|
Parens Patriae
Legal term that defines the State's legal role as the guardian to protect the interests of children who cannot take care of themselves. For example, in an abuse or neglect case, this concept is used to explain the State's duty to protect minor children who lack proper care and custody from their parents.
Question: How does Parens Patriae relate to the Bhopal Chemical spill? I'm in a moc court trial, on the side of the chemical company, and we are trying to dismiss the case under parens patriae.
Answer: saying the courts do not have the power to hold them for trial....
go here:::
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae
www.lectlaw.com/def2/p004.htm
law.jrank.org/pages/9014/Parens-Patria… -
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com…
Question: What is the correct pronunciation of "parens patriae"? I have to give a presentation tomorrow for a class in the law school at my university and I've just realized that it's one of those phrases that I read a lot but have never heard said aloud.
Anyone?
I know what it refers to, thanks. I was just wondering how it's pronounced.
Answer: There is a pronuciaton at the end of this link:
http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/par…
Question: How has parens patriae influenced juvenile courts in the united states?
Answer: It has influenced them to remove many children who are not abused, but their parents are poor and can't afford to buy them expensive video games even though they do buy them less expensive toys and all of the necessities of life. But sometimes kids complain because of this, plus some imperfect parental behavior such as occasional yelling. Then the low income parent gets charged with "Neglect" and the child is removed into foster care, where they will get yelled at anyway.
It never happens to high income parents.
Question: In what city did a court first invoke parens patriae in 1838?
Answer: Ex parte Crouse, in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so I guess Harrisburg.
Question: Can you give me a case of Parens patriae?
Answer: No, but here are a couple of websites that might have some:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P…
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesB…
Question: define the establishment of parens patriae and its role in the juvenile justice system.? criminal justice
Answer: It's a legal doctrine which provides constitutional authority and power of the state to protect minors, disabled, elderly, etc. who are not able to act legally for themselves. Specifically to your question: Minors or persons not reaching majority age.
Question: UUUUUmmmm....... what is the "parens patriae"? PLZ answer, i need it for a little worksheet at school
Answer: "Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation". In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection. For example, some children, incapacitated individuals, and disabled individuals lack parents who are able and willing to render adequate care, requiring state intervention. In U.S. litigation, parens patriae can be invoked by the state to create its standing to sue; the state declares itself to be suing on behalf of its people."
Question: Do you know anything about criminal justice? How has the juvenile justice system evolved from the parens patriae model to the due-process model? Discuss the Supreme Court decisions that brought about this evolution. Many of the juveniles in the system are there because of drug-related behaviors. Is the due-process model the most appropriate for dealing with these problems? What reforms of the system would you propose and why?
Answer: That is indeed a meaty question. I don't recall the name of the case(I think it was in re Gault), but there was one in which the court had ordered the juvenile into a reformatory setting (ie juvy prison) for a relatively minor offense without anything approaching a fair hearing. The outcome was that juveniles got more rights-like written notice of the charges against them, an attorney, and a hearing before an impartial finder of fact. I dont believe the supreme court required that juveniles be given full jury trials, but some states now have those as well.
No, I dont think juveniles are best served by the due process model when it comes to addictive behaviors. The legalities can get in the way of what is right for the child and the court is supposed be acting in the place of the parent.
Question: If a child is at risk for abuse or neglect, which of the following is likely to be invoked by the state? A. Res ipsa loquitor
B. parens patriae
C. The Nuremberg Code
D. Privilege
Answer: B. Parens patriae is Latin for "father of the people"
Question: If a child is at risk for abuse or neglect,which of the following is likely to be invoked by the state? A.res ipsa loquitor
B.parens patriae
C.the nuremberg code
D.privilege
Answer: b
Question: introduction to criminal justice? how is the child-saving movement an example of parens patriae? were there any problems with this system ?
Answer: In the US, there is a Constitutional right to do pretty much whatever you want to your children (at least that's the way the Constitution was interpreted before the New Deal). There were no public schools, parents were under no obligation to provide their children with an education, and small children could be put to work in factories or doing manual labor.
