Sentences with phrase «justice problems because»

Not exact matches

These production numbers still don't do justice to Lady Ada because financial problems of the then - owner Viceroy Australia brought a premature end to the mine.

I've often been told that the reason I have a problem with the idea of people suffering eternally without the chance to be saved is because my sense of justice has been perverted by my sin nature, that it only seems unfair to me because «God's ways are higher than our ways.»

Lower court judges and the justices of the Supreme Court have «failed to offer a «principled or predictable alternative» to «strict separation» because they — like the American people — do not agree among themselves on the nature of the problem or how to resolve it.

These versions do not take the problem of justice in history seriously, because they have obscured what the Bible has to say about the relation of justice to mercy in the very heart of God.

In particular, he kept seeing the baffling personal injustice involved when «the wicked doth compass about the righteous,» and, even when he thought of the nation's collective problem, his solution was not so much to blame present social tragedy on antecedent social sin as to believe that justice, now denied, would come in time — «Though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not delay.»

These traditions could be comfortably suppressed as crude anthropomorphisms as long as confidence in the model of divine efficient causation remained strong, but that model has become vulnerable in recent centuries because it can not do justice to the problem of evil or account adequately for creative freedom.

Comparison with the US is a problem, however - the justice system in the Netherlands is well - known to be rather lenient (A recent media event was the public apology by the Dutch IOC member Camiel Eurlings for domestic violence - the justice department decided not to press charges because he was doing volunteer work!).

«Laura Crane and I have heard of many cases where problems have arisen because police and other criminal justice professionals know very little about autism,» says Dr Maras.

«And that's not just New York, it's a problem all across the country and it's a problem in reality and it's a problem in perception and if it's a problem only in perception, it is still a real problem because people have to trust the justice system and the trust has to go both ways,» Cuomo said, speaking about police and community, but also referring to the oft - cited conflict of interest around police and prosecutors who regularly work together but can then be at odds when an officer is suspected of a crime.

But that problem was not discovered by anybody in the criminal justice system because no one ever looked past the laboratory report.»

This is really important is closely linked with tip No. 4, because I feel it like staying angry for a long period of time doesn't do your mind or your body justice and no one wants negative / angry dreams, so just leave it till the morning, solve the problem there and then... or just forgive.

Conservatives think it's a problem to include social justice issues in the reform movement, because it threatens to splinter coalitions by introducing divisive racial and social issues.

Because young people in cities have serious issues and problems in their faces everyday, and many of those problems have implications for social justice — such as race, class, and power — we try to have students and teachers together explore the root causes of problems.

Here in Kenya you appear foolish when you have co operated fully with the so called justice system because the realisation dawns on you that the system is not about justice but whom you should have paid and when, to extinguish a problem and just make the nightmare go away.

Because climate change is a profound problem of ethics, morality and justice those causing the problem may not use self - interest alone as justification for their policy responses to human - induced warming, they must respond in ways consistent with their responsibilities and duties to others.

This is so because in addition to the theological reasons given by Pope Francis recently: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

This is so because: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

Because climate change is a profound problem of justice those causing the problem may not use self - interest alone as justification for their policy responses to human - induced warming, they must respond in ways consistent with their responsibilities and duties to others.

We must see climate change as an ethical problem because: (a) it is a problem caused by some people in one part of the world that puts others and the natural resources on which they depend at great risk, (b) the harms to these other people are not mere inconveniences but in some cases catastrophic losses of life or the ability to sustain life, and (c) those who are vulnerable to climate change cant petition their governments to act to protect themselves but must rely upon a hope that a sense of justice and responsibility of those causing the problem will motivate them to change their behavior.

It is also practically important because the first four IPCC reports, although not completely ignoring all ethical and justice problems with economic arguments about climate change policies, failed to examine the vast majority of ethical problems with economic arguments against climate change policies while making economic analyses of climate change policies the primary focus of Working Group III's work thereby leaving the strong impression that economic analyses, including but not limited to cost - benefit analyses, is the preferred way to evaluate the sufficiency of proposed climate change policies.

Climate change raises questions of both distributive and retributive justice because: (a) Climate change is a problem caused by some people that inflicts harm on others; (b) Some of the poorest people in the world are extremely vulnerable to its impacts and can do little to protect themselves from those impacts; (c) The adverse impacts to some of the world's poorest people are likely to be catastrophic; and (d) Huge reductions from status quo emissions are necessary to prevent catastrophic warming.

Because some people more than others have caused the problem, questions of retributive justice arise about how to allocate responsibility for past behavior and the harm that it has caused.

Because the world needs to allocate acceptable levels of future GHG emissions among all peoples, climate change is a problem of distributive justice.

As New York Times reporter Luanne White reports in this article, In New Orleans, Rust in the Wheels of Justice (11/21/06), in the aftermath of Katrina, «as many as 500 defendants, mostly in drug, theft and assault cases, have been freed because of problems with evidence, including difficulty in finding the witnesses who have moved away.»

In support of its position, the guide notes six of the seven California justices who adopted the all - citations - in - footnotes style several years ago «have now abandoned it because of the «bobblehead doll» syndrome and quotability problems noted above.»

«One of the reasons I started this campaign was because I kept getting calls from litigants looking for services at a lower price, so I'm excited that we're finally going to get access to justice for people with family law problems who can't afford a lawyer,» says Yarmus, who runs Toronto - based Civil Litigations Paralegal Services.

