Article Analysis of 'Former Sheriff Guilty in Successor's Killing'

Alexander believed that rates and patterns of drug crime do not explain the fact that although the majority of illegal drug users and dealers nationwide are white, but prisons are only filled with blacks and Latinos. Now the statement she made is very much so true when it relates to the criminal justice system. Now I am not saying that blacks are not drug dealers but they are not along Whites sell three times as much as a black individual. Just recently down from my home, a white man who had been selling drugs for years was finally caught by the feds. However, if was living in white community with his black wife and mix kids he probably would have never got caught. This is because the police do not ride in the white area trying to catch someone

In the video “The Confessions” presented by Frontline, a murder of a women that was committed by one man, quickly resulted into a false gang murder-rape scene committed by eight men. The victim, Michelle Bosko, was seen to be raped and killed in her apartment in Norfolk, Virginia. From the video, it has been proven that seven out of the eight men that confessed were innocent, but somehow they all received an unequal punishment. Because the innocent men admitted to a murder that they didn’t commit out of fear, they were all sentenced to some time in prison. The head detective, Glenn Ford, intimidated the men so much that they either were convinced that they were at the crime scene or they told him every detail that he wanted to hear.

The facts were not at all clear to the Police Officers or the attorneys who will soon face this case. The players involved where many, but to name just a few: William M. Kunstler, a very popular and well-liked lawyer, he represented James Richardson. The Author of the book was the prosecutor in this case; he was young and unprepared to becoming an assistant district attorney for this case. But I do have to add that the work he did performed was excellent, but again William Kunstler he was a well-seasoned attorney.

A significant reason the courts continued with prosecuting Kwidzinski was that reversing the charges would make people question the legitimacy of the case all together. The state’s attorney’s office had already charged three alleged attackers. If there was any doubt of Kwidzinski being involved in the case there would be a problem with the lawyers of the other two attackers by trying to jump on the bandwagon to freedom. Even though Kwidzinski may have been justifiably innocent and wrongly accused, the attorneys for Jasas and Caruso would have claimed their clients were wrongly accused as well.

2. Attorney-Your honor, Dudley and Stephen had no other choice. They had to kill Brooks who was close to death anyway. Plus, if Dudley and Stephen hadn't

Also during this storming process, Juror #8 was aware of all the opposition he was facing with his not guilty vote, and realized he needed to take the role of taking charge in opening up dialog to discuss the case. In this power struggle, he influenced some of the other Jury members by bargaining. Bargaining is a tool used to offer an exchange. He used this tool to convince others to discuss the case by giving them a choice. He presented them with a 2nd vote in which he would exclude himself from, and if all remaining voters still believe the boy is guilty of murder, he would conform to the mass vote, end the case and send the boy to the electric chair. But if not, they will take more time to deliberate and open a genuine discussion of the case. The 2nd vote turned Juror #9’s vote from guilty to not guilty, and Juror #8 was successful in his bargaining

Based on the evidence, Walter Sobchak should be charged under New York Penal Law 125.25, which is murder in the second degree. Upon seeing is wife Meara Ramos, in bed with James P. Sullivan, Sobchak makes the conscious decision to pick up his firearm, a deadly weapon and shoot it at Sullivan which reveals his intent to cause the death of another person. Unfortunately, the bullet ultimately travels outside, hitting and killing Edward Vedder; an innocent bystander. In his attempt to murder Sullivan; Sobchak, causes the death of a third person. By picking up the gun and firing it, Sobchak recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and although it does not harm Sullivan, the intended victim it does cause the death of another person. Under these circumstances Sobchak, is wholly responsible for the death of Vedder and liable under 125.25.

In order to understand and come up with an opinion of the murder case of Charles Wilson and whether or not there was justice served. One must first understand the case, and once they’re completely informed can they make a decision if justice was served. Charles Wilson is a U.S. Deputy Marshal. He was murdered on Election Day. There were a few men that were suspects in the murder. They were Robert Benton, who was known as U.S. Deputy Marshal Charles Wilson’s rival in the election. Another was a friend of Robert Benton. However, they were both acquitted for the murder of U.S Deputy Marshal Charles Wilson. Now there has to be someone who is charged with the murder of a high ranking individual, it has to be soon that the law enforcement can close

The film, ‘A Few Good Men’, is about a court case surrounding the accused, Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey who killed Pfc. Santiago. After all the evidence is shown we must decide, are Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey guilty or innocent? Here is my opinion. Firstly, Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey are not guilty of murder. Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey’s actions resulted in the death of Pfc. Santiago, even if accidental. Even though it was Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey’s action that killed Pfc. Santiago, they had good intentions. The definition of murder is “Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.” So if the killing was protected by the law, it would be considered Homicide, but because it wasn’t

Q1: With regards to the serious flaws in the police investigation of the West Memphis Three, the police investigation was heavily militarized as the cops were inconsistent. They did not focus on the guilty or innocent. Instead, the police concentration was on the enforcement practices and neglects the deep implications. During the police investigation, the police would not chase up any pieces of evidence that could implicate someone else in the crime other than those who already conducted some form of crime or were arrested in the past. This is displayed prominently when the police refused to further pursue the blood evidence found on the knife, who was previously owned by John Mark Byers. This is because if the police misrepresent a crime or are exposed for making mistakes such as apprehending innocents they could easily lose the public's opinions in police protection.

