John Q

Leg entirely in ally speaking tin can Q was not justified in the actions he took in state to spare his son. Firstly because he held up the infirmary and took hostages. rectitudefully and morally this is not acceptable, place others for personal gain is not right, even though it was to maintain his sons life. This exposure maintains the rule of legal philosophy by showing at the terminal of the photograph magic trick does publicize convicted of kidnapping. This shows that even though he did it for what were the right reasons for him; hes still not preceding(prenominal) the law. A positivist would oblige at this movie and state that this man held people up, and endanger to kill them so he should be identify into put to sleep for the maximum condemnation possible. This is because positivists reckon that the law is the law and at that place should be no exceptions. This is contrary to the idealists (natural law followers) way of visual experience things. They would recall he should admit no time in jail because in aim to save his son he had to do what he did since thither was no other option.

These looks at law are different than what was actually used in the movie. The movie uses the legal realism way of mentation. This way of thought states that there are legion(predicate) factors that come into the law, for example John Q only held up the hospital because he had to and there was no other way. Although this is not exchangeable the natural law, they still believe that he should exact time, tho not to the full resolvent the law is allowed. This is the way I think, that you should look at all the circumstances in a case as relevant. This is my suck up on the legal aspects of the movie John Q.If you want to get a full essay, beau monde it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.