Are Cates Guilty?

I think a Natural Law School follower would have found the men not guilty of murder. Again this is based upon the reading, back story,

The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in

The Fells Acres Case was set against the backdrop of many other child sex abuse scandals that had caused mass hysteria across the nation. As a result of what was considered to be a newly found epidemic (child sexual abuse), members of the court were influenced by convictions in other cases, leading to influence on the Fells Acres Case before it even went to trial. Emotional appeal heavily influenced the verdicts within the Fells Acres Case as a result of personal bias influenced from the media. The moral reactions of the prosecution and other members of the court resulted in the preconceived notion of the verdict before the trial began: that the Amiraults were guilty on all counts. Those of the prosecution approached the case with their own perspective; their opinion reflected their own practices and beliefs, thus causing the outcome to validate what they were originally looking for: a guilty verdict. The criticism Rabinowitz portrays explains how the mindset of the prosecutors disregards all of the facts leading to a just verdict and instead promotes finality. As a result, in the Fells Acres Case Justice Elizabeth Dolan allowed the testifying children to face away from the accused in hopes to create a less intimidating environment. As a product of Dolan’s emotional agenda, the justice had violated The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights that requires the accuser to face the accused. Furthermore, resulting from moral reactions, prosecutors and judges ignore the plasticity of children and their memories as well as the impact such plasticity’s have on the

Darrow, an atheistic man, believed that science should rule America and didn’t like that people who weren’t scientists were trying to control science and dictate what could and could not be done. His former friend, and opponent, on the side of religion was Bryan. Bryan believed that creation was the way humans came to be and was appalled by evolution and people’s desire to learn it. This conflict cut Americans to their souls and in July of 1925, it was given to the courts to decide once and for all which side was right, Darwin and his evolution, or the bible and creation. However, the courts could not decide which side was right, and instead stuck to its decision of whether or not Scopes broke the law, which he was indeed guilty of. This trial definitively proved that the tension between faith and reason might never be resolved by a jury’s verdict. The Scopes trial also galvanized fundamentalists and scientists alike, changed children’s education, and revealed a deep division within our nation. After Bryan’s wishes,

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, the jury in the Tom Robinson trial had to make a decision. Tom Robinson who was an innocent man, was convicted for a crime he did not do. Atticus proves his innocence with hard facts and it was up to the jury if they wanted to deem Tom Robinson guilty or not guilty. The jury thought about the case for a long time which does not happen often with cases about a black man in the 1930's, but in the end they did deem him guilty. Even though that they knew that he was an innocent man, they proclaimed that he was guilty, because they had to make a decision, and they decided to do what society thought was right. When Tom Robinson knew that there would be nothing that could save him he decided to run, not because he was guilty but because he knew that he would die either

Reginald Rose’s text, Twelve Angry Men, follows the jury deliberation of a small murder case, with a cast of twelve jury men discussing the evidence presented in court to decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Over the course of the play, led primarily by moral compass jury number 8, the verdict is changed from eleven to one to acquittal, as the men are persuaded and subject to constant distractions, prejudice, bullying, and discussions of unreliable witness testimonies and lawyers, thus exploring issues about the validity of the justice system in magnitude.

In 2008, the murder of two-year old Caylee Anthony shocked the country. Arrested and put on trial for her murder was her mother Casey Anthony. Many people believed that she was guilty, and they were appalled when the jury found her not guilty. The jurors used the information presented to make their decision. As opposed to going with what everyone else believed (document

During the early nineteen hundreds many people especially in the south were often convicted of crimes for no other reason than their skin color and contrary to many ideas about our court system, we have not always been the most honest and unbiased people. One prime example of this is the case of the Scottsboro Boys and how they were accused of rape and had to go to court numerous times, almost everytime ending in the death sentence. The evidence in the case clearly points towards the innocence of the Scottsboro boys, evidence such as unclear stories from the girls, lack of bruises and marks indicating assault as well as a previous history of prostitution from both of the girls. This evidence helps to prove that Charles Weems and the Scottsboro boys were innocent and wrongly accused and convicted.

