Let’s start on the idea of a jury system. It’s really not a bad idea, but the implementation of the idea has become a mockery. With the much practiced vetting of jurors, the apathy of jurors, and the biased media coverage (in every way) that they are exposed to I don 't see the system working as planned. Strangely enough we have the capability for a fair and unbiased system base on zero but the black and white writing in law, I speculate what the system would have if our founding fathers had computers. I think would have been automated just to remove bias.
May states “His outrage at the ludicrousness of sociopolitical fads and the stupidity of the people who support them are both at play in this story.” (May). People in society will allow themselves to be controlled by the government, but never think about how the people actually run the government because they're here to serve the people needs. People today can vote on who they believe seem beneficial for their needs. Their need to be a change to where there's more flexibility for people to rotate their schedule around. A true patriot are the ones who oppose, the ones who don’t just go along, those who follows truth and righteousness and try to pass it along to the society.
If the men were to wait until they came ashore to conduct the trial, it would have gone differently. One way it would have been different is the jury would have been made up of people who did not know Billy nor Captain Vere. The typical jury has no connection whatsoever to the case that is being tried, but on this ship, the jury really only knew the viewpoints of Captain Vere. The opposing viewpoint may believe that the jury was an acceptable jury because it was made of a group of people who were to help decide the outcome of the court case. I believe that Billy’s trial was unfair because the jury was not acceptable, making his punishment
When it comes to something as arguable as the death penalty, people are prone to have very distinct feelings on the situation. Some are considered advocates while others are strongly against it. The main issue is that those who are against it cannot be “death qualified,” while the advocates can and are. This results in a full jury, consisting of only those who believe in the death penalty and are willing to give it. The idea is that a juror who does not believe in enforcing the death penalty would not be “qualified” to sit as a juror because he would be incapable, as a result of his faith, to give a verdict of death, should the “circumstances warrant” such a punishment.
On the one hand, this is a clear sign of rebellion towards the one in power, in other words, the Government ruled by men. On the other hand, it can be seen that they actually did not have any other option since their words would not convince the Government to provide them the rights to vote. To sum up, in this book we are presented different situations that suffragettes had to go through, but if the period of time, and society’s mentality there are several aspects that can be pointed out. First, after the negative of the Government, manifestation organized by suffragettes would have the presence of police forces which were hostile to them; second, in an initial stage suffragettes had people’s support, both men and women; thirdly, it can be seen that the Government was, without any doubt, the main obstacle suffragettes had to deal with, in term of law and trials suffragette were diminished; finally, the rebellious attitude, in terms of the use of violence, that women chose was because their arguments, speeches and peaceful actions were not working: and that was the last option they had to make their voice
This is very uncommon but is most common with people who are either very confident or have experience with law. Although this is very uncommon, one thing that they can do as their own lawyer is to plead the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, saying something that could get them arrested. They can be silent during their trial and force the prosecutor to prove the person is guilty. When you hear the words, "You are innocent until proven guilty." They mean it, and if the person being prosecuted doesn 't think they have enough evidence or that they are truly innocent, then that 's what could happen.
“How dared you think that your mind held greater wisdom than the minds of your brothers?” (Chapter 7, paragraph 14) said the members of the council. They did not want to believe what was in front of them because it was created on his own. As they continue to go on about their disappointment they bashed him with words, “to hold yourself as one alone and with the thoughts of the one and not of the many?”. (chapter 7, paragraph 15) The words that were coming from them showed him deny and pain. Although the members punished and refused to accept Equality’s invention, he never let that bring down his motivation.
Since there was debt because of the war, the economy was already very bad in Britain – therefore they taxed the colonies. When the colonies started boycotting British products and threatened to stop trading with them all together, it was successful because Britain’s economy wasn’t strong enough to handle those things. The merchants in Britain couldn’t afford to have trade with America end. If the British merchants were hurt, this would thus hurt The economy as a whole in Britain. In later decades, in the War of 1812, America would try to stop trade with Britain again using a method called embargo, which would not be effective because they did not have the debt that the War had caused.
Many people claim it is a dangerous and risky if prisoners retain the right to vote in political matters. After all, they have somehow violated the laws of the state by committing a crime that led to their imprisonment. But democratic, constitutional states like Germany have not denied prisoners their right to vote. The following essay will argue in favour of that decision. The idea of legal punishment by imprisonment is not revenge but retributivism because the government needs to make sure that these people are eventually able to reclaim a normal life.
People these days can be hypocritical telling other people they can 't do something ,and turn around and do it themselves. Some people don 't care that their ignorance of the law destroys others rights. As the government becomes less laissez faire; they gain more power over everyday life and strip people of their freedoms and rights. Overtime each individual within the population slowly losing their individual rights, and in turn the whole population weakens in power.Raised to be ignorant of their own right ignorant people will raise other people ignorant of their rights as well. Many people in today 's society worry about what other people do, the effects of worrying about what other people do less freedom, conformity, and close-minded.
Law & Order, not pertaining to any specific case usually have witnesses, and at times jurors expect the eyewitness to have solid facts as to applying it to the verdict. Sometimes it’s difficult as well to have jurors who know about the case through social media so if they’ve seen similar cases on television or in reality they will quickly use that case to evaluate their verdict. At the same time this causes bias preconception throughout jurors mind during the case. According to two different sources, one believes that forensic technology is not the case of why jurors believe in forensic evidence, and the other believes is it true that jurors believe in forensic technology. According to Judge Donald Shelton, he says that these CSI Effect articles are primarily based off of lawyers opinions, they are not facts.
or Law and Order; they expect a certain type of case in court. These shows give false information about how these cases actually unravel. During a trial, jurors expect evidence and witnesses questioned. This contributes to injustice because the jurors are under false bias and may not convict if they do not have that one piece of solid evidence (Bialo-Padin & Peterson, 2012). In many cases there are no other parties involved expect the two in the relationship and therefore there is no witness other than the accounts of the victim and offender (O’Dell,
So our opposition clearly wants to make the situation worse by ignorantly indicting police officers without a grand jury? This proposition means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.