Wally is a world-famous LSU shoe quarterback who is known for his ability to quite literally throw away the game when it matters most. One day, during his rigorous shoe throwing exercises, be negligently knocks an innocent civilian unconscious with a stray purple and gold cleat. Wally was promptly arrested and taken to jail to await trial. The judge assigned to his trial happened to be a passionate Gator fan who was excited about a potential national championship season for his beloved Florida football team, which Wally had spoiled a few years ago with yet another stray cleat. As a result of the judge's (understandable) resentment towards Wally's previous national championship sabotaging episode, the judge sentenced Wally to a lifetime in prison for his current crime. The judge's comically harsh sentence could be described by which of the following legal theories?

Wally is a world-famous LSU shoe quarterback who is known for his ability to quite literally throw away the game when it matters most. One day, during his rigorous shoe throwing exercises, be negligently knocks an innocent civilian unconscious with a stray purple and gold cleat. Wally was promptly arrested and taken to jail to await trial. The judge assigned to his trial happened to be a passionate Gator fan who was excited about a potential national championship season for his beloved Florida football team, which Wally had spoiled a few years ago with yet another stray cleat. As a result of the judge's (understandable) resentment towards Wally's previous national championship sabotaging episode, the judge sentenced Wally to a lifetime in prison for his current crime. The judge's comically harsh sentence could be described by which of the following legal theories?

Similar questions

Is felony murder the equivalent of hanging every 50th thief at random? Why or why not? Despite obvious concerns across most jurisdictions, why is felony murder continued?
Joel is at a protest when he faces an opposing protest. Joel yells, "Don't let those bloody, criminal. un-American jerks step on your rights, no matter what! We stay; they leave!" The police try to make Joel's group back up. Joel's group of protesters charges the other group and the police. Unfortunately, Joel's group injures three people, including a police officer. Joel is indicted for inciting a riot. Joel argues that he was exercising his right to free speech. Two of the state's witnesses, who were members of Joel's group, testified that they would not have participated in the riot without Joel's call to action. Concerning this case against Joel, here is the most likely result: The jury could return a verdict of guilty, decide that Joel is not guilty, or simply be unable to reach a verdict: certainly, the First Amendment's free speech provision does not protect all speech, but on the other hand even strong language does not necessarily mean that a speaker is responsible for how…
Please answer this very simple question displayed with the image above
Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of their age once an employee has reached age 45. Group startsTrue or False True, unselectedFalse, unselected
Do answer asap!
The moral minimum is behavior that might be legal, but not ethical. True or False
9. Wrongfully accusing someone of committing a crime is: A) malicious prosecution. B) slander per se. C) false imprisonment. D) libel.
Making a moral argument entails providing reasons for the position you take. The reasons must include facts, a clarification of any concepts used in the argument, and a standard that you are appealing to in order to come to your conclusion. Read the following case and develop a moral argument for your position. In 1992, Cheryl Hopwood, a white student from a poor family, applied to the University of Texas Law School. She was turned down even though she had better grades and LSAT scores than many of the minority students who were admitted (1). Is it fair for minorities from middle-class families to be given preferential treatment over whites from economically disadvantaged families
Bobby is an investment banker in NYC. Although he currently has several criminal charges pending against him, Bobby is being sued by Alyssa in civil court for "emotional damages" due to a very public and embarrassing breakup in one of her favorite restaurants. Alyssa had already sued him once previously for this exact same issue in the exact same court of law. Alyssa's most recent lawsuit would be denied by this court of law on the grounds of what legal principle? O Dyads O Dicta O Double jeopardy O Lex Talionis O Res Judicata
The prosecutor and the defense attorney both undertake critical roles in representing the interests of the community and the accused, respectively. Considering the important stakeholders served by each, explain whether you believe that the prosecutor or the defense attorney has the more difficult job.
Give typed explanation Kawal, a young mother with three small children, had worked at the counter of a Tim Hortons store for three years. One day, the manager observed Kawal giving a Timbit donut to a crying child who came into the store with their parents. When the manager of the store confronted Kawal about giving a donut away for free, Kawal immediately admitted to giving the donut away to the customer without paying for it. She was aware that this was against the employer’s policy, but she had been busy at the time and did not go to her purse to get the $1.50 to pay for the donut at that time. Also, knowing that day-old donuts are given away to small children in the store regularly, she felt this would be acceptable. Kawal expected to get a warning at most and was shocked when her manager terminated her employment for cause. Sarah filed a wrongful dismissal case. (PLEASE NOTE: I am not looking for your opinion. Use concepts discussed in class or your textbook to provide an…
A group of employees has gone on strike against their employer after an impasse in contract negotiations has been reached. The employees went on strike in order to support their position in negotiations for higher wages. Right after the strike began, management decided to fire two employees who were viewed as pushing the employees to approve the strike. The management then hired permanent strike replacements for the remainder of the workers. What type of strike is this and why? Based on this, was the employer's decision to hire permanent replacements legal or illegal, and why?