSN1230_Final_Exam
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Central Georgia Technical College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1230
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by GrandMorningSquid15
BUSN1230 – Legal Terminology
YOUR NAME: Melissa Smith
These questions are all short essays. You may use your notes and the textbook.
Please answer the questions thoughtfully and completely
.
1.
Describe 3 big ideas that you learned about the law in this course.
The three ideas I have learned about law in this course are the rule of law, due process,
and the balance of power through separation of powers that establishes a system of
checks and balances. Rule of law is a uniquely difficult term to define for many reasons
because the rule of law is supposed to mean the government of law, not men. At the
beginning of this course, this confused me because I had never thought to question the
laws that we are required to follow. Although not everyone chooses to follow these laws
which is why we have police officers to enforce the law and judges to interpret the law.
The question is how can the rule of law exist separately from the people chosen to create
and interpret it? From what I have learned during this course it is my understanding that
the rule of law cannot truly be separate from the individuals that form our government or
even society itself. Because the rule of law is a model of behaviors and actions that
society is continuously trying to achieve although many have struggled to adhere to these
laws. This is why we have institutions and procedures that contribute to the meaning of
the rule of law and what is necessary to achieve it. It would be impossible for our country
to preserve the rule of law if its citizens have no respect for the law or fear of the
consequences of breaking the law. These consequences are where due process comes into
play because every person is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing to determine their
legal rights. The rule of law works because most of our society agrees that following the
law is essential, even when there are not any police officials present to enforce it, and
enables us as a society to maintain order by adhering to this unspoken social contract.
Separation of powers makes sure no one gets too much power. Checks and Balances
make sure the three branches can monitor each other. Federalism is a system of
government where the state government shares power with the national government. Due
to judicial independence, judges are separated from political pressures or influences while
making their decisions and an independent judiciary is essential to maintaining the rule of
law. Judges should not be influenced by a political party, a private interest, or popular
opinion when they are required to determine what the law requires. The judiciary must be
kept away from these influences and pressures to ensure that everyone has a fair chance
to make their case at trial and that the judges presiding over them will remain impartial
there are factors of decision-making reporting to ensure that judges remain accountable to
the rule of law as well. The most important thing I have learned is that everything comes
back to the basic concept of the rule of law.
2.
Select 5 concepts from the course, and explain what you learned about them.
The term acquittal has different meanings depending on what type of law is practiced for
instance in criminal law an acquittal is a decision by the judge acknowledging the
innocence of the defendant. This judgment may be made by a judge for a lack of evidence
for a conviction also called an acquittal “in law” or by a jury who decides the defendant
is not guilty which is also known as an acquittal “in fact.” In contract law, an acquittal
directs a discharge or release from an obligation. A person that has been acquitted of a
crime does not always mean that the person did not commit the crime or offense it may
merely be due to circumstances such as a lack of evidence or a jury not being able to
make a guilty verdict based on the evidence presented to them during the trial.
Whereas, in a bench trial there is no jury because a judge will function as the trier of fact
and will decide the winner of a lawsuit. In these trials, the parties have waived their right
to a jury trial, or else an equitable issue is involved. In all trials, the judge is always the
trier of law, or the individual responsible for making rulings on points of law that occur
during a trial. In some cases, a bench trial may be automatic, especially where the case
involves equitable claims for which no right to a jury trial exists. In some cases, the right
to a jury trial exists but the parties in a federal case may choose to waive this right and
choose to proceed with a bench trial. The choices people make about which type of trial
they choose depend on the factors involved in the case such as the need for flexibility, a
speedier trial that saves time and money on performing jury trial-related tasks.
A grand jury on the other hand has two main functions, one is to investigate and the other
is to protect against unfounded criminal prosecutions. A grand jury is comprised of
a body of sixteen to twenty-three people who listen to evidence of criminal allegations,
which is shown to them by a prosecutor, and they determine whether there is probable
cause to think an individual committed an offense. Under the grand jury’s investigative
capacity, it can subpoena both documents and witnesses. A grand jury does not always
guarantee that criminal charges against an individual will be made. Under its charging
capacity, a grand jury determines whether there is enough evidence to establish probable
cause that a crime has been committed and that the evidence is enough to charge an
individual or an organization for that crime. Usually, a federal grand jury sits once per
week, or less frequently, for eighteen months and these grand jury proceedings are closed
to the public and are convened in a closed meeting room. The individuals who may be
there are the attorneys for the government, the witnesses under examination, interpreters,
and stenographers. Although the grand jury must consider the evidence objectively and
determine probable cause fairly, the truth is the prosecutor presents the evidence and runs
the process.
Plaintiffs are not always a victim, sometimes they are the ones in the wrong. Being the
plaintiff just means that they filed the lawsuit against the defendant. Everyone can be a
plaintiff including the government, businesses, or corporations. Most lawsuits are civil
lawsuits and can be filed by anyone against a business or individual for almost any
reason. These suits are usually to get monetary compensation for some alleged
wrongdoing against the plaintiff. Criminal lawsuits are brought against someone by the
government that has been accused of committing a crime against society and these
normally result in jail time.
A defendant is a person or business that has a lawsuit filed against them or in a criminal
case is the person or business accused of committing a crime. A defendant may also be
known as a respondent in certain cases such as during an appeal. However, the most
common term used is defendant because the accused is defending their innocence and
must prove themselves not guilty of committing a crime. It is the defendant’s job to
present a case to dispute or deny the plaintiff’s case. If the defendant fails to do so, they
will lose the case. As with any case, the defendant has the same opportunities to plead his
or her case as the plaintiff gets such as calling witnesses, direct and cross-examination,
and exhibits of evidence. Once both sides have presented their case and given closing
statements the judge or a jury will render a verdict or decision as well as an award and a
judgment is rendered by the judge presiding over the case.
3. List 3 questions that you still have about the law.
Identity theft, Property law, and in criminal law the importance of Actus Reus without
Mens Rea?
I still have questions about Identity theft I know it is a system of taking someone’s
identity and then that person pretends to be the other person by assuming the original
person’s identity. I understand that people usually steal someone’s identity and use their
information to acquire credit cards, steal money, get a loan, or obtain a job. My question
is what should someone do when they believe their identity may have been stolen? Do
they contact the police, a credit reporting agency, or do they need to hire an attorney?
What kind of protections or rights do I have if I ever become a victim of identity theft or
fraud? I know the Fair Credit Reporting Act gives you specific rights when you are a
victim or a potential victim of identity theft although I do not fully understand exactly
what this act does.
In property law lease or rental agreements are complicated and from everything I
understand these agreements come with conditions that mostly involve the landlord. I
know the landlord is responsible for any maintenance that is required to keep the property
in good condition unless damage is caused by the tenant and then the responsibility for
repair falls back on the tenant. My question is what rights do renters have as far as
privacy in the rental property? Can the landlord enter the residence without notifying the
renter or allow access to the property to a third party without the renter’s permission? Can
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
a landlord allow entry to the property if they suspect the tenant is doing something
illegal? What steps can a renter take to protect their rights as a renter?
In criminal law what is the importance of Actus Reus without Mens Rea the connection
between Actus Reus and mens rea has been frequently described as the guilty act and the
guilty mind going hand in hand. I know Actus reus is the physical exhibition of the mens
rea, which is the mental component of a crime. What I have not grasped is the question of
can there be a crime without criminal intent if there is no mens rea? How do you build a
case if there is an act without a motive or reason?
I still have questions on whether
every case must have both
Actus Reus and Mens Rea to be tried in a court of law?