Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
"The transmission of such a price-list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity of the wine described at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity. If it were so, the merchant might find himself involved in any number of contractual obligations to supply wine of a particular description which he would be quite unable to carry out, his stock of wine of that description being necessarily limited. I entertain, I confess, a very clear opinion that the Solicitor-General was quite right in arguing the case on the assumption that no sales were made in this country." Lord Herschell Just over one hundred years ago the above ratio-decendi was given in what was at the time a case concerned with alleged back taxes owed by Grainger & Son. Grainger & Son henceforth referred to as G&S were British wine merchants who as a side venture passed on the price lists of a French wine producer to their customers. G&S received a commission on any orders placed with said producer and paid tax on this commission. Gough claimed that tax was payable on the whole value of these sales not just the commission element. Monsieur Roederer henceforth Mr R was a wine producer located in France. He decided whether to accept orders the orders gathered by G&S or not. The reason for this being that the wine was shipped out ahead of any payment being received and Mr R wanted to vett his customers credit worthiness. The wine was shipped directly to the customer in the UK from France. Most customers settled their accounts directly with Mr R. A few customers instead made payment to G&S who would pass on to Mr R any amounts in excess of the commission they happened to be owed. In summary the flows of events are: Mr R, located in France, sends price list to G&S in Britain G&S distribute price list Customer places, for want a better word, an order with G&S for wine produced by Mr R G&S forward order to Mr R Mr R dispatches wine to customer Mr R dispatches bill for said customers wine to G&S for onwards transmission G&S forward bill to customer Customer sends payment to Mr R "“ occasionally made to G&S who forward this to Mr R Mr R sends receipt to customer G&S pay tax on commission received G&S maintained that they entered no contracts regarding Mr R's wine. Gough held the converse view that G&S entered contracts themselves and thus sold Mr R's wine. Our starting point must be to define what a contract under English law is. The Jurists Bentham and Austin have laid down that the "two main essentials of a contract are these: first, a signification by the promising party of his intention to do the acts or to observe the forbearances which he promises to do or to observe. Secondly, a signification by the promise that he expects the promising party will fulfil the proffered promise." More precisely to form a contract under English law the following elements are required i a valid offer has been proffered by the first party to another party or parties ii the offer has been accepted unchanged by the second party or parties and this has been communicated to the offerer . iii there is an intention by all parties to create legal relations when they entered into the contract and the parties have the capacity to contract iv the promises made within the contract are for valuable executive consideration and v the terms of the contract are certain. Did Mr R make an offer through the medium of his price list. Looking in Mozley and Whiteley"s Law dictionary an offer is "An expression of readiness to do something e.g. to purchase or sell". Mr R is saying that he is willing to sell wine. Based on this definition initial opinion would say that the price list does constitute an offer. Continuing with this line of thought G&S acted in an agency capacity for Mr R making an offer to the customers they approached and receiving the acceptance of any order. If the customers accepted G&S's offer made via the medium of the price list then Mr R merely shipped directly from France. The bills for said wine were sent to G&S who would then forward them on to the British customer. These points all suggest that the sale was made in the UK by G&S. The listing of Mr R, in the Post Office London Directory, as trading from G&S's establishment further hints at an agency type arrangement. Much of the argument supporting the invitation to treat viewpoint is by drawing analogies with cases involving auctions such as Payne v. Cave 1789 and Harris v. Nickerson 1873 in which both concluded that bidders make an offer which the auctioneer is free to accept or not. The bidder's offer being retractable until accepted by the auctioneer . The pricelist could be seen as statement of the minimum price at which Mr R would bewilling to sell wine drawing analogies with Harvey v Facey 1893. Mr R's supply of wine in any year is finite and demand could outstrip supply leaving an impossible back log of orders all demanding specific performance. Mr R could possibly, though extremely doubtfully, claim the defence of frustration as the things contracted for no longer exist. Add to this Mr R's option to reject any order makes it appear that his price list is an invitation to treat as otherwise it would be an offer that is subject to revocation without notice. Acceptance of an offer has to be communicated. At the time of this case, 1896, the only readily available methods of communication for distant parties were the postal system or telegram. The postal rule would apply to any customers acceptance sent via these mediums and hence any revocation of the offer would be impossible The final item to consider is the peculiar concept of consideration to be found in the English legal system and those derived from it The 1677 Statute of Frauds made consideration vital in any contracts not made under seal. G&S received no consideration for the wine therefore they could not be a party to the contract. [Transfer of title occurred only between Mr R and the customer]. That occasionally the payments for the wine were made to G&S instead of directly to Mr R was held to be equivalent to Mr R, for the sole convenience of his customers, operating a British bank account to receive payments. Graiger v. Gough was one of the major cases in the creation of the principle of invitation to treat. In order to explore this principle more fully the case will be re-examined as it occurred today. Once again the starting point is was the price list an offer or merely a willingness to deal. There are a number of variants on an invitation to treat these are: pre-contractional negotiations , shop displays and finally advertisements. G&S's supply of the price list to potential customers is a form of direct marketing and falls under the last of these three categories. To be classed as a unilateral offer the price list would have to show some intention to be bound by pro-offering a tangible benefit, in excess of sales puff, that could be accepted by performance rather than communication . Is there any similarity to Bowerman v. ABTA 1995 or Carhill v. Carbolic Smokeball Company 1892. If the answer to this is a negative then the next step is to determine where the act of offer & acceptance occurs. In a face to face situation such as a shop the customer offers to buy goods by presenting them at the till and the shop either accepts or rejects this offer to buy. The goods on the shelves are merely invitations to treat in keeping with the findings of Fisher v. Bell and Pharmaceutical Society of GB v. Boots Cash Chemists. The views of this in America and the European Community are slightly different. Although it seems odd that a shop would not want to sell its stock the English legal system is designed to achieve consistency even if it has to distort the persons actual intent. This produces oddities such as Partridge v. Crittenden 1968 where a newspaper advert to sell wild birds was found to be an invitation to treat not an offer to sell so the