Discussion Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

Discussion - Coursework Example Never was I bored to read the essay. The flow is continuous as he moves from one example to another. The logical reasoning through out the essay is right on the money. He does not drift from the main topic at any point of time. The least effective part of the essay for me is that audience that it is addressing. The writer fails to establish who his audience is. At some parts hardcore economists are targeted while some target a lay man. The essay would have been more effective if it had targeted any one section of the larger audience. The author’s thesis is that most of our needs are actually met and we what call needs are not actually our needs. He says that the word need is used in a wrong context. I agree with the author as most of the actual needs that are essential to our survival are actually met. For example, we need at least two meals a day and few liters of water to survive which is already met. Now, if somebody whose basic needs are met says â€Å"I need a burger†, he actually means he wants a burger and not need. Hence, the author’s thesis that most of the needs are actually what we want and are not a necessity is

Law of Evidence Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 4

Law of Evidence - Essay Example ?3 Lord Lane refused to follow the previous authorities and exclude the confession, because the confession obtained in the Fulling case did not involve any deliberate impropriety on the part of the officer who obtained it. No intimidation was used, there was no bullying or hectoring, hence they could not be held to be oppressive. However, Dennis points out that the danger arising from the exclusions inherent in the definition of oppression in Fulling as follows: â€Å"The effect is that both the English and Australian Acts allow for the possibility of other, undefined, cases to fall within the prohibition on the use of oppression.†4 Similarly in the case of Lam Chi-ming v the Queen, Lord Griffiths also explained the rationale for Section 76(2) in rejecting improperly obtained confessions, not only due to â€Å"possible unreliability, but upon the principle that a man cannot be compelled to incriminate himself.†5 Exclusion of such confessions is also mandated by civilized society that requires the police to behave properly with those in their custody. (b) The general position in law has been that even when a confession is made voluntarily, the Courts have a residual discretion to exclude it in order to preserve the fairness of the trial. Where the question of inducement by an authority to elicit the confession by creating fear or hope of advantage arises, it must necessarily be excluded. However, Lord Lane articulates the view that an involuntary confession cannot be withheld as evidence, merely on the grounds of what the police had done or omitted to do.6 The difficulty of establishing implied inducement is his criterion for the statement that every voluntary statement will become inadmissible if the motives of authorities are to be assessed, because the police are interested in solving cases. However, Lord’s Lane’s statement cannot be applied indiscriminately, because of the limitations identified above as the general position in law. 2. Counsel may not be