Childhood V. Ben Hall Case

The Melton v. Young case is about a high school student that was suspended for wearing a jacket with a Confederate flag. The issue that was discussed is, whether or not the school officials could suspend a student for wearing Confederate flag. The clothing sparking racial tension was also discussed. The racial tension from the previous year was an argument for the defense because it can be said that the jacket could have refueled this. The defense also stated that the Melton family was informed of the new rules and chose to break them. The plaintiff’s argument was that the student’s suspension was unconstitutional and the confederate flag is a part of his heritage. The district court ruled the school’s dress code policy unconstitutionally

According to the Supreme Court, in 1993, Christopher Simmons went into Shirley Crook’s home with in mind to steal and harm her. Simmons was 17 years old at the time of this crime. According to the report, Simmons had spoken to his friends of the plan to kill the family, thinking he could get away with it because of his age. According to the report, Simmons was arrested the next day, he and his friends. Simmons confessed to the murder and how he did it. At the trial, the jury found him guilty. During the sentencing hearing, the defense attorneys asked the jury to use Simmons’ age as a factor and that he had no prior arrest reports so that Simmons would not receive the death penalty. Nevertheless, the jury focused on the brutal and aggravated

For Ben Hall a young man, the evolving and progressive society of Australia presented an opportunity for the adventurous to have ago and to build a solid foundation for the future without the social judgments that long been a handicap for those of limited means and wherein some sections of Australian society there still retained the structured aristocracy of the old country where title and inherited wealth determined a path of diversity for those that were termed privileged, this, of course, excluded Ben Hall. It was for those in Australia with courage and determination that the land could offer them that same opportunity of position in the new aristocracy of the colony which was being forged out of the criminals of England who had been bound down by iron chains and where the land for those ex-convicts presented a new wealth for men marked long ago and sent to this penal land for crimes that were so petty that in a modern Australia or England would not ever see the courthouse let alone seven to fourteen years incarcerated with severe physical punishment.

The R.v. Ewanchuck (1999) case is a case that shook the Canadian criminal justice system and is considered by feminists a victory because the judge’s decision reflected rape myths and the case is being praised with addressing rape myths in the criminal justice system. The details of the case are; Ewanchuck invited a 17 year- old woman into his van for a job interview ( Dumont, 1999, p. 102-109). After the job interview concluded, Ewanchuck insisted that the woman see his paintings, which were in a trailer behind the van ( Dumont, 1999, p. 102-109). Ewanchuck then took the woman inside the trailer and began to make a series of sexual advances ( Dumont, 1999, p. 102-109). Every time, the woman would say “no” Ewanchuck would stop and then continue

finally stood and fought for their rights. The Civil Rights Movement took place in the

At the age of 16 years old Alonza Thomas, a typical teenage boy, was given a 13 year sentence for second degree armed robbery. It all started when he ran away from home; his mother was upset with him so he left to avoid dealing with the problem. He met someone while trying to find a place to stay and he offered him a place to sleep and some hot food. When Alonza had finally decided it was time for him to go home and face his mother, they demanded that he repay them somehow. They held him at gun point, making it apparent that they weren’t going to back down if he went against what they wanted. The repayment came in the form of a job, the robbery that ended up sending him to an adult prison. Alonza Thomas stated how they had made him feel that he had choice, “he came back out with a gun. And he said, “You think you’re gonna eat my food for free? Live in my house and just walk out? And things that come free like that? No, nothing’s free.” He said, “No, you’re gonna have to rob this store.””

Supreme Court cases can shape our national laws; it can shape an American citizen’s future. Without them, the Bill of Rights could be left up for our own interpretation. This could cause unfair laws and create havoc. In 1966, a court case named Kent vs United Sates took place. This case could create the ability to shape a juvenile's life forever.

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley was a case filed against the school board by Amy Rowley parents. They filed this case on behalf of their daughter because the school district denied the parents request for a sign language interpreter. Amy Rowley was a deaf student. She attended Furnace Woods Elementary School in New York. She lived with her parents, who also could not hear. Before she went to school her kindergarten year, her parents had meeting with the school administrators to develop her an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). In this IEP, it gave Amy access to a sign language interpreter in the classroom. However, the sign interpreter determine that Amy would do fine in the classroom with a FM

High profile court cases have been getting increasingly popular as time goes on. Court cases like the Casey Anthony and Scott Peterson trials are media dynamite. Although the media is legally allowed to be a part of these court proceedings, they still cause drama and stipulations that many feel would not be a factor if their presence were withdrawn. Notoriety, or being famous for bad deeds, is a characteristic engulfing many of Hollywood’s elite personnel; for this reason, many high profile cases have become even more of a media magnet. Many may believe that notoriety is a determining factor in high profile cases, but all legal proceedings are conducted in the same manner whether heavily documented in the

Dred Scott v. Sandford was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. The case was decided in 1857 with a 7–2 decision. Scholars today believe it is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in the 1790’s. In 1830, he was bought by Dr. John Emerson. As an army officer, Dr. Emerson moved frequently. After purchasing him they moved to Illinois, where slavery had been prohibited by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and by state law. After a few years, Emerson moved to a fort in the Wisconsin Territory, where it was barred by the Missouri Compromise. While there, Scott met and married Harriet Robinson, a slave owned by Lawrence Taliaferro. They had two daughters together. Ownership of Harriet was transferred to Emerson. They returned back to Missouri in 1840. Three years later, Dr. John Emerson died and his widow Irene inherited his

Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded

These court cases are a big impact to African American rights and their lives. Dred Scott v. Sanford, Dred Scott and his slave owner went to Illinois (which is a free state) then came to Missouri (which is a Slave state) but unfortunately the slave owner died, Dred Scott thought since he just came from a free state he can get freedom so he sued and his case went up 2 the Supreme Court which he loss cause a slave that 's below a regular person can 't sue the government and stayed a slave. The importance of this case is that slaves are not citizen and can 't sue the government and congress had a lack of power ban slavery in U.S. Territories

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case had the greatest impact on Race Relations in America because it created a legitimate definition of the citizenship. Scott, a former slave, stated that because of his occupancy in a free state, he is a free man. The other side argued that Scott was still a slave and according to the fifth amendment, no person (master) can be deprived of their property. The initial impact of the case was in favor of the slave owner but this decision was overturned by the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. The thirteenth amendment ended slavery and the fourteenth amendment granted citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in the United States included former slaves who had been freed after the Civil War.

In the case presented, Hopewell High School has a practice of saying a voluntary prayer before each football game in which the coaches may participate and these prayers take place on school grounds. A father of two football players on the team, sued the school district because his children do not participate in the team prayers and are ostracized for doing so.

The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program.