Jennifer Gonnerman, a New Yorker writer explains , the heartbreaking story about Kalief Browder, an eighteen years old who spent three years inside New York’s Riker Island jail for stealing a backpack of a Mexican guy. Later charges were ultimately dropped. Kalief Browder , who spent three years on Rikers Island without being convicted of a crime. He was arrested in the spring of 2010, at age sixteen, for a robbery but he insisted he had not committed.
Kalief Browder and his friend were accused of steaking a backpack. They were taken to a precinct and locked in a holding cell. A few hours later, they were taken to Central Booking at the Bronx County Criminal Court. Later on, Browder was interrogated and taken to court where he was charged with robbery, grand larceny and assault. The judge released his friend, but since Browder was on probation from a previous offense, the judge ordered him to be held and set bail at three thousand dollars.
In “Before The Law”, an article written by Jennifer Gonnerman published in The New Yorker, the dispiriting true story of a teen from the Bronx is used as a precedent to highlight the glaring problems with New York City’s criminal justice system. In May of 2010, sixteen year-old Kalief Browder and his friends were arrested on robbery charges after returning home from a party in the Bronx. The ensuing events led him in and out of holding cells, granted him a bail of three thousand dollars (which his family was unable to afford), and eventually led to him being transferred to the infamous Rikers Island; Where, despite never being convicted of any crime (let alone receiving a fair trial), he was imprisoned for nearly four years. Gonnerman
Which will soon led him into solitary confinement for two whole years. Where, he was constantly starved and not giving any liquids. After suffering the brutal destruction, that was absolutely killing Browder within. He was released late that year of 2012. He continued to pursue his future by going to school at Bronx Community College.
Growing up in Child Protective Services care due to a drug addicted mother may have contributed to Browder’s prison experience. He may have viewed being removed from his mother’s care as a sign of unfairness and used the reasoning from that experience to cope with his imprisonment. He may have believed if he continued to have hope he would eventually be release similarly to his adoption into his new family. Fortunately, that day finally came. After spending a total of 1000 days prison and 800 of those days in solitary confinement Browder was released.
He was put in Solitary confinement for three years. The government tortured him until he would say that he was guilty, but Kalief Browder stood his ground he kept saying that
Safety is the condition of being protected from danger. Freedom is the power to do what ever you want, being charge of yourself. H.L. Mencken, and American and social critic, wrote "The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe." Mencken's quote applies to contemporary society in the way that individuals nowadays want both. However his perspective is only partially relevant regarding today's society.
It’s notorious, it's a place of pain and sorrow. This place is called Rikers Island. Rikers is a large penal complex that imprisons nonviolent and violent criminals. However, it a jail that discriminates against minorities.Leaving this dangerous place open the violence will only get worse and more inmates will try to kill themselves like Kalief Browder. That’s why Rikers should be shut down for good.
Witnesses play an important role in trials: “A trial without witnesses, when it involves a criminal accusation, a criminal matter, is not a true trail” ( McCollum, 2001). In other words, without witnesses it cannot be a true trail since there was no one there to see that it happened so it’s his word versus hers. While sitting at the defendant's table he felt very isolated seeing as nobody in the courtroom would look at him or talk to him or acknowledge him. Thank goodness for Wanetta Gibson for finally telling the truth about the case.It wasn't until 2012 when Wanetta Gibson recanted her story that he got his life back and was declared an innocent man. He wound up serving five years and two months in prison and five years of high custody
The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.
The (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer is seeking the sum of $1 million from the (Defendant) Bobby Bandleader, for alleged copyright abuse of the song “Happy Birthday to You”. The (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer is the copyright holder to the said song. The (Defendant) Bobby Bandleader is a Bistro owner who performs the song in an altered version (his own words are used) to his customers on their birthdays and have been doing so for the past twenty years without obtaining any licensing or permission from the copyright holder (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer.
Traditionally, the positive image of a company or a brand is very important in the contemporary world. As a result, the question of morality of each individual working within an organization is of a paramount importance. In such a situation there should be no exceptions from the rule and executives could not be in a privileged position. This is the desirable ideal many companies strive to achieve at least in a public eye. However, the reality turns to be quite different from what is expected and the analyzed case of an executive’s double standard is just another evidence of the fact that the real life is so complicated that the common rules, including moral
Envision if everyone in the world decided to go around breaking laws because they did not agree with them. There would be a bunch of unnecessary arrests, great amount of violence, and the world would be a terrible place to live. As citizens of this country we have the commitment to adhere to the rules, laws, and submit to any consequences we may receive. In the great words of Socrates, “One should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you.” Breaking laws is never morally justifiable.
Throughout the United States there are many different laws among the fifty states that make up this union. The laws are different throughout the states because of the need of the laws. Living in one state and not having the advantages or disadvantages of a law in another state would not be that unfair or unequal. This is true because if you don’t like a law in your state you could always fight it and try to change it or you could always move out of that state and go to one that has the laws that you like.
When it comes to large sums of money, it is not uncommon for the spender to feel they have been ripped off or become over protected. The practice of law is no exception to this phenomenon, and crocked lawyers and paralegals have negatively contributed to the notion. On several occasions law professionals have taken client money for personal use, acting against the law and rules of professional conduct. Although lawyers and paralegals have their own individual rules and guidelines to abide by, they follow the same professional structure of proper conduct. The rules of conduct for paralegals is governed by the Law Society of Upper Canada and is the governing body responsible for reports of misconduct. Further investigations will lay out the proper procedures and tasks that must be completed when a paralegal encounters an accusations of misconduct, specifically when a client accuses a paralegal of misappropriating money from the clients trust fund. When it comes to possible options it is important to remember that by proactively sending a report of the circumstance to the Law Society of Upper Canada with a detailed list of events, bookkeeping and accounts billed to the client will help your case prior to the client reporting you to the Law Society. Should a paralegal choose to ignore the threat of the client, in hopes that the client will not follow through with higher involvement, the paralegal will then face an audit by the Law Society. If the Law Society is apprised that the