The way the jury holds against or in favor of these accusations as well as the part of psychotherapists to the matters, as of the memories being true or false is well elaborated. By referring to many cases of reported repressed memory, valuable information is collected about how these memories retuned, at what age, when did the action take place etc. The study shows that although many reported cases came to surface there is no tool to rely on of how accurate and true those claims are. Socially the acceptance of repressed memories as valuable, even in court made the people to act suspicious at accusations and the ones that had the memories were afraid of the consequences of such accusations. Without being able to safely reach a verdict the controversy is still on the table.
He never saw a good outcome is violence,nothing good comes out of it. If you protest and don 't buy their goods or anything they will break eventually. In Martin Luther King 's own words he says “ IN the past six months simply by refusing to purchase products from companies which would not hire negroes in meaningful numbers and in all job categories, the Ministers of Chicago under SCLC’s Operation Breadbasket have increased the income of the Negro community by more than two million dollars annually”. This is a non violence at its peak of power,when it cuts into the profit margin of a business in order to bring about a more just distribution of jobs and opportunities for Negro wage earners. In these two sentences you can obviously see that by protesting and no violence Negro job distribution has gone up.
First, Marvin Gaye’s family began accused the songwriter of plagiarism of on song “Got to Give It Up”. When attending mediation they amended their accusation stating the plagiarisms was for “Got to Give It Up” and “After the Dance”. Throw the long court process they attempted to add more of Marvin Gaye’s song stating they all had influence on the song “Blurred Lines”. I believe they were grasping at straws at this point. Had it not been for the harming video of Thicke’s and Williams’ deposition I don’t believe the jury would have convicted them.
In each incident, some characteristics can be more obvious than others, the distance from the incident matters, and what our brain chooses to do with the information we process are all big factors that come into play when trying to answer this question. For some people, their accounts of what occurs in front of their eyes is extremely accurate, while for other people - it is not. What I do know is, eyewitness testimony is to be used as a guideline in courtrooms, and not as any kind of evidence/proof. Too many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted due to false identifications and too many studies have proven that it is not as reliable as we all
They treat immigrants and the poor unfairly. Jurgis was taken to court and presented to a judge, but the judge didn't care about Jurgis's side. Unfairness and bias was common among the court systems in the nineteenth and twentieth century. People were often coerced into saying the things needed for conviction and thrown into
Conspiracies began taking shape as soon as the trials started, most were presented with a lack of definite proof. A careful look at the facts known about King’s assassination would lead one to know that Martin Luther King’s assassination was not a conspiracy, it was the work of the criminal James Earl Ray. Although in the end, some may believe that James Earl Ray is innocent or that one of the conspiracies are true, this overlooks the hard facts brought up in the investigations. The lack of definitive proof or witnesses and the changing statements of the people involved leads to an unsure conclusion. The various conspiracies may hold some relevance, however, each conspiracy shows weak points that removes it from the list of plausible theories.
Most of the arguments are logical, as they are all able to be backed up by real life statistics. His logic are pretty straightforward for the most part, however, there was one part where it was a bit difficult to keep up with his logic. In the beginning, after his anecdote about his grandmother and his testimony about never drinking alcohol, he continues to talk about how there is a problem with America’s criminal justice system. It can be understood that the anecdote at the beginning was just an introduction on the speaker and was used as an icebreaker, but the transition from the two topics was very harsh, and had no transitional information. This seemed very strange and was a bit hard to keep up with, as he presented his thesis without specifically
People will do whatever they want without a fear of consequences because they will always find a reason to justify breaking the law I believe what makes this whole law argument extremely confusing and difficult is the nature of the law. The problem with the law in general is that it is based on ideas and notions that are somewhat as previously mention subjective and prone to change through time. And until we could all agree on what we believe to be right and wrong, just, moral, and virtuous, the law will be sometimes but not always unfair, but that doesn’t give us the right to break
It being a material precondition that surely someone must have been stepped upon, it becomes nonsensical and even a little strange that no one will own it up. Why, because apart from the main trial, there are always so many other distractions in Catch-22, that can make the distraction count in favor or against the main trial going on. This parallels the many entreaties of various legal personnel in Kafka’s The Trial, who show just how K can amass more speed towards conviction or release by distracting the judge with personal liking of himself such as recommending himself to a friend of the judge, like the painter, Titorello, or his personal lawyer who knows a prominent director who in turn also has familiarity with the
In Pearson v. Chung, the plaintiff deposits a pair of pants for alterations and when he gets them back after a few days of delay, he claims that the defendant lost the pair of pants and sues for inconvenience, cost of pants, mental anguish and unfair trade practices. He initially sues for $67 million but later for a lesser amount. The plaintiff claims that the defendant switched the original pair of pants with a similar one in order to escape the liability but the defendant denies it. Both the sides offer evidence in support of their claims and the decision in made in favour of the defendant. The case Pearson v. Chung (herein after referred to as ‘the case’) is a tort reform case in the United States of America.