Hi, I need help with essay on Legal Theory. Paper must be at least 1500 words. Please, no plagiarized work!Download file to see previous pages... This discussion chronicles the rationale for the imple

Hi, I need help with essay on Legal Theory. Paper must be at least 1500 words. Please, no plagiarized work!

This discussion chronicles the rationale for the implementation of Britain's 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.

There has been no legislation that has put legal restrictions on individuals whose actions hurt no one other than themselves which many, including myself, consider wrong. This opinion extends to other issues such as drug possession, prostitution, bigamy, etc. In other countries, laws preventing gambling and gay 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 interfere with the personal welfare or property of others. But the issue of seatbelts and wearing of helmet should be taken seriously and for this case an act of made on the same. This is because the state has full responsibility to safeguard against the life of people and if this becomes law, hence they protect the life its people. Individuals themselves ought to aware that it is morally upright 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 concrete 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 Britain's 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, Britain's seatbelt laws coincided with an average increase of 135 pedestrian and 40 cyclist deaths per year. A study for the UK Department of Transport commissioned 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 have seatbelt laws at that time, as control models. The study discovered that the most significant effect of these laws was a marked increase in deaths by those outside the car, a finding that was unanticipated.