Talk:Necessity (criminal law): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SJCstudent (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Cprovenzano (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The wording here does not make sense to me. There must be a wording mistake in here. <br>[[User:H Padleckas|H Padleckas]] 05:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC) |
The wording here does not make sense to me. There must be a wording mistake in here. <br>[[User:H Padleckas|H Padleckas]] 05:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
== Example is Wrong == |
|||
The example given is most assuredly wrong, at least as a matter of New York State law. New York collapses justification and necessity into a single concept of justification in NY Penal Law Art. 35. I will try to revise this. [[User:Cprovenzano|cpro]] 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:13, 9 February 2006
There needs to be a disambiguation page for necessity. There is the philosophical/political use of this word as well.
- I entirely agree. So much of philosophical inquiry focusses around the relationship between cause and effect. Needless to say, necessity plays a large role in this relationship. SJCstudent 03:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Check wording of Element 3
Can someone please check the wording of Element 3 in this article which states:
- 3. the accused must be proportionality between the harm inflicted and the harm avoided
The wording here does not make sense to me. There must be a wording mistake in here.
H Padleckas 05:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Example is Wrong
The example given is most assuredly wrong, at least as a matter of New York State law. New York collapses justification and necessity into a single concept of justification in NY Penal Law Art. 35. I will try to revise this. cpro 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
