Law Sociology Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Law Sociology - Case Study Example However, a warning has to be made on the public speaking system to ensure that no people are present when the sluice gates are opened and the water rushes in a torrent. On the afternoon of June 23, 2002, this did not happen when the sluice gates were opened. As a result two people drowned and seven were bodily injured. The case came to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in January 200. The two accused personnel, John Tammage and Robert Bednarek were accused of 'criminal negligence.' The trial was a lengthy one and took 75 days getting over in December 2006. Both the accused, John Tammage who was a part of the management team and an electrical engineer and, Robert Bednarek who worked in the electrical department as an operator, were acquitted of the negligence charges. The court ruled that the defendants did not have any motive and their actions were devoid of any criminal intent. 0.1 Analysis: The judgment ruled in favor of the big company and expectedly did not relieve the common people. This ties in with the differential social organization theory of Sutherland in 1938. The theory states that crime is backed by some organizations. In other words, it claims that crime is inherent in certain big firms. The higher authorities or government choose to ignore it or support it. Either way, crime benefits by garnering more support and voice. This theory can be further explained with reference to the securities industry. The securities industry expects a certain amount of fraud and theft to occur every year. The industry does not react to prevent such petty crimes and thus encourages crime to exist and flourish in society. This crime is organized within the industry. Sutherland adopted the concept of social disorganisation to explain the increases in crime that accompanied the transformation of preliterate and peasant societies where "influences surrounding a perso n were steady, uniform, harmonious and consistent" to modern Western civilisation which he believed was characterised by inconsistency, conflict and un-organization (1934: 64). He also believed that the mobility, economic competition and an individualistic ideology that accompanied capitalist and industrial development had been responsible for the disintegration of the large family and homogenous neighbourhoods as agents of social control. The failure of extended kin groups expanded the realm of relationships no longer controlled by the community and undermined governmental controls leading to persistent "systematic" crime and delinquency. He also believed that such disorganisation causes and reinforces the cultural traditions and cultural conflicts that support antisocial activity. The systematic quality of the behaviour was a reference to repetitive, patterned or organised offending as opposed to random events. He depicted the law-abiding culture as dominant and more extensive tha n alternative criminogenic cultural views and capable of overcoming systematic crime if organised for that purpose (1939: 8). But because society is organised around individual and small group interests, society permits crime to persist. Sutherland concluded that "if the society is organised with reference to the values expressed in the law, the crime is eliminated; if it is not organised, crime persists and develops (1939:8). Sutherland bases the theory on a few assumptions: 1. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process

Tort of Negligence Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Tort of Negligence - Essay Example Per say the concept of negligence doe not refer to an act. Actually it is a legal concept that tends to define the basic character of an act so as to prove it to be legally wrong. As per Blyth vs. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), â€Å"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.† However, once the concept of negligence came within the scope of the English Tort Law, the next logical and plausible challenge was to decide as to what qualifies to be termed as ‘ordinary care† and what was to be the nature and basis of the measure required to decide as to whether an act committed by an individual, organization or a group amounted to negligence. In that context, one needs to mention the much famous concept of ‘the man on the Clapham Omnibus’. ... The ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’ represented a hypothetical person who is in general reasonable and well educated without being qualified enough to be called a specialist (Twining 64). ‘The man on the Clapham Omnibus’ represented the standard of reasoning with which to gauge a defendant’s conduct in an English Law Civil Action for Negligence. The hallmark of this concept was that it delineated and put in place a standard for ascertaining and establishing the charges of negligence on a defendant. It established a general standard of care expected of any English citizen while performing varied aspects of one’s personal or professional life. The real beauty of this standard is that it tends to be reasonable yet simple in its approach and tends to bring the legal concept of negligence within the grasp and scope of the so called common man. The very fact that this standard of care does not expect perfection on the part of ascertainers obliterates an y possibility on the part of the defendants to wriggle out of the clutches of law by resorting to technical jargon and rigmarole. It is also immensely humane and pragmatic in the sense that it do recognizes the fact that an average person lacks the foresight to foresee any risk accruing by the dint of one’s actions. Still, it is astutely responsible and practical in the sense that it enjoins on the average person the duty to be ordinarily prudent and careful, without tending to be unexceptionally or unrealistically flawless. There is no denying the fact that even the most virtuoso experts in jurisprudence do tend to overlook and appreciate the sophistication and beauty inherent in the concept of ‘the man on the Clapham Omnibus’. However, the reality is that this legal idiom not only validated the concept