Back to questions

i, expect to be faced with arguments such as “in a democratic society we need to balance individual rights (like that of movement, work, informed consent to a medical procedure, protest and gathering) with the rights of to public safety, life and health. It is ok to limit individual rights so long as it is justifiable to reach certain goals for society (e.g. public safety).” Any suggestions as to how to approach such argument especially in a trial by jury? I don’t want to enter the whole scientific debate if I can avoid doing so as it is a very specialized field.

Want to see this question answered?

Click the "thumbs-up" icon. The questions with the most votes will be answered.

Responses

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Thought provoking question. You, as a wo/man, set your own law though and that will factor in the well being of those in your care, the community and world at large but that does not mean you, need to fall on the sword for someone else’s idea of the greater good or political ideology(etc). Being able to take our stand, in law common to i, in the face of fear and adversity is Law for Mankind.