Fall was imprisoned under the account that he accepted a bribe. Sinclair was also imprisoned under the account of bribery and criminal conspiracy, but only spent six and a half months in prison. The Scopes Monkey trial involved John Scopes, a high school science teacher, who was accused of teaching evolution, which was a violation of Tennessee law. This law, which was passed in March of that year, made it a misdemeanor punishable by fines to teach any ideology that denies the idea of divine creationism. After being arrested, Scopes recieved the help of the ACLU to organize a defense. After William Jennings Bryan heard of the trial, he volunteered to assist the prosecution. Soon after, Clarence Darrow joined the ACLU in the defence. Early on in the trial, the defence was set back as the Judge ruled against their attempt at proving the law unconstitutional. Outside of the courthouse there was a carnival-like atmosphere with monkeys and vendors sold Bibles, toy monkeys, hot dogs and lemonade. The Judge ruled that the expert scientific testimony of evolution was inadmissible, as it was Scopes who was on trial, not the law he broke. The next day, the trial continued outside, as they feared that the crowd would break

That May, the American Civil Liberties Union put an ad in the newspaper looking for a teacher to challenge the law. John Scopes was asked to volunteer, and he agreed. The trial involved attorneys William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow and lasted over a week, the courtroom constantly overflowing with people and the witness examinations including many heated debates. (Adams) The case, meant to decide if Scopes broke the law, diverged from its original intention as the witnesses began to speak about the constitutionality of the law, questioning the legitimacy of the Bible. One of the most well known of these examinations was the questioning of Bryan by Darrow about the book of Genesis. “After initially contending, ‘Everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there,’ Bryan finally conceded that the words of the Bible should not always be taken literally” (UMKC School of Law). The final decision stated that Scopes was guilty of breaking the law and was fined $100. While this was seen as a win for fundamentalists, it was not the end of the battle. “In retrospect… Scopes forged a temporary break, not a full-scale retreat, in the fundamentalist assault on modernist thought” (Gillon 171).

There are many ways to decide what makes a man guilty. In an ethical sense, there is more to guilt than just committing the crime. In Charles Brockden Browns’ Wieland, the reader is presented with a moral dilemma: is Theodore Wieland guilty of murdering his wife and children, even though he claims that the command came from God, or is Carwin guilty because of his history of using persuasive voices, even though his role in the Wieland family’s murder is questionable? To answer these questions, one must consider what determines guilt, such as responsibility, motives, consequences, and the act itself. No matter which view is taken on what determines a man’s guilt, it can be concluded that

Tension between the old and new not only occurred on an economic level, but as well as a religious level. As people began to turn more and more towards science to answer their questions, unbelievable amounts of strain arouse. One of these great conflicts was the Scopes Monkey Trial, also known as The World's Most Famous Trial. There were basically two conflicts present within this trial: that of the fundamentalists and the Darwinists, and that between the accepted beliefs of the time, and the new ones that challenged them. The standard belief was to accept what society and the Bible dictated. The difference in mentalities between the prosecutor, William Jennings Bryan and the defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, is seen when Bryan states that he himself "believe[s] everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there," and that "some of the Bible is given illustratively" [DOC C].

Religion is common around the world on every continent, in every country, in all kinds of different people. Despite their differences, they all provide something that the group of people needs. But is there some truth in what some may call lies? In Cat’s Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut, religion works for the people of San Lorenzo, giving them comfort in the worst of conditions. While religion may just be made up lies, it is more beneficial than science, which cannot give people what they need.

Throughout the Arkansas trial one of the most significant argument that greatly affected the decision of Judge Overton was the insinuation that creation science was not science. Aside from the five characteristics that Judge Overton provided, he also claimed that creation science was in fact a religion. Gilkey (1982) commented on the vagueness of the Arkansas Act 590, with its statement regarding the definition of creation science by using words such as “kinds”. He accepted that Act 590 had the intention of creating fairness and equality with regards to

In 12 Angry Men, jurors determined if a young, poor Puerto Rican man murdered his father. Initially, eleven of the men determined that the defendant was guilty of murder; however, one juror held that the defendant was innocent, and he believed the man deserved a chance at being proven innocent. After intense debate, the jury found the defendant not guilty. Even though this movie shows evidence of prejudice, groupthink, conformity, cognitive heuristics, the catalyst of change and minority influence benefitted the jury in making a unanimous, educated decision about the fate of the young man.