Essays on Acquittal

In 399 BC, one of the greatest ancient thinkers, Socrates, faced the trial upon the accusations of his corrupting influence on the Athenian youth, rejection of gods recognized by the Athenian state and invention of new gods. In the course of the trial, the philosopher was given an opportunity to defend himself, and his speech interpreted by Plato under the title Apology has survived until nowadays as a prominent example of rhetoric and argumentation. Socrates moves from explanations of his actions to critique of the values and misconceptions of his accusers (particularly, Meletus). Although one would expect a person ...

Abstract

Black Lives Matter has grown from a hashtag to an activist group. Black Lives Matter is an issue that will be explored in this document from a psychoanalytical perspective. The qualitative instrument that is used will measure several documentations of behaviors of said members of the group, as well as those who consider that their view coincides, or who has participated with the group known as Black Lives Matter. The research model begins with the history of the group itself. In other words, each documentation following the abstract has been assessed as a part of the qualitative research that ...

The concept of justice is something that has been debated on since at least Greek antiquity. While many people throughout the United States believe in American Exceptionalism and claim that America’s criminal justice is the best in the world, further inspection of this system would appear to indicate that it contains a substantial amount of deficiencies. Not only do some people claim that it systematically discriminates against people of certain races, but other perspectives have even argued that rich people are able to get off easier when they commit crimes. The present research examines whether or not wealth ...

Introduction

The Trayvon Martin shooting of 2012, in which George Zimmerman shot a 17-year-old black youth whom he believed was acting in a threatening manner. The controversy surrounding the murder and its subsequent trial brought up intriguing and complicated discussions surrounding Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws, which stated Zimmerman had the right to defend himself with deadly force if he felt threatened. Stand Your Ground laws have encountered a great deal of discussion in recent years due to this case and many others, in which the issue of being able to defend yourself with lethal force is taken into ...

Introduction

The Constitution states that due process shall be and should be observed at all times, either in criminal or civil cases. Due process can either be substantive or procedural. Substantive due process is contained in several branches of law and refers to the government’s interference with an individual’s exercise of rights. Usually, it involves acts, matters or issues which society deems controversial. Examples of issues that have to be settled with substantive due process is the allowance or prohibition of abortion, same sex marriage and any form of state regulation which involves potentially or in any way ...

Introduction

The constitution states that due process shall be and should be observed at all times, either in criminal or civil cases. Due process can either be substantive or procedural. Substantive due process is contained in several branches of law and refers to the government’s interference with an individual’s exercise of rights. Usually, it involves acts, matters or issues which society deems controversial. Examples of issues that have to be settled with substantive due process is the allowance or prohibition of abortion, same sex marriage and any form of state regulation which involves potentially or in any way ...

Introduction

Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were brutally murdered between 10:15 p.m. and 10:35 p.m. on Sunday June 12, 1994 in the front of Nicole Brown Simpson’s Brentwood condominium located in Los Angeles, California. O.J. Simpson committed these murders. The witness testimony and the evidence at the crime scene of the murders of Brown Simpson and Goldman clearly indicate that O.J. Simpson committed the crimes. However, the incompetence of the Los Angeles Police Department during the investigation of the murders allowed the defense to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors so that a non-guilty verdict ...

(Professor/Instructor) (Course/Major)

Insanity Plea: The Andrea Yates

Andrea Kennedy Yates married and mother to five children-Noah, John, Paul, Luke, and Mary-was found guilty of killing all five of her children by drowning the children in the bathtub in their home. During the course of the trial, Yates confided that she was “not a good mother” and the children “were not developing correctly” and that she must be chastised. This belief was anchored on the radical teachings of Michael Woroniecki, who taught her that “bad mothers will go to hell and the children these will have will also go to hell.” In addition, Yates ...

Criminal Justice

Introduction In the short play written by Billy Goda entitled “No Crime”, he claimed that “a man is innocent until proven guilty by law”. With this statement, Goda maintains that even if a man confesses to commit murder, but the confession was not made before the police or before the court, he must still be treated as an innocent man. It is only the judge who conducted the trial of the accused, who can issue a ruling that the man is guilty (Goda 76).

Point

The quantum of evidence needed for the crime of murder is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the ...

Introduction

The Jury has the power to exercise nullification while conducting jury duties. This power is accorded as a matter of practice and in common law, and not necessarily under legislation. Jury nullification occurs when the fact finding is clear of the defendant’s guilt, but the jury relying on its own understanding of fairness and justice, decides to acquit. There has been on going debate as to whether the judges should inform the jury of their nullification ability or not. This paper explores the position that the jury should not be informed of their nullification powers (Bellin, 2010).

Background

The nullification ...

The film Legally Blonde pretends to be a celebration of the power of women in the dusty, sexist halls of Harvard Yard, but in fact it is a comedy that uses the time-tested ability of sexist roles to gain cheap laughs and play to the tastes of those who snicker at women, believing them to be less able than men and qualifying all of their successes at having been based on luck or some other sort of dynamic than true competence. Reese Witherspoon stars as Elle Woods, a sorority girl who fits every stereotype of the naïve blonde. She catches the ...

The O. J. Simpson Murder Trial

“A great trash novel come to life” (Linder, 2000). This is what the criminal trial of Orenthal James Simpson was referred to as. However it cannot be denied that the American public had been deeply captivated by the trial. Initially, reports of the Murder of the ex-NF: football star’s wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, did not capture the full attention of the people. However, 95 million television viewers did witness the live police chase, with Simpson behind the wheel of his infamous Bronco ride. It was quite the shock when the “Not Guilty” verdict ...

The role that an attorney plays in protecting his client’s interests has long included the privilege of confidentiality, in the sense that a client’s defender should have the ability to discuss his client’s case with full candor, and then decide which elements of that case should make it into the courtroom. This notion has ancient precedents: when Marcus Tullius Cicero was prosecuting the governor of Sicily, during the time of the Roman Empire, he was not allowed to call the governor’s defender as a witness. The logic at the time was that if the advocate could testify, ...

The United States Constitution provides for the impeachment of the President for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article II, Section 4) but nowhere defines them. It was based upon this arcane phrase that the House of Representatives voted by a majority to impeach (essentially, to indict) the seventeenth president of the United States, Andrew Johnson. It was now up to the United States Senate to garner the required two-thirds majority to convict him, the penalty for which was removal from office. At the outset, it should be stated that Johnson was impeached because his views as a southern Democrat (although one ...

Introduction

Double jeopardy also referred to as non bis in idem is a rule that prohibits prosecution of an individual for a second time. The rule dictates that fugitives acquitted or convicted for same offenses should not be put under prosecution for the second time (Gracia, 15). However, it is important to note that different sovereigns hold differing stand points on prosecution of individuals for second time. As an example, United States of America and Jamaica are two countries that prohibit double jeopardy. Particularly, double jeopardy is prohibited by the 5th Amendment of the United States constitution (Rudstein, 11) . The Clause is ...