Legal Theory Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

honorful Theory - Essay ExampleThis discussion chronicles the rationale for the implementation of Britains do-nothingbelt and crash helmet legislation, the laws veridical effects in contrast to what was intended as well as the theories as to why they argon essentially ineffective. there has been no legislation that has put legal restrictions on individuals whose actions hurt no one other than themselves which many, including myself, direct wrong. This mental picture extends to other issues such as drug possession, prostitution, bigamy, etc. In other countries, laws preventing gambling and jocund marriage fall into this category as well. There is, of course, a line drawn within this opinion regarding laws that include children. Consensual adults, however, should be free to choose how to live their lives as they please if it does not put in with the personal welfargon or property of others. But the issue of seatbelts and wearing of helmet should be taken in earnest and for thi s case an act of made on the same. This is because the state has full responsibility to safeguard against the life of muckle and if this becomes law, hence they protect the life its people. Individuals themselves ought to aware that it is morally up right(a) for them to use seatbelt and helmets, not because is a law or not but because there are benefits associated with this act. Even though one has a right to reason and make a free decision of his/her own choice, one should make a cover decision that benefit him.Wearing seat belts and/or helmets are reported to save lives but this in itself is of much controversy as will be discussed further. Seatbelt and crash helmet laws, though enacted with the intention of saving lives, are a controversial issue based on the ideology of individual liberty. Some would argue that along with the privilege to operate a vehicle, a responsibility to obey all rules set forth by lawmakers necessarily follows and that helmet and seat belt laws are not considered victimless. This discussion chronicles the rationale for the implementation of Britains seatbelt and crash helmet legislation, the laws actual effects in contrast to what was intended as well as the theories as to why they are essentially ineffective.Seatbelt legislation has had an unintended impact for those persons not riding in automobiles such as motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians. For example, Britains seatbelt laws coincided with an second-rate increase of 135 pedestrian and 40 cyclist deaths per year. A study for the UK Department of Transport licensed in 1981, the Isles Report, examined the consequences of seatbelt laws in eight European countries.1 This study used two countries, Italy and the UK, both of which did not obtain seatbelt laws at that time, as control models. The study discovered that the most significant effect of these laws was a mark increase in deaths by those outside the car, a finding that was unanticipated. The study predicted that i f the UK were to enact compulsory seat belt legislation, deaths incurred by those