The child-saving movement compelled the government to step in and put some limits on parental rights. Parents could no longer send their kids to work in factories and had to provide children with an education, even if the child is home-schooled. If the child goes to a public school, he has to be vaccinated (unless the parent raises religious objections) and taught sex ed (although in some schools, that's not much of an education).
As someone who worked on child abuse cases, I can tell you that the child-saving movement is still a work in progress. The Constitutional standard for limiting parental power is "best interests of the child," which is pretty vague and applied differently throughout the country. Some systems are overloaded, which means that a parent would have to come close to killing the child for the state to step in. Some systems are over-protective, which means that if the child sneezes, the state accuses parents of abuse, and it takes months to get child services off their back. In most cases, the child never appears in court and never has a say in the proceedings, so he almost never gets what's in his best interests.
Question: Shakespeare vs. King James via King Lear? I'm a little confused as to what my professor might be saying in this question...
"Following is a speech by King James I to Parliament in 1609. You remember that we do not know how James reacted to the play of just what Shakespeare might have been trying to say to him. Read, and write a paragraph about how this passage shifts the source of the play for you. "
Speech:
Estate of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called the gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families; for a king is truly parens patriae, the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.
Kings are justly calls gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth; for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destroy, make war or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none, to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both soul and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. They have power to exalt low things and abase high things, and make of their subjects, like men at the chess, -- a pawn to take a bishop or a knight -- and to cry up or down any of their subjects, as they do their money. And to the King is due both the affection of the soul and the service of the body of his subjects. . . .
I would wish you to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of grievances:
First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft: tractent fabrilia fabri, -- to meddle with that were to lessen me. I am now an old king; for six and thirty years have I governed in Scotland personally, and now I have accomplished my apprenticeship of seven years here; and seven years is a great time for a king's experience in government; therefore there should not be too many Phormios to teach Hannibal: I must not be taught my office.
Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received them from my predecessors, possessing them more majorum; such things I would be sorry should be accounted for grievances. All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic as in a natural body, and therefore I would be loath to be quarreled in my ancient rights and possessions; for that were to judge my unworthy of that which my predecessors had and left me.
And, lastly, I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by settled law, and whereunto (as you have already had a proof) you know I will never give a plausible answer; for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.
How do I answer this question? I'm not sure she worded it right did she?
Answer: I think you're right; the question is worded oddly. But the basic meaning seems pretty clearly (I think), that you are to discuss the ways James I's speech alters what you might consider to be the central social and political targets of the play. One thing you might consider, in addition to the fine ideas of the other responders, is the way in which the play forces its audience to consider the emptiness of the sort of "absolute power" claims that James makes in his speech.
Question: Juveniles Delinquency? Can a "get tough" policy help control juvenile misbehavior or should parens patriae remain the standard?
Answer: I can only assume what you mean by "get tough" but as you are contrasting it with parens patriae what I assume that you mean is advancing imprisonment, charging as an adult, or even the death penalty for juvenile delinquents.
Parens patriae actually (in theory) already allows that however in the US there is the parental liberty doctrine which limits the ability of states and puts far more emphasis on the role of the parents. It makes it quite difficult to interfere beyond the wishes of the parent.
That said, more to the core of your question, any time I hear about a get tough policy it always makes me think that the policy is not designed to solve the problem, or even manage the problem, but it simply serves to make the persons advancing that policy feel better. Punishment does nothing to prevent misbehavior, either in adults or children. That said, punishment is vital and must be meted out as and where necessary, but the nature of punishment should always be respected, and it must be used for the purpose of either modifying behavior or educating. Many smarter people than me can discuss the merits of punishment in general.
Use the idea of a child who has done something wrong, and let's go Goofus and Gallant on them. In this example, both decide to use corporal punishment.
Goofus, very upset and angry over the misdeed of the child yells, grabs and repeatedly spanks the child, yelling and carrying on and the spanking lasts until his anger is assuaged.