However, the creation of database of lawyers willing to unbundle their services is not going to fix the problem of social injustice because of the culture in the British based justice system.

The answer is that this Government has no interest at all in maintaining access to justice because, as the defendant, it sees this as the problem itself.

Access to justice is not generally a problem in personal injury cases, because of the prevalence of contingency fees.

Therefore, because of the access to justice problem of unaffordable legal services, shouldn't there be an expanded constitutional «right to counsel» in criminal cases?

I say «business» advisedly because it costs money to hire the lawyers necessary to know what the words might actually mean, and this sets up an «access to justice» problem with which we're all familiar and about which we seem to be floundering right now.

Based on the above, the OPC view is that since search engines already engage in the indexing activity and are covered under PIPEDA, they should have the obligation to de-index and takedown «because the problems that need addressing arise from their own actions; and because it promotes access to justice.»

As a second problem the Court perceives a danger for the autonomy of EU law in the draft agreement because it may adversely affect the principle of mutual trust between the Member States concerning the respect of fundamental rights, which is in particular relevant in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (paras 191 ff.).

The most interesting finding of the study was that «nearly half of all low income people with a legal problem did not seek legal assistance because they did not know that there were laws to protect them or that relief could be obtained from the justice system.»

The steady increase in lawyer numbers nationwide has not solved the access to justice problem, mainly because the underlying economics of law school and law practice have not changed.

We talked about an access to justice gap, but what people are usually talking about is an access to lawyers gap because there is actually no gap in the number of people who have their legal problems solved.

Because God found that, that management structure doesn't get anything done, so it is that there are several «access to justice» problems, the worst of which is the «unaffordable legal services problem,» that persists to persist.

I call it lazy because we can address the problems of access to justice far more effectively if we apply our talents, energies and wisdom to doing so.

So we have to look at the «justice system» in a different, more comprehensive and flexible way — because the problems these people have are real and serious problems, even if the adversarial justice process has nothing that will help solve them.

Although the Ministry of Justice has spent the last two years reviewing homicide law, there still remains a serious problem around «one - punch killers» which means punishment for bad luck, according to: Barry Mitchell, Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Coventry University Law School One of the criticisms the writer and others have of the current law is that it makes it too easy for a person to be convicted of manslaughter, essentially because the law pitches the minimum level of culpability too low.

But your client's anger, regardless whether it is justified, could be caused by the stress of being in a situation that requires an attorney, family problems (even if it's not a family law issue), or simply because they don't believe the wheels of justice are turning as they should.

The precedent was a problem for the defence because in it several of the justices construed the words «admitted free» to merely prohibit interprovincial tariffs.

«We all thought early on that computers were going to solve all our problems in litigation because the answer to everything would be at our fingertips with the simple press of a button,» said Nova Scotia Justice John Scanlan, «but in many ways just the opposite has happened.»

After all, the WSBA's own Civil Legal Needs Study determined that the # 1 reason poor people had no or limited access to justice was because they did not know how to get access to justice or they did not know they had a problem that could be addressed by the justice system.

Ultimately, this is not a truly fixable problem without a government - sponsored entitlement program — meaning, there is no market solution for fixing access to justice for the poor because the poor have no money and markets run on consumer spending.

This is the worst case scenario for Texas, because now we know that the problems in the Texas death penalty system reach to Texas» highest ranking criminal appeals court, and yet the judge who closed the doors to justice remains on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

; (4) taxpayers would not have to pay for a justice system that provides lawyers a good place to earn a living but doesn't provide affordable legal services for those taxpayers; (5) the problem wouldn't be causing more damage in one day than all of the incompetent and unethical lawyers have caused in the whole of Canada's history (6) the legal profession would be expanding instead of contracting; because, (7) if legal services were affordable, lawyers would have more work than they could handle because people have never needed lawyers more; (8) law schools would be expanding their enrolments instead of being urged to contract them; (9) the problem would not be causing serious & increasing damage to the population, the courts, the legal profession, and to legal aid organizations because their funding varies inversely with the cost of legal services for taxpayers who finance legal aid's free legal services; (10) there would be a published LSUC text that declares the problem to be its problem and duty to solve it, and accurately defines the problem; (11) Canada would not have a seriously «legally crippled» population and constitution - the Canadian Charter of Rights an Freedoms is a «paper tiger» without the help of a lawyer; (12) Canada's justice system might again be «the envy of the world»; (13) the public statements of benchers would not show that they don't understand the cause of the problem and haven't tried to understand it; (14) LSUC's webpage, «Your Legal Bill - To High?»

Yet one would think that, unlike some of the more abstract problems (say that of public debt and the appropriate level of government spending) which might not affect anyone in particular (important though they are important for us collectively) and so attract few people's attention, the problems of access to justice not only impact real people every single day, but may indeed affect anyone at some point in one's life, whether personal (say because of a divorce) or business.

However, perhaps a prosecution of a law society under Criminal Code s. 122 for its failure to perform its duties in regard to access to justice by at least trying to solve the unaffordable legal services problem would fail because, even if an official knows that a decision does affect his / her personal interests, there is no offence, «if the decision is made honestly and in a genuine belief that it was a proper exercise of his jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Lamer accepted «that the art of predicting recidivism and future dangerousness is, at the very least, a somewhat inexact process», but responded to this problem by asserting that «the bail system does not aim to make exact predictions about future dangerousness because such predictions are impossible to make».