Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal 3D 619 (1970) Research Paper

Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal 3D 619 (1970) - Research Paper Example He insisted, upon viewing her pregnant form, the he would â€Å"stomp it out of you†, then pushing her against the car and driving his knee sharply into her abdomen (New York State Bar Association, 2010, p.623). After striking his wife in the face several times, she eventually fainted. Upon awaking, Robert Keeler had left the scene of the crime. Her first move was to return to Stockton where she approached the police, who summoned medical assistance. She was discovered to have significant facial injuries and extensive bruises on her abdomen (loislaw.com, 2010). Upon the advice of medical practitioners, a C-section was performed in which the fetus was discovered to have a fractured skull and was delivered stillborn. Under Penal Code  § 187, Robert Keeler was charged with murder as it was determined that the damage caused to the fetus could only have been sustained through external force. The Supreme Court of Amador County ruled that Robert Keeler could not be held on murder charges or convicted of the crime. The judge in the case cited Penal Code 187 that provides â€Å"murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice afterthought† (loislaw.com, 2010, p.2). At this time, in 1970, most of the laws pertaining to murder and identifying what constitutes a human being was related to very old common law from the 1850s. There were no precedents set that clearly indicated fetus rights and such rights in relation to classification as a human being. This common law involved protections for individuals who had been born alive, and Teresa Keeler’s child had been stillborn. The judge had no legal viability by which to uphold murder charges. The judge further ruled that citing other relevant laws other than those spelled out in Penal Code 187 would deny Mr. Keeler due process afforded him by law (loislaw.com). Though Robert Keeler’s domestic assault charges were upheld, there were absolutely no

Illustrate and discuss with examples the law of diminishing returns Essay

Illustrate and discuss with examples the law of diminishing returns - Essay Example Cannan (1981) says that while the great British economist Malthus has been given a large part of the credit for discovering this law, it was Turgot who actually considered it in its application to the field of agriculture. Turgot writes that: â€Å"Where ordinary good cultivation prevails, the annual advances bring in 250 to the hundred, it is more than probable that if the advances were increased by degrees from this point up to that at which they would bring in nothing, each increment would be less and less fruitful (Cannan, 1981, Pg. 74)†. The law of diminishing returns was likened by Turgot to a spring which is forced to stretch due to the load of weights on it. As more and more weights are added to the spring, the relative extension starts decreasing until there comes a point where no further extension can be made to the spring (Cannan, 1981). The ideas given by Turgot can be simplified by using his own agricultural example but giving it a more modern complexion. For instance, given that we know that x amount of seed in one hectare of land would produce 3y of crop, we could assume that doubling the amount of seed would produce 2(3y) of crop i.e. 6y, if everything else remains the same. However, once the amount of seed is doubled, the output crop may not be exactly double and we could end up with a crop which is equal to 4y or 5y. If the amount of seed was further increased to 3x the returning crop amount could be 4.5 y or even less. In this manner, the marginal return from each additional unit of seed would become lesser and lesser until the marginal result would become close to zero. Even though it was Turgot who suggested the ideas behind this law of economics, Malthus popularized the concept with his Essay on the Principle of Population which was published in 1798 and discussed many different economic concepts (Cannan,