defendant escaped prosecution under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 . A key point in the original Graniger v. Gough was where was the contract made. Today the location of the act of contracting can be different depending on the mode of acceptance. The postal rule puts acceptance at the place of posting. Where both parties use a telex or nowadays facsimile machine the Court of Appeal decided in the case of Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation 1955 that the contract was entered into when and where the acceptance was received. Lord Denning confirmed, obiter" that the same principles also apply to acceptances by telephone. Answering machines and voice mail are assumed to at maximum delay receipt of the acceptance till the next working day rather than grant them an agent status capable of entering contracts. Faulty hardware, lack of link & paper or sloppy business practice, such as not checking the fax for days, does not stop or delay the acceptance of an offer. Public holidays and weekends however do delay acceptance till the next working day. E-mail contrary to popular belief is not always an instant form of communication. An e-mail may pass through a number of third parties networks & servers and could quite possibly be considerably delayed. Also the recipient has to actively retrieve their e-mail from their service providers or works mail server. The Uniform Laws on International Sales Act 1967 sets out that the acceptance of an offer becomes effective at the moment the indication of assent reaches the offeror . But is the offer accepted in the country of the readers computer or where the email server is hosted? If a person picked up the contents of their phones answer machine in a country different to that which said machine was in, where was the contract made. Within closed networks or Electronic Data Interchange systems mail delivery is more reliable and it may be possible to tag the e-mails so they generate a receipt message upon reaching their destination and upon being read. The EDI Trading Partner Agreements will also outline when acceptance takes place and which countries laws apply. If Mr R had a website that could receive customer orders would it be an invitation to treat or an electronic contracting agent ? A non-interactive site just listing his wines would most certainly be classed as an advert. This question is under consideration by may of the worlds legal minds. Unfortunately the Argos £2.99 television and recent Kodak £100 digital camera incident never made it to court so there is no precedent. The Kodak site took the customers order and issued an order confirmation which the customer was asked to retain for warranty service. Consumers would believe that having placed their order and given their credit card details and been told that the £100 will be charged to their card along with receiving an acknowledgement ,that their purchase has been made. This "clickwrap contract" is what the law calls a "contract of adhesion" -- a contract you didn"t really bargain over in any way, but which was presented as more of a take-it-or-leave-it offer . Kodak made such a bad bargain that everyone wanted to take it The only case on web based retail sales so far is American where the court stated "such an automated, ministerial act cannot constitute an acceptance" which does little to resolve the issue. As international web based commerce increases, instances similar to Gough v. Granger will become more common. Will the concept of invitation to treat expand outside of legal systems based around Anglo-American common law bringing some consistency to the dynamics of offer & acceptance or will the EU idea of its an offer until the stock runs out be adopted.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 2066 Views: 4015 Comments: 0
"The transmission of such a price-list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity of the wine described at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity. If it were so, the merchant might find himself involved in any number of contractual obligations to supply wine of a particular description which he would be quite unable to carry out, his stock of wine of that description being necessarily limited. I entertain, I confess, a very clear opinion that the Solicitor-General was quite right in...
bad bargain that everyone wanted to take it

The only case on web based retail sales so far is American where the court stated "such an automated, ministerial act cannot constitute an acceptance" which does little to resolve the issue.

As international web based commerce increases, instances similar to Gough v. Granger will become more common. Will the concept of invitation to treat expand outside of legal systems based around Anglo-American common law bringing some consistency to the dynamics of offer & acceptance or will the EU idea of its an offer until the stock runs out be adopted.

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

In the United States, true equality...In the United States, true equality has never existed. From the Declaration of Independence to modern times, the U.S. legal system has failed in any attempt at equality. The ideology of "all [men] are equal but some [men] are more equal than others" has been present throughout the history of the U.S. Orwell. Inequality has always existed in the United States legal system and continues to exist today; however, the inequality presently in the system is not as blatant as what it once was, but the system has come to depend on inequality. Since the very beginning of a legal system in the United States, there has been inequality. The Declaration of Independence declared that ""¦all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"¦"Jefferson. The reality of the Declaration of Independence was that all free, white, landowning men are created equal. Slavery continued in the U.S. for nearly ninety years after the Declaration, and black Americans still feel the sting of inequality. Women were also left out of ""¦all men are created equal"¦." The implied meaning of the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence is what the U.S. legal system has strived for and failed to grasp fully. After the establishment of independence in the United States, the development of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ensued. The Bill of Rights was to establish the basic rights of every citizen of the United States, but failed to do so. The rights of white, male citizens were the only rights that were ensured by the Bill of Rights. The rights of blacks and the underprivileged were not even considered. The Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury"¦, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" "Constitution", Amendment V. These rights were often denied to those that were second class citizens or those people that were not even considered to be people, such as slaves. The rights ensured by the first ten amendments have been denied to some part of the population at any given time in American history. The denying of the basic rights established by the Bill of Rights is not limited to the any one amendment. Even today there are cases that cite the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment, as a basis for defense. