Williams v. Florida: state rule of 6 jurors (not 12) ruled to not violate 6th amendmentChisom v. Roemer: 1982 amendment to section 2 of Voting Rights Act (prohibited any voting procedure which caused minority voters to have less of a voice) applies to judicial electionsMIDTERM STUDY GUIDEAdd stuff from last dayThe Queen v. Dudley and Stephens case/doctrine of necessity: cannibalism caseTypes of arguments:- Utilitarian: greatest good for greatest # of peopleo Criticisms: hard to quantify worth of lives, retroactively applied (no random choosing), non consensual- Intentionality/volition: intent is not to murder but rather to sustain lifeo Criticisms: weakened by lack of consent (he couldn’t speak)- Doctrine of necessity: extreme circumstances and measure of last resorto Applies in self defense; however, the guy didn’t threaten themo Precedent: 1842 The United States vs. Holmes—left open the possibility of necessity as defenseo Criticisms (it was struck down): Judgement of necessity is unclear—who judges, by what measure- Principle leaves him who profits to determine the necessity which willjustify taking someone’s life to preserve his owno Judges didn’t want to make precedent that would justify murdero Not recognized as a plausible defense because it will do more harm than good by creating a defense that could justify many types of murder Example: hunger could be defense for stealing, homelessness a defense for trespassing, etc.o Today, SCOTUS recognizes defense of necessity but strongly limits its scope—defense of necessity must show imminent peril, lack of reasonable lawful alternatives to actions, and proportionality of harm caused and avoided- State of nature: argument that outside of society (in sea) state rules/laws don’t apply, no jurisdiction in the middle of seao State of nature argument is dangerous because it means that you can go to places in the world where you are not bound by moral or legal conducto They are in an English boat—they are subject to English laws- Relate to 3 schools of jurisprudenceo Legal positivism: cannibalism was seen as necessity on open seas, legal positivism says that law is valid if there is force backing it (on the boat the captain is the state/law) Act also fits legal definition of crimeo Natural law: act lacked core morality b/c eating your brothers at sea is wrong Judge used natural law Law= idealistic or realistic?o Historical school: since there is precedent that people do this at sea, it is accepted, public opinion supported  acceptable Eugen Ehrlich’s living law: people use this in practice- Is the value of life absolute?o Verdict says that it is: murder is never justifiedo Later sentence is contradictory b/c sentenced to death Life of cannibals is not as good as the life of the kid who was killed- Fair procedure and consent would strengthen other arguments- Absence of due process- Relationship between law and justice?o Relationship between law and public opinion? Law is constant, public opinion fluctuates (originally was positive towards prisoners then became sour)William v. Walker Thomas Furniture Company/doctrine of unconscionability- Social worker, lived on $218/month with 7 kids - Established doctrine of unconscionability: contracts that include an absence of meaningful choice on one party with contract terms unreasonably fair to the other party are unconscionable and unenforceableo Meaningful choice determined by equality of bargaining power AND reasonable opportunity to understand terms of contract  Without reasonable opportunity to understand contract, there is lack of real consent to terms of contract- Amplified by her background (social worker, income, uneducated) Inequality in bargaining power determined by general commercial background (education about trade)- Equality of bargaining power: mutual favorability- Precedent: Scott v. United States (1870)—SCOTUS stated that unconscionable contracts are unenforceable under Congress’s Uniform Commercial Code- Dissent (by Danaher): it is role of legislature, not courts, to determine when contracts are unenforceable; since many low income clients push items on credit out of necessity, it is notCourt’s role to determine when these contracts should be annulled- Legal positivism: contract is valid because he signed it and it’s a ruleo Blurry line: is provision in law b/c rule is so obscure?- Natural law: contract is invalid b/c businesses should operate w/ ethics- Historical school: does it align with accepted business codes?- Judge Skelly Wright ruledSchools of jurisprudence: Natural Law, Legal Positivism, and Historical SchoolNatural Law- Lon Fuller (“inner core of morality”): legal system has to have inner core ofmorality to count as a legal system (independent from divine inspiration, in contrast to St. Thomas Aquinas)- Criticisms: no absolute morality, not the same everywhere and there are no eternal truths, who has the correct interpretation, vague, who defines morality, cultural bias (ethnocentric)Legal Positivism- H.L.A. Hart (rule of recognition): divided law into primary and secondary ruleso Rule of recognition: secondary rules that determine validity of primary rules- John Austin (gun man): defines law as a rule backed by forceo Criticized by HLA Hart, who said that this definition would count a gunman as a legal system, said it was too simplistic- Ronald Dworkin: theory of law as integrity (natural law thinker)- Criticisms: too narrow (doesn’t include international law + religious law [HLA Hart specifically says it is excluded because it is not given by state] + smaller scale societies’ laws), too fixated on rules, what validates the rule of recognition, dangerous to separate law from morality (forced to embrace corrupt legal systems)Nazi wife case: debate between HLA Hart (legal positivist) and Lon Fuller (natural law)- Involved a woman who denounced husband to government for his illegal remarks about theNazi regime; he was sentenced to death- After war, wife was prosecuted in W. German court for “illegally depriving a person of his freedom,” which was punishable by German code of 1871- Retroactivity: saying later that a past law is invalid so you’re being punished nowo Fair notice—you have to tell people in advance what the law is so they can make their behavior conform to the law- HLA Hart: acknowledges that he’s imposing retroactive punishment but he’s willing to punish the woman because her