Who's to blame for homelessness Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Who's to blame for homelessness - Essay Example We will also try to find the answer of the most fundamental question i.e. should help be provided to these homeless people? Who should provide this help government or nonprofit organization? Although there exists, alternative views about providing help to these homeless people I strongly support all help that is provided either by federal or nonprofit organizations. Homelessness Over the last twenty years a sharp rise in the no. of homeless people was observed. This can be attributed to many factors such as poverty, unemployment, family crises, sociopolitical conditions, family disintegration, violence, mental health and other catastrophes. In order to fully understand homelessness we first need to establish what exactly is termed as homelessness. Given below is the definition of homelessness as defined by Homeless Assistance Act 1987. A homeless person is can be described as â€Å"one who has no fixed, regular, and adequate place to spend the night time or an individual who lives i n a refuge, welfare hotel, transitional program or place not ordinarily used as normal sleeping accommodations, such as streets, cars, movie theatres, abandoned buildings, etc† (Chesnay).This definition does not include temporary residence with friends and family. Some people believe that this definition of homelessness is too narrow. They are of the opinion that to tackle homelessness properly we need to concentrate on its definition because that in turn will define the size of the homeless population and will determine our policy to the situation. O’Sullivan has outlined three categories of homelessness they are visible homelessness, hidden homelessness and at risk of homelessness. If we make use of all three categories it will help us tackle and prevent homelessness. Prevention Strategies Effective prevention depends on the two variables they are Identifying what we are trying to prevent Demonstration of result i.e. actually stopping or reducing frequency of occurren ce of the event. According to the public health model developed by Klein and Goldston, there are three types of prevention which are Primary Prevention Secondary Prevention Tertiary Prevention Primary Prevention Primary prevention strategy is a proactive step which is designed to prevent the action from happening for the first time or happening at all. From the perspective of our issue at hand it prevents homelessness from happening for the first time. Various issues leads to homelessness such as less income, family violence, physical and mental health and release from institutions or transitions from the social welfare program. Our primary strategy here for homeless prevention is to target these factors which involve community decisions and hence design our prevention strategies accordingly. (Martha R Burt) Secondary Prevention Through secondary prevention we focus on the early intervention so that before it becomes a severe problem risks can be identified. Secondary prevention in case of our issue at hand i.e. homelessness means diverting and focusing our attention to those people who have become homeless for the first time. The aim is to resolve their issues and help them getting out of this situation and taking measures which prevent it from happening again. The

A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of Essay

A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds its expression. per Cardozo J, Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co. (1919) 225 - Essay Example The simple definition found in a freshman’s law book is a person, whom we shall call the donor, who has complete confidence in another person, (a friend, a relative, or a lawyer), who shall be called the trustee, and gives this person the right to administer his affairs (be it a house, bonds, jewels, an estate, and so on). This is what one usually understands by the word trust. Judge Cardozo gave the following definition: â€Å"when a property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee.†1 This is far from being that categorical, especially when a slew of other factors make it quite confusing, especially when there are differences between the US and the English interpretation of the constructive trust law. â€Å"Lord Wright MR2 deplored the absence of an English work on restitution and noted that the American principles [of constructive trust] stated appear to be consistent with the large and unanalyzed mass of English cases.†¦ [furthermore,] in the Restatement (1937) Lord Wright treats the constructive trust as a remedy,† (Lacy p.1) and assesses the one difference between both countries as to the interpretation and that is one of analysis. If the British judges group the equitable jurisdiction as a restitutionary one, then the remedies must therefore be given by the common law courts. On the other hand, if the English judges take Cardozo’s statement as written then the British judicial system recognizes this US law a universal one regardless of its context. (Lacy p.1) The following cases, Barnes v Addys [1874] LR 9 Ch App 244, Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378, Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Furniture Ltds [1968] 1 WLR 15555 at 1582, and R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053, will be used to illustrate the ambiguity of the constructive