More people get incarcerated for non-violent crimes and crimes caused by mental illnesses or drug abuse (Webb, 2009) and because these people get put in regular prisons, instead of in mental health facilities or facilities to help against drug addiction, where they could be treated to further prevent crimes driven by their illness (Webb, 2009), the prisons get overfilled and cannot hold the more ‘important’ prisoners that needed to be locked away from the public. A strong link of the criminal justice process is that the system tries to keep it fair for everyone. Every defendant has the right to an attorney so they can be defended properly and fairly and “Only judges who are adequately informed about a case can effectively control the proceedings and examine evidence” (Tochilovsky, 2002) It is also important for the criminal justice system that those involved show discretion and although this is not always the case, discretion by the judges, police, etc. further ensure proper treatment of the
However Abigail may hold a great deal of authority during the trials, she is not the only character who held authority and used in a bad way. Judge Danforth is another great example of authority leading to hubris in a characters personality. Danforth’s moral are good, however he still tends to make unlawful decisions based off of what the type character he wishes to build. For instance, Reverend Hale requested that Judge Danforth held off on John Proctors hanging because he felt that he was innocent and wanted more time to prove this. Danforth understands Hale’s reasoning, but persist that “there will be no postponement().
Thirteen years ago the F.B.I.’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crimes first formed a task force of federal state and local investigators that numbered twenty-five personnel assigned exclusively to the serial killer investigation. When the killings apparently stopped eleven years ago the task force was reduced, but not disbanded. Two years ago the murderer struck again and then again. We immediately reinforced the task force to a total of fifty- two law enforcement personnel which includes twenty-six s of the F.B.I.’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crimes Division including our Violent Crimes Apprehension Program and our Behavioral Analysis Unit. I am handing out copies of the task force’s Official Memorandum of Understanding, the (MOU,) and at this time I will be handing over the podium to Special Agent Adrian DeWinter who is Lead Investigator on the task force.” Applause followed
In my opinion, I believe the jury selection process was conducted fairly and the final jurors selected to serve during the trial were selected properly, however I can also understand the defense’s concerns. Unfortunately, many people are unable to set their personal biases aside when it comes to race. People allow the skin color or religious beliefs of the accused, or the heinousness of the crime to cloud their judgement of the truth rather than let the evidence and witness testimony tell what really
In my opinion, Guezlo’s essay was stronger purely because he answered so many questions from the opposition. He used facts and kept out a bias tone in his essay and I feel that Harding’s essay lacked many facts and citations that could’ve made his argument stronger. From the beginning of Guezlo’s essay to the end, he makes his points clear and uses rational thinking to support his thesis, whereas Harding could have touched on subjects more, and used too much emotional bias to make his case. In conclusion, I would argue that Guezlo’s essay was stronger and he did a better job supporting his thesis. His writing was very tactful because of his use of facts and citations.
This source however is not biased but rather objective because it explains two different experiments and all children not specifically one gender. This source fits my research because it conducts two different experiments due to memory of the past. The goal of this experiment was to determine how much memory was recalled after a certain period of time. This was a good source and it will back up my
Law seems to be a solid and fixed rule that everyone follows, but as I become more and more aware of it, I started to think it is not the matter of following it, but the matter of interpreting and manipulating it. Even with the same clause, it can be applied in million different ways. Since it is based on words, rather than what it says, how it says matters more. I could see it in the trial too; the prosecutor was emphasizing the valuable those metal scraps were, the defense attorney kept referring to them as trash. Also, the defense attorney claimed it’s very hard to go beyond a reasonable doubt, while the prosecutor asserted it is not impossible to reach it.
The Rand Corporation conducted a study of criminal-investigation processes, reporting that the principal determinant of whether a case was solved was the completeness and accuracy of eyewitness accounts (Ronald Fisher, 1985). People learn things differently, so in a direct correlation, they tend to remember things differently as well. When it comes to witnessing an event, a crime being committed, or merely hearing someone say something; pieces of memory are going to be built that must be recalled later when asked by an investigator to provide a statement. If the memory of the event is extremely emotional, how that information is recalled can be quite difficult. If someone is personally involved, and the event was quite traumatic, recalling
This allows everyone an opportunity to resolve legal issues with an clear understanding of what they are heading in to. So that they can make sound decisions on disputes that is beneficial for all (National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council 1999, Conley and O'Barr 2005, Eades 2010). This is not to say that litigation has no place in modern society or that society has no place for litigation. Just the contrary, society has become too frivolous with many nonsensical issues and disputes landing in courtrooms that perhaps to save both resources and time, mediation can hope to answer more than half of legal disputes that ends in litigations (National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council
(Russell 2014) Conclusion: Despite controversy Milgram’s experiment was ground breaking. It remains relevant today and is frequently cited in demonstrating the perils of obedience. Milgram himself concluded how easily ordinary people ‘can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority". (Milgram 1974) As this report has highlighted the research is not without controversy with many questioning to what extent Milgram’s experiment is true to real life and has been criticized for not highlighting further situational variables in determining obedience to authority.