Piette had been presented critical evidence in the case that clearly declared his client to be guilty, however, instead of debating he sat quietly and observed. Every time the judge would question the defense comments on the presented evidence, Piette would simply say that his client took no side. Despite what Lieutenant Piette was thinking, he knew that it would be extremely dangerous to the case if he began to debate. Piette’s strategy cause yet again more controversy in the legal field. An Air Force major that was in the court believed that Piette’s strategy was immodest.
The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty. In fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities.
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
We must go and overthrow the court, he says!’” (Miller 119). Miller gives insight into how the accusations around 1950-1954 may have also included the pressure of higher authority forcing someone (of the lower authority) with power, money, and etc. to testify false accusations. The author presents an interesting story that mirrors and represents a different time period, displaying the social injustice of people as they are motivated by fear, jealousy, hatred of one another, and more.
It is a very important responsibility that everyone should take seriously because the fate of another person is on his or her shoulders. Juries are there to decide “guilty” or “not guilty” based on the facts and evidence presented. This paper will
Lastly, courts lack the resource to implement policies in line with their decisions. Thus, even when cases are won, “court decisions are often rendered useless” as litigants are left to the task of implementation (Rosenburg 21). Despite the Constrained Courts view that courts are insufficient in producing social change, “it does not deny the possibility” (Rosenburg 21). When the right factors are in place and certain conditions in favor of the case’s outcome, courts can be a powerful institution in promoting justice (Hall 2).
To start with, it can be shown that imposed during the sentencing process are 2 of them effective and ineffective in protecting the rights. For example, the case of R. v. Fernando set a record for the next generation sentencing of Aboriginal offenders. It was thought that Fernando was guilty of wounding his de facto wife. An implication of this case is massive, as it established the principles , which take reduced economic circumstances and a big loss of customer law into account when sentencing indigenous offenders. This, testifying to the of the law, in protecting the own belief of offenders.
As with any criminal case, there are always a number of issues pertaining the stages of the crime and also the media and the general public’s opinion of the case. Many of the issues and explicit actions of certain individuals that had happened during the Corryn Rayney case had affected the interpretation of the case in someway for both government workers and the general public. By analysing the issues of the case, it allows a much more detailed view on the case and how most of the issues are linked in one way or another. One of the issues regarding this case was where a police officer had been found attempting to pressure forensic pathologists to alter their case reports to align with their best interests.
The play “Twelve Angry Men” shows that relying on twelve people for a life sentencing situation could be bad for the justice system. The justice system could be bad in at least three ways by people being biased, fighting for the wrong side, and people having no common sense.
Both sides have their positive sides regarding the concept of justice. Before the trial ensued, an ideological conflict already existed. This explains that the trial does not serve to resolve a human problem, but mediate and cultivate a new belief system that reaches an overarching