Cleveland, Ohio, Harold Franks, a businessman, was robbed and killed as he left his store…His attackers threw battery acid in his face, beat him with a stick, and ended his life with two gunshots to the chest. Police claimed they had an eyewitness. A twelve-year-old boy named Eddie Vernon. He pointed the finger at three neighborhood black-men. Eighteen-year-old, Ricky Jackson and his two friends, brothers Wiley and Ronnie Bridgeman. Even though Eddie was actually a few blocks away on a school bus at the time of the murder, the three men still were arrested. Based on Eddie’s false testimony, the men were convicted, and sentenced to die. However, because the Ohio state law was changed within a few days, it was changed to life imprisonment. After they

There are valid reasons why victims fail to seek help from authorities and reasons some move forward with prosecution. PG Publishing Co, Inc. (1997). There are times when victims decide to move forward with case prosecution when they feel like the situation seems to be beyond their control. According to the Article Engaging With Criminal Prosecution: The Victim’s Perspective, women may reach the point of readiness to take action toward prosecution when they feel that the abuse is potentially damaging to their children. Mothers were concerned that their children would learn and repeat the behaviors they saw at home; they wanted their children to know that such behavior is not okay: ‘‘One of the very last straws for me was the last time my kids

The chosen article has to do with police officer integrity when dealing with the public and that is a very important subject. A secondary question was whether an officer should be terminated who abuses his or her power, and that is actually more complex. The ethical dilemma facing the criminal justice professional, in this case the arbitrator, was something that was interesting because it could have seemed, on the surface, that the officer was telling the truth and he was eventually caught in the lies that he told. The arbitrator had to decide (and the arbitrator is someone who works as a go between the officer's union and management) whether what the officer did was serious enough to warrant a termination. The arbitrator decided that the officer's actions were not serious enough for termination, but that he did deserve to be suspended for one year without pay. The fact that the arbitrator could look at the evidence that was presented (from the scant view that the article gave it looked pretty damning) and not say that the officer deserved termination is questionable ethics in and of itself. The arbitrator is supposed to be working for the best interest of the police department, which means balancing the needs of the officers against the needs of the force as a whole. It has to be a difficult job. However, the glaring problems were that the officer filed a falsified police report, and he gave false testimony. The officer's actions are in some ways

Conspiracy to commit murder is one of the most difficult things to prove without a reasonable doubt and because the prosecution was aware that the case for murder against the former Sheriff, Dorsey was based upon a conspiracy charge the course of action for the prosecution was relatively clear. They had to somehow convince a jury that Dorsey had recruited the four other men, Patrick Cuffy, Paul Skyers, Melvin Walker and David Ramsey with the express intent of killing Derwin Brown. The reason that these types of murder charges are fundamentally difficult to prosecute lies in the fact that if the recruiter/master mind behind the event is ultimately successful on the first attempt to obtain an assassin, there rarely anyone, other than the actual killer(s) to testify that the mastermind in fact ordered and also likely made some sort of compensation for the act on the part of the assassin(s). In this case the prosecution proved to this jury using the testimony of, Patrick Cuffy, Paul Skyers, two of the admitted assassins, on immunity deals to provide evidence against Dorsey. The ethical dilemma is then the immunity deals offered to Cuffy and Skyers. The dilemma is fascinating as these sorts of immunity deals, in the case of murder are relatively rare, as most people feel that the actual doer of the crime, is as guilty or more guilty than the mastermind behind it, as that individual(s) has the ultimate decision making as to whether the crime

With convictions and executions, there is always a chance that someone was wrongly filed with charges. What are we to do with these people? In a study of capital convictions from 1900 to 1986 conducted by Radelet and Bedau, 350 cases were identified in which defendants were mistakenly convicted of crimes they did not commit, and of these 350, 24 were executed. Though 24 un-called for executions in 87 years don't sound too bad, the number should be zero. Society must determine whether the risk of wrongly executing an innocent person is worth taking to reap the benefits of executions of convicted murderers.