Vusal Gahramanov

Midterm Exam-
CRN-10093
19th November 2020
1. Please compare liability for crimes and delicts

Liability for delicts and crimes have strong differences between each other. Here, we are going
to compare them and see what are their main differences.

The damage caused by a person to another private person’s property is considered a delict or
civil wrongs. Here we can say that if they will go to the court, there will not be any prosecutor,
because there is no involvement of the state on the matter. This is called a civil liability.

The individual if he made an act, which was harmful or damaged the society, then it is a crime.
Here the state is going to intervene on the matter, because the suspect has acted against the
state’s interest. That is because, the state has promised its people that it will protect them from
the death or other fatalities (like robbery). That is why, the citizens had to pay taxes to the state,
and because of that the state is going to prosecute the suspect. This is called a criminal liability.

Overall, we can say that the main difference between the liabilities for delicts and crimes is the
fact that the delicts are damages to private property (and quite often it doesn’t lead you to prison,
but to a fine), and the crime is a criminal offence against the state and in order to protect its
citizens, it will lock you up in prison.

2. Are unamendable constitutional provisions justified? Why, and in which situations? 

The unamendable constitutional provisions are the ones which after the creation of the
constitution, cannot be overruled. The main examples can be the freedom of speech, periodical
votes, equal voting rights and etc. We know that most of the provisions of the constitution can be
changed through democratic referendums and other means, but why are these constitutional
provisions justified?

The constitution itself is a strong document, which is superior to any other legislation. However,
it can be changed. Some states like France and Bolivia had many constitutions in their history,
however it was not just to make sure that they cannot change the current one, but because they
just wanted to get rid of the past one and the past mistakes. We can also say that the more the
constitution is flexible, the more likely it will stay longer in the legislation and not be replaced by
the new constitution. If it is a democratic choice, then why there should be some unamendable
provisions? 

We can say that the main reason why there are unamendable constitutional provisions is because
of the fact that these provisions guarantee the basic rights for the state to sustain itself. These
provisions, if they will be changed or replaced, might cause the creation of a totalitarian regime.
There might be a certain ideological party, which will try to use the democratic popularity in
order to grant them more power. That is why we need these provisions to be unamendable. For
example, let’s imagine Trump wants to change the constitutional provisions in order to be
reelected indefinitely (to overrule one of the Amendments to the Constitution). That will
completely destroy the democracy of the United States. That is why we need the unamendable
constitutional provisions.