Gallant, very upset remains calm and speaks with the child, has them admit what they've done, then explains what the punishment will be (5 slaps or whatever) then implements the punishment and finally tells the child that they are forgiven.
Here in the two examples we have the first one punishing the child in order to make himself feel better, while the second is at least somewhat designed to punish and rehabilitate, but the emphasis is on the correction of the child, rather than the emotional needs of the adults id.
Whenever I hear the vague usage of the term "get tough" I think that it is the first example of above. That is why the policy itself only has a vague air quoted name. People only turn to these ideas in times of extreme frustration and emotional discord. An actual policy will have framework and philosophy to back up its ideas, rather than "going with your gut" kind of thinking. Unless of course you believe that you should simply give up on kids that act badly, and that they are human trash. In this case, advance "get tough" all you want.
Besides, parens patriae can be plenty tough, I'm not sure where the compare/contrast winds up coming in to begin with.
Question: Can a bill override case law? I am doing a very realistic court simulation game. There is a court law relating to parens patriae that states “the state must show a direct interest of its own and not merely seeking financial recovery for the benefit of individuals who are the real parties in the lawsuit." In the case we are working on, a government of another country is suing a United States Corporation. That goverment, made a bill "To give power to the Central Government to take over legal claims connected with the Bhopal gas leak disaster. The goal of this bill is to produce an equitable legal settlement. This is to be done with speed, effectiveness, and to the best advantage of the victims." right before the case was heard. Which one do we follow? (We are the defendant representing the corporation)
Info from: THE BHOPAL GAS LEAK DISASTER (PROCESSING OF CLAIMS) BILL 1985
and Oklahoma ex. rel. Johnson v. Cook
Answer: Your “the state….real parties to the lawsuit” is simply to give the gov’t standing.
If that gov’t is claiming jurisdiction then our laws don’t matter. Comity is the application (recognition) of foreign laws in our courts.
If that is done, and a US court is to apply the laws of the foreign country, then it depends on the precedential power that country gives to a ‘bill’. Here, procedurally, a ‘bill’ is nothing until enacted. Until that time it is not controlling. And our constitutional ban on ex post facto laws may forbid it’s application to settled cases unless the law states with specificity that it is to be retroactive in application. Follow? The question to you is, what are these rules in that country? That is your simulation answer.
It is not equated with Erie in dealing with inter state conflict of laws rules but is somewhat similar.
The procedure and rule of law of the other country will be applied directly in our courts, procedurally and substantively.
Question: Sonia Gandhi"s Indian Congress is doing it"s best making sure Mahinda Rajapaksa wins the Presidential Election? Sonia Gandhi war crime partner Rajapaksa is heavily depending on Sonia and Congress as Sonia"s Indian Congress do owe him a favour, Indian Congress and Rajapaksa Govt were no doubt successfull on the masssacre on innocent Sri Lankan Tamils,
India had an absolute obligation “to prevent” this ongoing genocide against the Tamils in Sri Lanka under article 1 of the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which both India and Sri Lanka are contracting parties. In addition, the Government of India (GOI) serves as the Tamil’s parens patriae under international law and thus occupies a position of trust with respect to the Tamils in Sri Lanka. The Government of India recognized the existence of this “trust” when it asked the GOSL for the temporary cease-fire against the Tamils, which India obtained.
Top aide Weeratunge incriminating India
Courtesy: Daily Mirror
The Government of India temporarily stopped the GOSL’s genocide against the Tamils, thus proving it could do so. But only for the demented purpose of getting itself re-elected, not for the purpose of terminating the GOSL’s genocide against the Tamils, which India obviously could have done and so did temporarily. India therefore violated its obligation under article 1 of the Genocide Convention “to prevent” the GOSL genocide against the Tamils.
Therefore Sonia"s Indian Congress will do all she could to make sure Rajapaska win the current election, the cuurent hype about releasing Nalini is just another political drama of Sonia for Rajapaksa.
Answer: Why don't you take a dip in Indian ocean?
Parens Patriae Related Products and News
|
|
|
|
|