Chapter 2 was about moral reasoning in criminal justice under the idealistic and pragmatic models. Chapter 3 was about legal philosophy under the idealistic and pragmatic models. Let’s put these things together using a federal court case that considers society’s right to make rules versus people’s right to direct their children’s activities:AANR-East [American Association for Nude Recreation–Eastern Region, Inc.] is one of several recreational organizations affiliated with the American Association for Nude Recreation, a national social nudism organization. In June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long juvenile [kids] nudist camp at a licensed nudist campground operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. AANR-East leased the 45-acre campground that ordinarily attracts about 1,000 weekend visitors who come to engage in nude recreation and interact with other individuals and families who practice social nudism ….Modeled after juvenile nudist summer camps operated annually in Arizona and Florida by other regional divisions of AANR, the 2003 AANR-East summer camp offered two programs: a “Youth Camp” for children 11 to 15 years old, and a “Leadership Academy” for children 15 to 18 years old. The camp agenda included traditional activities such as arts and crafts, campfire sing-alongs, swimming, and sports. The camp also included an educational component designed to teach the values associated with social nudism through topics such as “Nudity and the Law,” “Overcoming the Clothing Experience,” “Puberty Rights Versus Puberty Wrongs,” and “Nudism and Faith.” A total of 32 campers attended the 2003 summer camp [and AANR-East planned to operate the camp the subsequent year].Prior to the scheduled start of AANR-East’s [next] youth camp, the Virginia General Assembly amended the statute governing the licensing of summer camps specifically to address youth nudist camps. The amended statute requires a parent, grandparent, or guardian to accompany any juvenile who attends a nudist summer camp.White Tail Park v. Stroube (2005) (p. 455) (taken from the end of Chapter 3’s “Criminal Justice Problem Solving” inset)Before this new law, there was no requirement that guardians accompany their children at nudist camps. AANR-East, White Tail, and three sets of parents sued Robert B. Stroube, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Health (responsible for issuing the licenses). The complaint stated that the new law violates parents’ rights to raise their children how they see fit. In other words, the complaint alleges that parents should have the right to send their children to a properly licensed nudist summer camp without having to accompany them.Step 1. Post your response with the following: Take a side in this court case, and justify your position using key terms and concepts from Chapters 2 and 3. Hint: You can find a list of key terms and concepts on the first page of each chapter. To support your analysis, use at least one moral reasoning concept/perspective from Chapter 2 and at least one legal philosophy from Chapter 3. Demonstrate written communication skills by using complete paragraphs, accurate grammar, and proper mechanics. Your original post should be a minimum of 300 words.Key Terms:Social contract theoryLegitimacyStrategyTacticsA priori reasoningDataEmpiricismParadigmsIdealistPragmatistLegal principleRulesSix concepts of lawHart-devlin debateWolfenden reportLegal moralismCollective judgementHarm principleLegal positivismJurisprudenceIdealistic theories of lawLegal naturalismNatural lawCritical theories of lawLegal paternalismLegal pragmatismLegal realism