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech is probably the most challenged in today's society. With the "Information Age" upon us, the right to free speech has been seeking out its limits and future potential. Because of the extent of free speech and peoples use of it to speak out against the government, there is inequality currently in the system. People who use their voices against the system are often caused a great deal of legal troubles while those that use their voices to support the system are free to do so at will. To return to America's early history of inequality, one must look at the black codes. The black codes are defined as "laws [that] were designed to replace the social controls of that had been removed by the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution [1865], and were thus intended to assure continuance of white supremacy" "black codes". The Grandfather Clause and Jim Crow Laws were all part of the black codes of the South. "[The Grandfather Clause]"¦provided that those who had enjoyed the right to vote prior to 1866 or 1867, or their lineal descendants, would be exempt from educational, property, or tax requirements for voting"¦[T]hese clauses worked effectively to exclude blacks from the vote but assured the franchise to many impoverished and illiterate whites" "Grandfather Clause". Jim Crow Laws were "any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the U.S. South between the end 1877 of the formal Reconstruction period and the beginning of a strong civil-rights movement 1950s" "Jim Crow Laws". Thus, Jim Crow Laws were a large part of black codes. Jim Crow Laws included the statute set by Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896, of "separate, but equal" USSC, "Plessy". With the topic of Plessy v. Ferguson being brought into the situation, one must look at segregation in America as a means of the system reaffirming inequality. "In the Southern states of the United States"¦legal segregation in public facilities was current from the late 19th century into the 1950s" "racial segregation". Legal segregation in America established the fact that there was inherent inequality in the system. Because of this, "the Civil Rights Movement was initiated by Southern blacks in the 1950s and "60s to break the prevailing pattern of racial segregation" "racial segregation". As a result of this movement, Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in the 1955 ruling of Brown v. Board of Education USSC, "Brown". This did not put an end to legal segregation, but it laid a foundation for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act was "comprehensive U.S. legislation intended to end discrimination based on race, colour, religion, or national origin" "Civil Rights Act". Though the intent of the Civil Rights Act was good, it was not as effective as it should have been. It failed to end inequality in the system. Inequality has evolved to fit the newly reformed system. Not just racial inequality adapted to the system, but also inequality towards the indigent and towards women. After all, inequality is not limited to cases of race. Women have been second class citizens since the foundation of America. It wasn't until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920 that women gained the right to vote "Constitution", Amendment XIX. This was fifteen years after the 15th Amendment provided that the right to vote would not be denied on the basis of race or colour Amendment XV. Yet, it wasn't until the 24th Amendment in 1964 that poll taxes where prohibited and voting became more accessible to the indigent Amendment XXIV. Even though these steps were taken to eliminate inequality in most forms, inequality still occurs in the system. The modern legal system in the U.S. has come to not only accept and hide inequality, but also to depend on inequality to function. Perhaps David Cole said it best, "Absent race and class disparities, the privileged among us could not enjoy as much constitutional protection of our liberties as we do"¦" 5. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright can be used to illustrate this point. Cole summarizes the case: Clarence Earl Gideon, a penniless Florida man, down on his luck and charged with breaking and entering a poolroom, claims that although he can't afford a layer, he has a constitutional right to have a lawyer appointed by the state to defend him. When the Florida trial court denies his request, [Gideon] represents himself, and is convicted. From prison, [Gideon] sends a hand-written note to the Supreme Court asking it to hear his case. "¦Abe Fortas [is appointed] to argue Gideon's case, and then [the Court] rules that the Sixth Amendment guarantees indigent defendants the assistance of a lawyer in all serious criminal trials. On retrial, with a lawyer paid for by the states, Gideon is acquitted. 63 The Gideon v. Wainwright may not appear to support the previous statement: "Absent race and class disparities, the privileged among us could not enjoy as much constitutional protection of our liberties as we do"¦" Cole 5. The outcome of Gideon requires government to provide a lawyer to a defendant, "[b]ut as long as the state provides a warm body with a law degree and a bar admission, little else matters" 64. Even though the state provides indigent defense counsel, most are "underpaid, overworked, and given insufficient resources to conduct an adequate investigation and defense" 84. Cole states that in 1990, "[t]he national average per capita spending on local and state indigent defense was $5.37" 84. Cole also points out other facts about the ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright: One of the most remarkable facts about the constitutional right declared in Gideon v. Wainwright is that it was not a constitutional right for the first 184 years of our Constitution. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right"¦to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.' But for most of our history, this right applied only to the approximately 10 percent of criminal trials that take place in federal court, and even there is meant only that defendants who had the money to do so could hire and attorney to defend them. 65 What this establishes is the inequalities of defense in the legal system. Those defendants that cannot provide their own council are at a disadvantage since the council they are appointed is often inadequate. The legal system has come to rely on the disparities of defendants as means of producing convictions, and thus as a reason for perpetuating inequality in the system. The inequalities of the justice system can also be shown in the evolution of laws in more resent times. When laws begin to affect large numbers of white middle- and upper-class people, the laws begin to change. An example would involve the spread of marijuana use. Strict laws of the early and middle part of this century prohibiting the use of marijuana were imposed because the majority of users were lower-class minorities. But during the 1960s and 1970s, the use of marijuana spread though the youth of white middle- and upper-class America Cole 152. This spurred changes in the judicial system to ease the laws affecting marijuana use. Cole summarizes the situation: "When the effects of a criminal law reach the sons and daughters of the white majority, our response is not to get tough, but rather to get lenient" 153. The American legal system has never been truly equal because it was founded on inequality and has always depended on inequality. The system could easily be changed to eliminate those inequalities, but that will not likely happen. "Challenges to measures that disadvantage blacks, other minorities, or women face an inordinate burden to prove purposeful action, and the tendency to ignore the appearance of discrimination or stereotyping"¦; and moral skepticism that doubts that white men discriminate anymore and questions the credibility and motives of challengers who claim otherwise" have lead to support of inequality Kairys, par. 22. So long as there is a majority dependent on the disparities of a minority, the system will maintain its current sanctity. In doing so, the system will remain dependent on inequality and provide means for future inequalities. The American legal system will always adapt to allow for inequalities.   

In the United States, true equality has never existed. From the Declaration of Independence to modern times, the U.S. legal system has failed in any attempt at equality. The ideology of "all [men] are equal but some [men] are more equal than others" has been present throughout the history of...

