The first case was a criminal case that involved a woman who was raped in a New York train station, where none of the transit workers had an initiative to help the victim. The main principle of the ruling says that an individual must not be held accountable in cases where he or she was not responsible for putting another person’s life in danger or risk. The court ruled the transit workers not guilty under the application of this rule, because according to the New York judge who held the case, the workers did not have any legal obligation to help the victim while she was being attacked at their station.
Technically, the ruling that the judge made was appropriate based on the law. However, I personally think that this rule is quite inhumane, and poses a threat to humanity. This is because as human beings, we all have the moral obligation to help anyone who is in danger, given that we are capable of doing. It must not matter if we are responsible for putting the other at risk or in danger. It should always be an innate trait of humans to give importance to life. However, I must say that, in these kinds of situations, one must be quick in discerning what the right thing to do is. If helping the other person would also put your own life in danger, the last resort that a person could do, is to seek help. With this being said, I do not agree to the ruling of the court. Though the judge only applied the ruling according to present law, I still believe that the transit workers had the moral obligations, at the least, to help the victim out of the crime.
Second Case
The second case, Plessy v. Ferguson, was under the nature of civil law. The case was about the law in Louisiana that was aimed at imparting separate railway carriage for White and Black Americans. The complainant in the case, Homer Plessy, a seven-eighths white, one-eighth black American, was arrested and imprisoned for violating the said law after occupying a seat in the White-only car. Plessy then filed a counter petition against Judge John H. Ferguson, stating that the segregation law was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Though appropriate as the petition may seem, the court explicitly rejected the arguments of Plessy, saying that both races were given equal facilities.
This case is one of the many cases of discrimination, not only in the United States, but in the whole world. Racial discrimination is one of the most pressing issues that the world is facing today. I personally believe that it is absurd to have this kind of law, because in fact this may be one of the factors why racial-related crimes are widespread. Laws of this kind does not regulate, but rather tolerate the occurrence of other race-related crimes. I have explicitly expressed my disagreement with the ruling made by the court in this case, because every human being, regardless of color, race, social status, and gender must all enjoy the privilege of having equal rights.
Third Case
The third case employed both civil and criminal law natures. It is about a single, pregnant woman from Texas, who posed a challenge to the integrity of the Texas Criminal Abortion Law. This law prohibits any attempts of abortion in the state, with exemption to medically advised abortions. The plaintiff, Jane Roe, unequivocally deemed the law unconstitutional, stating that it violated her right to privacy stated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Meanwhile, a childless couple by the name of John and Mary Doe filed a companion complaint against Roe, and have resorted to seeking for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The issue of abortion is indeed a very controversial one. There are many factors that must be considered in analyzing issues that involve abortion cases. With regard to the third case, I must say that I am a little bit torn as to which side I should go. In the complaint of Roe stating that the Texas Criminal Abortion Law was unconstitutional, that can be agreed on the part of her right to privacy. However, like my opinion on the first case, all of this will still go down to moral questions. Yes, it may be Roe’s right or choice to undergo abortion even in the lack of medical conditions, but it will all still boil down to the question of morality. Though it may have been an unwanted pregnancy, the complainant should still be held liable for her actions. With regard to the complaint the Doe’s filed against Jane Roe, I don’t see any basis for their claims. Yes, abortion is considered an act against life, however, Roe must not be held liable for their inability to rear children. The only thing that the court must help Roe liable for, is the abortion case against her. This time, in this case of Roe v. Wade, I must say that I agree with the ruling of the court. Applying all legal and moral judgments, the court has enforced just decisions on the case.
