The study of the law and the structure of the legal system Prison sentences for two or more offences to be served simultaneously and not consecutively. Example: Two five-year prison sentences and a three-year term if served at the same time result in a maximum of five years behind bars. One previous point is worth mentioning. Do all legal systems have a legal concept? Their use is ubiquitous in modern legal systems. We are talking about legislators who have the right to legislate, judges who decide cases, individuals who make wills and contracts; as well as constitutions that grant citizens legal rights against their fellow citizens and against the State itself. However, it has been suggested that even some earlier systems developed, such as Roman law, lacked terminology that clearly separated rights from duties (see Maine (1861), 269-70). The question is primarily of concern to legal historians and will not be pursued further here, but it should be noted that when describing these systems, it may still be legitimate to speak of rights in the modern sense, since, for example, Roman law has clearly achieved many of the same results as contemporary systems. Presumably, he did so using some of the most fundamental concepts in which rights can arguably be analyzed. Civil rights are those that are not related to the establishment, support, or administration of government. These consist of the power to acquire and enjoy property, to exercise paternal and matrimonial power, etc. It will be observed that if everyone is not deprived of it by a civil sentence of death, he enjoys his civil rights, which is not the case with political rights; For a foreigner, for example, has no political rights, although he fully enjoys his civil rights. Other approaches can be classified in different ways, but there is a significant gap between those who believe that rights are designated as practical reasons by their great weight and those who believe that rights are nothing special in this regard, but rather must be analyzed in duties, permits, powers, etc.
or a combination of these. perhaps with the addition of other conditions. Limitation period – A law that sets the time limit within which parties must take steps to enforce their rights. Governmental body empowered to settle disputes. Judges sometimes use the term « court » to refer to themselves in the third person, as in « the court read the pleadings. » Constitutions will also vary depending on whether certain rights are « enshrined » or not. Consecration may be absolute, in which case rights cannot be revoked or modified by any constitutional means (as is the case with some of the « fundamental rights » of the German Constitution), or it may be relative and require only a more onerous procedure than normal legislation (as in the case of the United States Constitution). 2. A legally enforceable claim that someone has as a result of certain events or transactions. For example, a person entering into a contract has the right to expect performance or reasonable remuneration from the other party for the non-performance. The powers raise another question. Many writers (e.g.
Hohfeld 1919, Hart 1973) regarded them as a kind of right. By legal force, we mean the ability to make changes to the law or its application (as well as other conditions). As a general rule, of course, when granting a power, the legislature also grants the right to exercise it, but this is sometimes not the case, for example if the exercise of the right itself would constitute a felony or tort. In English law, for example, until a recent change in the law, a thief had the legal authority, in certain special circumstances, to transfer ownership of stolen property to a third party, even if he had committed a civil and possibly criminal fault. This seems to indicate that powers should not be considered rights themselves. An act or process by which one person`s rights or claims are classified among those of others. Not all philosophers agree that rights can be fully analyzed. White (1984), for example, argued that the task is impossible because the concept of one right is as fundamental as any of the others, such as duty, liberty, power, etc. (or a set of these) in which it is usually analyzed.
However, he agreed that the rights could be explained in part by reference to those concepts. White`s approach, which relies largely on precise linguistic analysis, remains in the minority. The question here is whether there are fundamental aspects of rights that are exclusive, or at least more important in legal systems, as opposed to morality. 3. Lose any situation or decision that seems appropriate or correct on the basis of legal, moral or ethical ideals (i.e. the opposite of « evil »). This type of « right » may not be legally enforceable. For example, there can never be a constitution, law or precedent that requires people to respect their elders, although many people agree that it is right to respect elders. A doctrine that evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional or legal rights of a criminal accused is not admissible in court. A more modern version of this theory was proposed by MacCormick (1977), who argued that a rights holder was the intended recipient of a particular benefit and not just a general beneficiary of the rules.
However, even with this change, it remains difficult to explain the rights of third parties under contracts. Suppose that X and Y enter into a contract imposing customs duties on each of them, with the intention that the performance of those obligations will benefit Z. According to the theory, Z must (conceptually) be a legitimate rights holder. But it is indeed a completely random question of whether Z is or not. Some legal systems recognize Z rights in such a situation, others do not. In the United Kingdom, for example, Scots law recognized these rights for a long time under certain conditions, but English law did not do so until the situation was changed by law in 1999. First, should rights be analyzed only in terms of duties to others (with another condition), or should we also include other concepts such as permission, power, and immunity? Hohfeld believed that, strictly speaking, something was a legal claim only if it was consistent with an obligation to others, but he argued that the use of the law was often confusing because the reference really referred to one of the other terms. Thus, the law also sometimes said that X had a right if (1) he had A`s permission, (2) he had A`s legal authority, (3) Y had no legal authority to influence him.
Many legal rights must be accompanied by a condition of possession or exercise. This in itself does not distinguish legal rights from many moral rights. Just as you are only entitled to legal compensation for bodily injury if you have been attacked, you are only entitled to an excuse to be offended if you have been offended. But legal rights can lead to more complicated situations that rarely occur in morality. Although they have the same name, positive and negative rights should not be confused with active rights (which include « privileges » and « powers ») and passive rights (which include « rights » and « immunities »). In most modern legal systems, certain fundamental rights are conferred by the Constitution. This usually gives them some precedence over competing legal considerations, but it can vary from system to system. Sometimes constitutional rights take absolute precedence over any other consideration that is not itself based on a constitutional right. Sometimes they will prefer a single legal result and not another without dictating it. Bail – security for the release of an accused or witness in pre-trial detention (usually in the form of money) to ensure his or her appearance on the agreed day and time. Written statements submitted to the court outlining a party`s legal or factual allegations about the case. habeas corpus – A brief often used to bring a prisoner to court to determine the lawfulness of his detention.
A detainee who wishes to argue that there are insufficient grounds for detention would file an application for habeas corpus. It can also be used to detain a person in court in order to testify or be prosecuted. While some (e.g., d`Almeida 2016) argued that Hohfeld was right when he argued that freedoms include only permissions, others (e.g., Waldron 1981 and Raz 1984a, 1984b) argued that rights should only be seen as a reinforcement of duty. Hart (1973) had argued, following Bentham, that a right to liberty should be regarded as a bilateral authorization for A, with the obligation of others not to interfere with the A-ing of X. Waldron and Raz argue that an important feature of rights is that they allow the right holder to do not only what is just, but also (within certain limits) what is wrong. The best explanation for this is that rights only see obligations of non-interference for others and not as granting permission to the right holder. (See also Herstein 2012, 2014.) Another view (Campbell 1997) is to consider certain rights such as licensing, but pointing out that when granting a legal authorization, the law does not say that there can be no grounds against the performance of the act, but only that (within the limits of the authorization) the law will act as if there were none. This is a different question from whether the criminal law can act to recognize and protect moral rights.