Words: 1836 View(s): 271 Comment(s): 0
As an electrician, when I make...As an electrician, when I make application for a job, the prospective employer wants to know the usual information; education, character through personal references, and professional ability from former employers. The disclosure of professional acumen is derived primarily from former employers and is limited to ability and punctuality. The object is to discover if I can accomplish the tasks expected of a master electrician in an acceptable timeframe. There is no extensive look at specific methods of mechanics or schools of thought concerning leadership, just a check to make certain that I can get the job finished on time and on budget, with the crew furnished. Selecting a Supreme Court justice is basically the same process. The President picks a nominee and the Senate checks his or her education, personal references, and past public performance; then votes yea or nay. This scenario bears out in both the debates of the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers. In the minutes of a debate dated July 21, 1787, between Madison, Randolf, and Mason of Virginia; Pickney of S. Carolina; Ellsworth of Connecticut; Morris of Pennsylvania; and Gerry, of Massachusetts, the discussion centered on who should nominate, then confirm justices. Madison made the point that the President should make the nomination because he represents the whole of the United States, and that the Senate should, ""¦let a [simple] majority reject" after stating "that he [Madison] was not anxious that two thirds should be necessary to disagree to a nomination" Indeed, in the Federalist Papers Madison favors the third option that the judicial nomination should be vested "in a single man, with the concurrence of such an assembly [the Senate]"; behind the options that "the power of appointment" should rest, "in a single man, or in a select assembly [the Senate]". The use of words like "concurrence" and "approbation" indicate that unless there is something in the character or conduct of a nominee, the Senate should "concur" with the President's pick and Madison states so in Federalist 76; "It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity". Again in Federalist 76, "it is not likely that their [the Senate] sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal". Mr. Madison seems clear that the choice of magistrates should not be reduced to the advancement of partisan issues, but that the stature of such a person should be held above the fray. The refusal of Senate Democrats to accept a nominee on the basis of a candidate's political views is contrary to the framers intent. It would seem that any choice made by this President specifically, is unworthy of such a degree of impartiality considering the Senate's past conduct when the pendulum swung the other way. That thought process, brought to consensus to in the convention and detailed in Federalist 76 was designed to prevent favoritism and cronyism in the Senate by representatives from particular parts of the country, "give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that"; and to hold the President to the nomination of qualified people. The logic lies in the fact that the President, elected then as today, by electors of the state legislatures to this day there is no federal right to vote represents the whole of the country, while members of the legislative branch had ,and have, regional loyalties. It was thought that the Senate would not be likely to reject a qualified nominee of good character because they will be immediately be confronted with another nominee of the President's choice, and the second pick may not be as palatable as the first. A case in point would be the bipartisan rejection of Harriet Miers, apparently now considered less objectionable by Senate Democrats than the President's current choice of Judge Alito. The good news is that the system is working as designed and we are witness to the operation of a 216 year old machine that is running as smoothly today as the day it rolled off the line in 1789. Those who divine the myriad of conspiracies concerning the nomination of Ms. Miers I must admit that I am standing with the crowd that is scratching its collective head on that one, the predominant one being that she was a Trojan horse to make Judge Alito more palatable to Senate Democrats, need to familiarize themselves with the intent of the founders as I am sure the President has. It is as inconceivable to me that the President would act in such a cavalier manner with respect to Ms. Miers' feelings, as it is that she would participate in such a vile conspiracy.   

As an electrician, when I make application for a job, the prospective employer wants to know the usual information; education, character through personal references, and professional ability from former employers. The disclosure of professional acumen is derived primarily from former employers and is limited to ability and punctuality. The object...

Words: 851 View(s): 196 Comment(s): 0
It has been well-established feature of...It has been well-established feature of the English legal system that rules of criminal law are addressed to rational and responsible persons who have the capacity to control their actions and understand and comply with rules. Persons lacking such capacity should not be held criminally culpable even if some wrong may have been done, as it is believed that they are "sick rather than evil." It is from this central concept that the defences of Insanity and, to some extent, Diminished Responsibility derive. Whilst the latter was more recently established by the Homicide Act in 1957, Insanity is stems from an 1843 common law authority and has perpetually been at the centre of controversy. Although in principle it plays an important role in both protecting interests of mentally disordered by providing means for their treatment and protecting public interests in subjecting such dangerous persons to restraint, the lack of clarity over its precise scope accentuated by its antiquity has led to absurd decisions which undermine its credibility. The extent to which diminished responsibility alleviates its inherent deficiencies and provides a better guide to kinds of mental disorders that should exempt persons from criminal liability is however questionable. The main difficulty for both lies in determining a dividing line between sanity and responsibility on one hand and insanity and irresponsibility on the other. The question of insanity may arise at the time of the trial if there are concerns that the defendant is unable to appreciate the significance of the trial and is thus 'unfit to plead.' Whilst prior to 1991, such an individual would be incarcerated in a mental institution without proof that the crime had been committed, the Criminal Procedure Unfitness to Plead Act holds that if a there is a finding of 'unfitness' the defendant may only be incarcerated after the definitional elements of the crime have been proved before a jury. This has strengthened the law and brought it more in line with human right requirements. More significantly, where the defendant is considered fit to plead there is the vital question of the defendant's state of mind at the time of the alleged offence. The rules that provide guidance in determining this issue were laid down in M'Naughton 1843 in which the House of Lords delineated the circumstances in which the accused cannot be held legally culpable for his conduct. Rules state that a person is presumed sane unless it can be proved that at the time of the offence he was suffering from "such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong." Due to presumption of sanity, the burden of proof is on the defence to prove insanity on balance of probabilities although in exceptional circumstances judge or prosecution may also raise issue of insanity where facts so indicate. However this conflicts with principle that in criminal cases burden of proof should always be on prosecution and may potentially be a contravention of Article 62 of ECHR whereby defendant is always innocent until proven guilty, although some speculate that it merely imposes an evidential onus on the defence. Nevertheless, in order for a successful plea, the defence must establish various elements: The main area of contentions has been the interpretation of 'disease of the mind,' the definition of this which has sparked the most controversy. The definition is a legal one and remains distinct from the medical one even though the Criminal Procedure Unfitness to Plead Act 1991 requires