Two groups of people were arguing about should celebrities face stricter penalties when they committed crimes. One side agreed with stricter penalties come out with the reason celebrities have influence power on people, and celebrities can easily bail themselves out of the jail or pay for the fines. On the other hand, people fight back with the reason human were all equal in front of law and god, and celebrities have already lost their privacy so why being so cruel to them.When celebrities commit crimes, people with different opinions came out with different ideas. Some consider they should confront stricter punishment and some disagree. Celebrities have already lost their privacy and also human should be equal in front of the law and god, so celebrities should not face stricter penalties.
It never shows how this individual may have been acting towards the officers. It is all about how the world sees things. If many police departments got body cameras, then there would be fewer stunts pulled, in my opinion. Why would the individual want them acting like a fool on camera? They would be less likely to harass the police and more likely to listen because now the police have a way to back up their story.
When you put your life in the hands of 12 people then you have to convince them your innocents where as you have a judge trail you have to convince him with the evidence and he’s the only one that will make the decision, however sometimes a jury trial works better for whoever being accused depending on the case. Eye witness testimony is sworn to tell the truth otherwise they commit perjury and can be fine or possible go to jail so when your using there information they’re obligated to tell what they saw to help dictate the bigger picture eye witnesses help solve the mysteries and help answer question regarding the case and event. However you get someone that’s dirty nothing says they won’t try to bribe to testify on their behalf. It’s hard to find 12 honest people that will listen and convict somebody,
Those who improperly use visual evidence may mislead the jury, and convict/ not convict the right person. The murder case of George Zimmerman contained animations. However, the video would be unreliable as evidence as no one would be able to give an accurate representation of the events that unfolded that evening. Rather, the visual evidence in this court case was used as a “visual aid” to help better explain facts
This is often because judges disallow the mention of jury nullification in their courtrooms. This is because some judges and other actioners of the law find the concept to be “a gut-punch to Democracy” and an “invitation to anarchy”. The concept is thought to be a violation of the justice system, and, as a result, some judges choose to execute their right to not inform the jury of their right to nullification. Often, jurors find out about jury nullification through their own research or prior knowledge of the practice. The concept of jury nullification is also gaining a lot of traction in modern media.
This is an important issue as the new generation watching reality television will believe that everything they see on their TV screens, is real life. A diverse range of arguments have been offered on this issue. I too will offer opinions and my overall stand on this issue as to why I strongly believe that reality is not what you see on television. Firstly, stating the obvious, reality is “the state of things as they actually exist”. Like me, a large number of people believe that reality television is scripted, fake and shouldn’t exist as they sustain mad morals, exploit celebrities and at times, destroy relationships after
The audience can clearly see what happened on the Kiniakl cause from the court report that is presented. From the Kinakl court case the writer give a lot of emphasis about the non-typical stereotypical criminal story, how the justice was served fairly, and how the court report was biased since the report didn’t actually addressed who Kinakl was and able to create the picture on the audience
If Crito helps him escape, he will earn a bad reputation as well. If his friends help him escape, they would be putting themselves in danger of being prosecuted and losing their money. His children would be known to have a father who's on the run because he broke the law and they would be left alone if he escapes to another city. They would be left alone even if he stays in jail and faces his execution, but it is better if they stay in Athens with people they know. If he escapes to another city, they will view him as a criminal and if his children came with him they would be viewed as foreigners.
I don 't think it should be abolished simply because innocent people have been executed. There are many more innocent people that would be killed due to there being no capital punishment. As well as this capital punishment works as a deterrent and makes people think twice about comitting as they are aware of the consequences. A crucial reason why I think capital punishment shouldn 't be abolished is the fact that it leaves the majority of society happy. Some critics of my viewpoint might point out that capital punishment goes against our human rights.
This may result in wrongful convictions or acquittals and as a result, would severely undermine the efficacy of any justice system. People may start to lose trust in the justice system in meting out fair and impartial judgements, resulting in a total disregard of the justice system. In the contexts of crimes carrying the death penalty, jury tampering can have serious ramifications. The irreversible damage done to the accused’s family due to the wrongful convictions cannot be fixed with any sum of money. With Singapore’s strict anti-corruption stance, cases of corrupt judges would hence be rare.
5. Public trials and executions serve as a deterance of deviant behaviors. These sanctions act as a way to set an example and for people to see what will happen to them if they do the same thing, These sanctions can also be seen as reinforcing boundaries. Although public executions and trials in “town square” are not as common in most countries today, the media is utilized to fulfil the same purpose. When there are high profile cases going on in the United States often tmes the full trial and sentancings are televised so that much of society can see what the repercussions are for defying a social norm.
The thought of spending life in prison for committing a murder is very scary to me. You would think that could deter criminals from committing that crime. In many it does not. To some people the thought scares and prevents them from committing crime. So criminals weight the possibility of getting away with the crime.
In turn, the Justice Department is receiving an “overwhelming consensus” in favor of a reporter’s privilege. They continued by saying that “Congress is currently considering such legislation to address the unique concerns raised in cases like [United States of America v. Jeffrey Alexander Sterling].” The Internet is too vast, and with a single click of a mouse, the government has access to the free flow of information. The second reason why the Sterling case might have continued without Risen’s testimony is because subpoenas are becoming less and less important. According to Lucy Dalglish, former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “Instead of issuing subpoenas, prosecutors are increasingly executing search warrants or other court orders for reporters’ material or for information held by others. It is easy to retrieve- sometimes with no one’s knowledge.” (“in an age” could start a new paragraph and you can reword the quote)In an age of information, the Internet can severely impinge on the freedom of the press.