evidence to be given by 2 or more medical practitioners before insanity can be established. However this is not of great significance as the courts have interpreted term so as to include states of mind which doctors would be unlikely to characterise as being a 'disease of the mind,' deciding that it is not merely confined to diseases of the brain alone but covers the mind in all its aspects. This was clarified in Kemp 1957 in which it was held that the defence was available to the defendant who suffered from arteriosclerosis and attacked his wife whilst in a state of unconsciousness. This condition was not considered a 'disease of the mind' in medical terms but it was held that for the purposes of insanity, 'disease of the mind' meant any internal disorder affecting the "ordinary mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding" so that the "condition of the brain was irrelevant." This has had far reaching consequences so that conditions such as epilepsy, sleepwalking and cerebral tumours can also give rise to a finding of legal insanity. In Sullivan 1984 the defendant kicked and injured a friend during an epileptic seizure. Despite medical evidence indicating that epilepsy was not a 'disease of the mind' since in medical terms a disease of the mind is a disorder of the brain functions, which must be prolonged for a period of time, the court held that this was irrelevant. Even though the defendant's condition was "temporary and intermittent" it was a disease of the mind as during a seizure, mental faculties could be impaired to the extent of causing a defect of reason. The policy reasons for rendering such conditions as 'diseases of the mind' were explained by Lord Denning in Bratty 'v' A-G for N Ireland 1963 "Any mental disorder which manifests itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind." Cleary one can understand the desire to protect the public from violence, yet not only are there some mental disorders which do not manifest themselves in violence, such as Kleptomania which therefore would not be diseases of mind for purposes of the defence, it seems absurd to render epileptics as dangerous as individuals suffering from severe psychosis. This absurdity has been perpetuated by the courts through drawing of illogical distinctions. A limiting factor on what constitutes a disease of the mind is that the condition must arise from an internal factor so that a state of automatism engendered by external factors is not sufficient for legal insanity. The rigidity of this internal/external divide was illustrated in Quick 1973 in which a diabetic committed an assault whilst in a hypoglycaemic state. The Court of Appeal held that insanity was not available to him as the condition was caused by the failure to take food after taking insulin, which was an external factor. However an illogical distinction was drawn in Hennessy 1989 in which the accused who was also a diabetic failed to take insulin due to stress and depression becoming hyperglycaemic. Having been charged with driving whilst disqualified, it was held that insanity was the appropriate defence since his condition was symptom of his diabetes and this was 'internal' to him. A similar line of reasoning was used in Burgess 1935 where the defendant attacked a friend but claimed that he has been sleepwalking and thus had acted unconsciously. Defence of non-insane automatism was denied to him since sleepwalking was "a transitory disorder due to an internal factor which had manifested itself in violence and was prone to recurrence." Lord Lane did accept that it was incongruous" to label such conditions as insanity. The distinction between internal and external causes is fundamentally flawed. We are forced to conclude that epileptics and sleepwalkers are insane if they commit an act whilst unconscious, and the problem is particularly acute with diabetics; the law maintains that a diabetic in a hyperglycaemic state is insane whilst one in a hypoglycaemic state is not when the results of their conditions are medically similar. They are essentially attempting to draw a distinction between conditions caused by a 'disease of the mind', which may recur and are thus a threat to the public and those caused by an external factor such as concussion which can be easily treated and have the feature of an accident. The difficulty clearly appears to be in delineating a dividing line between insanity and non insane automatism. If it is decided that the defendant is suffering from a 'disease of the mind' it must be proved that it induced a defect of reason. The courts have taken this to mean a complete loss of the power of reasoning, not mere confusion or absentmindedness as in Clarke 1972. This defect of reason must be such that the defendant does not know the nature and quality of his act. In Codhere 1916 this was held to mean the physical rather than moral nature of the act. Thus it is necessary for the defendant to prove that due to 'disease of the mind' he was unaware of what he was doing or did not appreciate the consequences of his act. Prof. Kenny provided an example of "the madman who cuts a womans throat under the idea that he is cutting a loaf of bread. However this is a highly stringent test as it is argued that even a radically psychotic person will appreciate the nature and quality of their acts in this limited sense. In a similar manner the requirement that the defendant must not have knowledge that his act is wrong has been narrowly interpreted. In Windle 1952 it was held that this meant legally 'wrong' so that even if a defendant is aware his act is morally wrong, the defence will fail if he knew his act was prohibited by the law and that it transgresses the ordinary standards adopted by reasonable men. Critics argue that "knowledge of the law is hardly an appropriate test upon which to base ascription of responsibility to the mentally disordered." It is indeed a narrow ground of exemption as even the grossly disturbed will be aware, for instance, that murder is an offence by law. In Sutcliffe 1981 the defendant undertook his divinely endorsed mission to kill prostitutes. Even though he was severely schizophrenic he knew his actions were contrary to law and thus failed to satisfy test for insanity. This indicates that this is certainly not a satisfactory test of criminal responsibility. Although much effort is made to rationalise insanity, it is in practice rarely invoked "“ at present only 2/3 cases are brought each year. For many the consequence of a successful plea is a strong deterrent, as it does not result in an unqualified acquittal but the defendant receives a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity.' Previously the result of a special verdict was automatic committal to a mental institution with prospect of indefinite detention. A defendant faced with such a possibility often pleaded guilty rather than use of a defence that was in principle available to them, even when they were not morally liable or medically insane. This was clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Although the outcome remains where the charge is murder, the Criminal Procedure Unfitness to Plead Act 1991 provides judges with a range of non penal measures which has increased flexibility so that the sentence can now more closely reflect the seriousness of the offence committed. Although this is definitely an improvement it has still not led to a rise in insanity pleas. Where the charge is murder, most prefer to use the specific defence of 'diminished responsibility' as the period of imprisonment is shorter and is considered a more acceptable alternative than indefinite incarceration in a mental institution. As can be seen there are many weaknesses of the defence of insanity. The M'Naughton rules, have in particular been criticised not only due to the archaic terminology which have little congruence to modern language of psychiatry, it has been said that they are based on "too limited a concept of the nature of mental disorder." They provide an exclusively cognitive test for determining insanity, which is narrow and deficit. However Lord Devlin has supported this emphasis on cognition since it is "reason which makes a man responsible to law"¦which distinguishes him from animals which emotional order does not. So it is fitting that nothing other than a defect of reason should give complete absolution." This reflects the courts unwillingness to develop the law in order to take account of medical progress. When the test was first developed insanity was indeed associated with power to reason but now it is understood that insanity in fact affects not only this but the whole personality. Thus a person who is medically 'insane' may know nature and quality of their act and that it is wrong yet perform it under impulse. However under current state of affairs, they would fail the legal test of insanity and although it has been proposed that insanity should accommodate such individuals who act on irresistible impulse, as they are the ones who are a "danger to society," Lord Steward stated that this was a "fantastic theory"¦which if were to become part of criminal law would be merely subversive." However whilst schizophrenics are not considered insane, the rules have been "broadened and stretched" so that they are wide enough to cover diabetics and epileptics who in any other context would be not be considered 'insane.' Although the courts have continued to maintain that the legal definition may remain reasonably separate from the medical, this is becoming more difficult to uphold without absurdity. It is anticipated that the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 may prompt change in this area, as it requires a stronger relationship between legal and medical criteria used to assess insanity. Article 51 allows the "lawful detention of persons with unsound mind" but holds the question of unsoundness must be resolved by reference to "objective medical expertise." Even though the 1991 Act requires evidence from two medical practitioners, this does not preclude the detention of those such as Sullivan and Burgess who by the standards of the medical profession are not of 'unsound mind.' In Quick Lawton LJ argued "common sense is affronted by the prospect of a diabetic being sent to hospital when in most cases the medical condition can be rectified by quickly pushing a lump of sugar into defendants mouth." This constitutes a fundamental contravention of human rights. However under Section 6 courts are obliged to apply convention rights even if this means departing from previous precedent so that in the near future cases such as Sullivan may be a rarity. This will certainly strengthen the current law immensely and is especially desirable given that many other proposals for reform have been ignored by successive Governments, so that the law has remained static and rigid. The defence of diminished responsibility has alleviated many of the deficiencies of insanity, although since it is a specific defence, it may only be pleaded to charge of murder and thus any change is only noticeable where homicide is concerned "“ the position with regards to other less serious offences is likely to remain the same. Further a successful plea will only constitute a partial excuse lowering conviction to manslaughter, although this is still considered a more acceptable alternative than indefinite incarceration in an institution. Unlike insanity, it is defined in statute, under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 which states that person may be found guilty of manslaughter "if he was suffering from such an abnormality of mind, whether arising from a condition of retarded development of the mind or any inherent causes induced by disease or injury, as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his actions." Given the difficulty of establishing insanity, diminished responsibility is seen as more accessible due to its wider scope. It encompasses a greater variety of conditions as it makes an allowance for lesser degrees of mental impairment "“ it requires proof of only impaired responsibility not complete absence of responsibility. Thus unlike insanity it accommodates cases where the defendant acts under irresistible impulses as in Byrne 1960 where the defendant was a sexual psychopath who attacked and mutilated his victims due to perverted sexual urges, stronger than normal impulses, which he was unable to control. However it is still a dubious issue for the courts to resolve due to the narrow dividing line between "he did not resist his impulse and he could not resist his impulse." Essentially the question is one for the jury to resolve, deducing from medical evidence whether the accused was suffering from an abnormality of mind, defined as the "lack of ability to form rational judgement or exercise willpower to control ones acts"¦wide enough to cover minds activities in all its aspects." This abnormality must have been caused by an inherent source which is much wider than the requirement for insanity that 'disease of the mind' be caused by an internal factor as it includes any malfunctioning of the mind. However emotions such as rage, hatred or external factors such as drugs and alcohol cannot be put forward for obvious reasons of policy. Yet some flexibility is retained as although intoxication will not support a defence, alcoholism may suffice when arising from "disease or injury" as when there is gross impairment of judgement or if drinking was involuntary arising from a craving, which the defendant could not resist as reinforced in Tandy 1989. Thus it is clear that a person does not have to be 'mentally disordered' to be exempted from full liability; in Miller it was allowed for someone who killed in a fit of jealousy and in Smith for a woman suffering from pre menstrual tension. However even if the jury are satisfied that the defendant suffered from an abnormality of mind there remains the important question of whether it was sufficient to have substantially impaired his responsibility i.e. was the difficulty in controlling the impulse substantially greater than would be experienced by an ordinary person. As established in Simcox 1964 the impairment need not be total but must be more than trivial. There should also be evidence to support this contention and this is where the defence begins to become less clear and a less reliable guide on the mental disorders that will exempt individuals from liability; It has been speculated that Section 2 encourages role confusion between the judge, jury and medical profession. It is argued that it is in the hands of psychiatrists and doctors to establish or rebut the defence with medical evidence, which is undesirable, as they should not be delivering opinions on legal and moral responsibility, these being jury issues. However in practice despite the importance of medical evidence, it is ultimately for the jury to decide whether abnormality of mind is sufficient to have substantially impaired judgement and they are in a position to reject unanimous medical evidence as in Sanders 1991 in which the accused conviction for the murder of his mistress was upheld despite the fact that two psychiatrists had testified that he was suffering from depression at the time. Ultimately the question resolves itself into a moral one for the jury "“ whether they believed that the accused deserved to be convicted of murder. This led Glanville Williams to state, "the defence is interpreted in accordance with the morality of the case rather than as an application of psychiatric concepts." In Sutcliffe, for instance, there was unequivocal evidence of the defendant's abnormality, as he had been compelled to act due to irresistible impulses, yet the jury convicted him of murder. It was desirable that a man accused of such notorious crimes, if guilty should bear the label of murderer. This leads to inconsistency and arbitrary development of the law so that the concept is no longer a reliable guide on the disorders that will lead to exemption. Ultimately, despite being statutorily defined, diminished responsibility, although a definite improvement on previous state of affairs, suffers from similar problems as insanity in terms of imprecision of scope. On one hand the definition of Section 2 is considered intensely loose as it has been suggested that it too readily available for defendants who kill, for instance, but then produce medical evidence of long term depression which is sufficient for a successful plea and on the other, it appears that the defence may sometimes be wrongly refused on the grounds of policy as in Sutcliffe. It is to be hoped that between the narrow scope of insanity and wide scope of diminished responsibility, defendants who lack the capacity to think rationally and control their actions due to mental disorder are ensured justice.   

It has been well-established feature of the English legal system that rules of criminal law are addressed to rational and responsible persons who have the capacity to control their actions and understand and comply with rules. Persons lacking such capacity should not be held criminally culpable even if some wrong...

Words: 3428 View(s): 545 Comment(s): 0
If you recently picked up a...If you recently picked up a newspaper or turned on to see the news you may have question what is happening in our schools and begin to think whether our schools are still safe places for children. Recent school shootings have set feared in many parents about their children's safety in our schools. Since last year number of school shootings by students have occurred regularly. On Tuesday February 29, 2000 in Mount Morris Township, Michigan a six-year old boy shot his classmate to death in their first grade classroom. Police reports show that the two youngsters had an argument the previous day. A single shot was fired inside the classroom at Buell Elementary School around 10 a.m. The young boy said he brought the gun to school to frighten her but accidentally fired a shot. "We"ve had other schoolchildren take guns to elementary schools before"¦ but it never went this far with it. "Society refuses to take responsibility by locking up their armed weapons." Said by a schoolteacher. Since last year there have been fifteen different school shootings in which many student have died without any reason. Who should we blame for this? Should we blame the parents, teachers, schools or our government? Before blaming anyone we must hear what two sides of gun control have to say. It is very wise to debate on a topic that have concerned all of us since last few years before making our decision. In doing so, we must answer series of questions. Therefore our group has come up with some questions to which we will try to tackle. Since this is a debate paper we have try to present both side of the issue through our answers. Very first question that arise in peoples minds after witnessing the horrible tragedies is should we have more gun control laws? Many of us differ on this issue. We have found lots of argument on this question. Proponents of gun more gun control laws feared that until stronger gun control measures are taken there will be future tragedies like horrors that took place at schools all over US. Over 76% of Americans favored more gun control laws LA TIMES. On the other side people who are against more gun control laws argue that issue of guns is not really the problem. They say more gun control laws wouldn't prevent future tragedies because people who are intended to harm people are less likely to obey them. Opponent of stronger gun control laws also believe that government laws on how to store guns and laws banning certain types of firearms deny the fundamental right of self- defense and violate the Second Amendment. Another serious question arise when talking about gun control is should adults be held criminally responsible for their children actions? Few Americans including our president agree we should hold adults responsible, but over 70% of Americans believe that adults should not be held responsible for their children's action. The uncle of the six-year old student who shot his classmate was arrested following the shootings. Should the uncle be held responsible for the action he didn't take? And how about the child, should we charge a six year old student as an adult? Also what causes these students to gun down their classmates? What stressor contributing to these shootings? And what are right steps we should take to prevent the future tragedies? Our group explores these questions in an effort to make sense of what appear to be senseless and avoidable crimes. We have tried to examine gun violence in schools through the lens of the recent school shootings and explores the role and responsibility of parents, teacher and society as a whole in combating this frightening scourge. We have also created a skit in which each member of our group has taken part of someone and has debated on this issue. Opponents think that stricter gun control laws will not work or stop the violence in the school. School violence is a hard thing to take control of. Gun control laws will not help to make our schools safer. The gun control laws might help some people to feel better and safe but it will not stop the person who intends to hurt someone. According to the Wall Street Journal, nationwide there are more than 20,000 gun control laws that regulate everything from who can own a gun, background checks on people wanting to own a gun, where it is been purchased, etc. The Clinton administration has created stricter gun control laws, which will increase school safety, but the question is will these laws ultimately save the lives of the children in school? Guns are more available today than they were in the 1970's and 1980's and at that time school shootings were not prevalent as it is today. According to the magazine NEA today, the guns do not create violence in schools, the kids with an attitude towards violence is the major problem. Today, the attitude and violence mix together in the mind of the teenagers. Even if we put a slash on guns than there are other weapons that can kill and more readily available than guns, that can create violence in the schools. As for example, a student with a knife could kill several people before being disarmed. Bomb-making materials are readily available in stores and information on making bombs is plentiful on the Internet. A student who intends to kill innocent people will find a way to do that violent act even though he or she does not have the access to guns. According to John R. Lott, the professor in law and economics at the University of Chicago Law School states that gun availability has never before been as restricted as it is now. In 1960's and 1970's, it was possible for the 13 year old to buy a rifle from hardware store anywhere in the U.S. Rifle were mailed to anybody who wanted to buy one. It is also a fact that until 1969, the public high schools in New-York City had a shooting club. The students used to bring guns to the school and turned them over to their homeroom teacher or to their coach and retrieve the guns after the school for target practice. The students who were on the rifle team regularly compete in wide shooting contests in New-York City. The most surprising part is that the students who were good at shooting contests were awarded university scholarships. Furthermore, the best-illustrated part for not having gun control laws is from Virginia. The high-school students in rural areas have a long tradition of going hunting in the morning. The state legislative has failed to enact an exemption to a federal law banning guns within 1,000 feet of a school. They ultimately failed because students often bring guns to the school by putting them in the trunk of their vehicle. It was crazy to send a good student to the prison because he brought the gun to the school. Furthermore, potential victims use guns more than two million times a year to stop violent crimes: 98% of the time simply brandishing a gun is sufficient to stop an attack. Crimes are stopped with guns about five times as frequently as crimes are committed with guns. In addition to this, not one academic study has shown that waiting periods and background checks have reduced crime or youth violence. Therefore, disarming potential victims those likely to obey the gun laws relative to criminals those who almost by definition will not obey such laws makes crime more attractive and more likely. Mechanical locks that fit either into a gun's barrel or over its trigger requires the gun to be unloaded; and locked, unloaded guns offer far less protection from intruders. The requirements of locks on guns would surely increase deaths resulting from crime. Switzerland has more firepower per person than any other country in the world said by author Steven Halbrook. He also added that Switzerland is still one of the safest places to live. Switzerland has a lower homicide and robbery rate than United States, which has strict gun control laws. Yet, there have no school massacres in Switzerland where kids and guns mix freely. In our country there are 20,000 gun laws already on the books and still we don't have the answer whether this gun control laws has caused the existing gun violence problem. Well, good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately save lives. Thus, Guns, clearly, are not the real problem. The strict gun control laws might help make a school safer but there is no evidence that shows that by putting restriction on guns the violence in the school has decreased. The gun control laws have noticeably reduced gun ownership but the result is opposite that each 1% reduction in gun ownership there is a 3% increase in violent crime. The bottom line is that guns do not kill people but criminals do and gun control laws do not control guns but they control law-obeying citizens. The Second Amendment gives citizens the "right to bear arms." Proponent believed that it should have read, "Only adults who meet the requirements may possess firearms," but instead it means once you are born you can purchase a gun and take anyone"s life. Too many shootings have occurred over the years and the numbers will continue to grow unless we as righteous citizens put a stop to it. Many liberals believe that we need gun control because to many innocent people are dying. No one has the right to take a life away from anyone. Once that person is gone there is no way to bring them back. Tragedies will occur but we can try to prevent a few of them from occurring by enforcing gun control laws Different factors contribute to violence in our schools. Kids commit crimes for many different reasons. Some see it on T.V. and want to imitate them. Others do it for attention. Some do it out of anger and just don"t care to think about the consequences. We need strict gun control laws to help prevent some of these teens from making the biggest mistake of their life. Unqualified citizens and kids have easy access to firearms. I can log on to Internet right now and purchase a gun without being asked any questions. The Brady Law was created to prevent some criminals from purchasing deadly weapons. The Brady Law gives a background check. It asks for your residence, prior criminal convictions, age and employment. There is also a ten-day waiting period. Those who need the gun right away just say forget. Many don"t even try to purchase a gun because they are afraid of what will be found out when the background check is done. When the Brady Law was created our murder rate fell by 11.6%. Since 1989 twenty seven thousand were arrested when trying to purchase a gun due to the background check. The Brady Law is helpful yet no one tries to enforce it. This law continues to be ignored. Kids can get their little paws on a gun without any hassle. There are several loopholes that give children easy access. Parents are not required to keep loaded firearms out of reach of children. Parents should lock up their firearms. Many times children think that their parent's gun is a toy gun and they end up injuring themselves or others. Private gun owners can sell guns without background checks at gun shows and flea markets. They do not need to keep records of whom they have sold to. This creates a big problem when a gun has been found at a murder scene. The Law Enforcement is unable to trace the gun back to the owner. It then becomes harder to find the murderer. Gun manufacturers and stores are not required to lock up their guns when the factory or stories closed. Thousands of guns are stolen from stores every year. If a person needs a gun bad enough nothing will stop him from stealing one but if he knew that they were locked up he would not even try because he would not succeed. Gun manufacturers are not required to make guns that are safer and less accessible to children and unauthorized users. They have the ability and technology to produce these guns but refuse to produce them. It is inexpensive to create combination locks. In most states, juveniles of any age can purchase assault weapons. Most kids do not have the capability, maturity and responsibility to handle a gun. Children play with them like toys and don"t understand the consequences. Many believe in personalizing guns, trigger locks, more security for schools. Children without access to their parents" firearms or illegal guns will be less likely to commit violent acts at school. Guns do kill people according to LA Times, 800 Americans old and young die each year from gun shot by children under nineteen. Another, even stranger phenomenon is the rapid growth of armed violence in schools. It is becoming more and more frequent to find loaded guns at elementary schools. Los Angeles has 300-armed police officers permanently assigned to schools, and a growing number of schools have metal detectors at their doors. Law enforcement officials are more alarmed then ever about the threats that children and their teachers face in learning institutions. Many troubled adolescents decide to shatter their own life along with those who are their classmates by coming to school with loaded guns and opening fire. These students involve themselves in such acts for many different reasons. A fifteen-year boy wounded six schoolmates over a breakup with his girlfriend. This incident occurred at an all American suburban high school where no one would have thought such a thing was possible. "He"s not one of those trench coat types," Brandon Bailey, a seventeen year old said. You do not have to be a certain type to go out and harm someone. Many do such a deed out of anger. "You tell yourself this kind of thing could never happen here, but you know in your heart that"s not true anymore," commented a student. A gun can kill so many people so fast. In 1998 nine thousand handgun murders occurred in America. A gun should be treated like a vehicle. A person should need a license just to hold a gun and fingerprints should be taken. We all know that if a person really wanted to harm someone they would use something other then a gun. Just remember that a knife cannot conduct a drive by shooting only a gun can. A person can kill twice as many people with a firearm in just a matter of time. In order to use a knife a person must put a lot more energy into it and can only get to so many. Gun control in schools is a controversial issue in the United States. It has recently become a major issue because of all the school shootings. On one side of the issue, the proponents want zero tolerance. The proponents believe that stricter laws and regulations are needed to ensure the safety of students and faculty members. Laws and regulations, such as locker inspections, more security guards on and off campus, students must carry see through bags, metal detectors, and criminal charges against the student their parents when a gun is misused. Some believe that children who go on shooting rampages should be tried as an adult. Another solution proponents proposed were new technology devices such as trigger locks and personalized guns. Opponents of gun control in schools believe that stricter laws and regulations are unnecessary. They believe that children will commit crimes regardless if they have a gun or not. They say that "it's not the gun that pulls the trigger, but the person behind the gun that does." If a child can't use a gun, then he'll use a knife or any other weapon. Opponents to gun control in school believe that adding stricter regulations and laws would cost too much money. Regulations and laws would just raise taxes. They argue that money shouldn't be spent on gun control in school, but on educational programs, school supplies, computers, new technology, teachers, and renovations. In the past two years in the United States there has been an unprecedented amount of devastating shootings and murders in schools. The unbelievable rate of school shootings amongst children has caused a major concern amongst teachers, students, authorities, and the whole society. From Colorado to Arkansas, to the most recent in Mount Morris Township, Michigan, has caused an outcry from society to make drastic changes in order to protect the children of the future, and anyone else who might get involved. Schools used to be envisioned as a safe environment, where you were free to learn and have fun without any worries. But now in the present time when you think about school you envision fear, school shootings and violence. As a group we came up with some solutions concerning gun control in schools. We all agree that recently school shootings have become a major issue. And we feel in order to help prevent on going future tragedies certain laws and regulations need to be added. First of all we believe that it should be required that students take educational classes on gun control and prevention in school. Second, we believe all schools should have metal detectors, allowed no lockers, and add more security guards on and off the campus. When a student gets caught with a gun in school we believe he/she should be suspended for a week. To be reinstated the student must be forced to undergo counseling and take extra classes in gun safety and prevention. When a student fires a gun in or outside of school, we believe they should be tried as an adult. Criminal charges should also be implemented to the owner of the gun which the child has obtained access to. School shootings have been occurring at an unbelievable rate. The big question is why has it there been numerous amounts of shootings these past two to three years? There many factors out there that contributes to the problem. Kids see violence on television everyday. They see it in movies, the news, and TV shows. The media has glorified violence. Another contributing factor is parental guidance. Plenty of children are left unsupervised, free to make decisions by themselves. While the parents are out working eight to twelve hours a day, the child is left alone to do as they please. Guns are very easily obtainable nowadays. You can buy them off the streets or even on the Internet with no questions asked. Parental guidance and media control is a necessity if we want to see some changes. Children at young ages are very easily influenced. Parents need to monitor what their children are watching on the television and need to be involved with their lives and interests. They need to keep their children involved with sports and clubs. Parents need to teach their children how to handle certain situations. Situations such as, dealing with a bully, controlling your anger, and all other hostile situations a young child could encounter. Until all the underlying factors are somehow controlled, guns will still be found in schools.   

If you recently picked up a newspaper or turned on to see the news you may have question what is happening in our schools and begin to think whether our schools are still safe places for children. Recent school shootings have set feared in many parents about their children's safety...

Words: 3264 View(s): 1037 Comment(s): 0