Essay On The Roaring Twenties

The Roaring Twenties of America, which was from 1920-1929, saw a great social and economic prosperity. People were happy, and were celebrating the victory of World War 1. The gasoline price was lowered, right to vote for women was granted, and America was climbing towards a great success. In 1929, Herbert Hoover became the president of the United States of America, and he said, “ Given a chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, we shall soon with the help of God be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation”(Roark, Pg. 703). After few months of his inauguration, his words contradicted, the Roaring Twenties halted. During the Roaring Twenties, the stock market prices increased steeply. The rapid

Some of the hardest decisions on trial are made by the jury, which means the jurors have one of the most important roles when it comes to the trial, since they have to decide on another human’s fate, either. One decision a jury makes can be the difference between going to jail for life or being liberated. When O.J. Simpson was declared “not guilty” for the homicide of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and his friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman, by the Lance Ito, many argued that O.J. should have been proclaimed “Guilty”. Although many claim the verdict given was ideal, strong evidences, proves O.J. Simpson to be guilty for murdering 2 of his close acquaintances.

Throughout the trials, the townspeople’s opinions began to get in the way of making accused people’s statements valid. Some accused confessed to save themselves (Hansen, 1969). Others gave their lives to save the innocent people accused of such a treacherous crime. Giles Corey, one of the people whose wife was accused, was pressed to death using stones because he would not tell the court anything to send his wife to death.

The people who committed the crime were Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold both young and intelligent students (Linder). The crime happened in Chicago in 1924. Lots of people called it as the first “trial of the century” (Linder). When a trial is called something like that, it probably affected the culture and daily life of many americans. The crime captured national attention (Linder). 18 year old Loeb was obsessed with crimes, he planned them, and committed them (Linder). None of the crimes he did were as serious as the one that struck the nation (Linder). He was the youngest graduate ever at the University of Michigan (Linder). His 19 year old partner Leopold was also an intelligent person. He was a law student at the University of Chicago, and was planning on going to Harvard Law school (Linder). With the expectation of these young kids, people would wonder why they would do such a thing. They planned out their crime for months and it wasn't their goal to murder someone (Linder). Their original plan was to kidnap the child of a wealthy family and ransom to get some money, but the 14 year old victim, Bobby Franks, was an acquaintance of the two boys (Linder). He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Clarence Darrow, their lawyer described their relationship as “weird and almost impossible,” which could have been a reason for the murder (Linder). It is thought that Leopold was attracted

“…and on the charge that the prisoner did with others to conspire to destroy the lives of soldiers in the military service of the United States in violation of the laws and customs of war-Guilty” were the words that soared out of Wallace’s mouth at the end of the trial. It was then that Henry Wirz was found guilty. Why? Why was he found guilty? This decision was based on the emotional aspect of the witnesses, and not by the actual guilt. Not only my defense, but also the defense of Wirz’s attorney, Baker, the testimony of the defendant, Henry Wirz, shows that Wirz should not have been found guilty.

The most important part of the trial was jury instruction—the defense and prosecution had to convince Judge Hall to guide the jurors in a way that would help their side win. Robert tried to convince Hall to instruct the jurors to interpret Missouri law to allow a slave to defend herself from rape. But Hall refused to do so, and

In the play 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose there are many fallacies that shape the deliberations of the case. One of the most important elements of the play is the relationship between Juror 3, Juror 8 and Juror 10 at times. The constant conflict between the jurors is the main drive of the drama. Juror 10 was bitter and prejudice right from the start, it was not until Act III when he unleashes his bigotry. Juror 3 was always the antagonist from the beginning, he is quick to lose his temper with number 8 and the rest of the jury at times.

Through the entirety of this film, it is extremely evident that appeals were the driving force in the persuasion of these men. Through witness testimonies and evidence at the beginning that showed an undoubtedly innocent boy, to the logic and reasoning that was later brought about that showed the possibility of this boy's innocence. Both sides of this argument used these appeals in making a decision, however, the manner in which there were used ultimately determined this

The 1920’s, for the most part, was a period of economic prosperity and growth. This period of economic prosperity was known as “The Roaring Twenties” due to the unprecedented economic boom in the U.S economy. Production increased and things such as electricity, cars, radio and telephone was produced for the masses. Infrastructure was built in order to keep up with the advancements in these new technologies. As infrastructure increased, many citizens moved into the cities and towns in order to acquire jobs in these industries.

Rational and Irrational Arguments from the Jurors Susie Morel Opening: Throughout the story the jurors came up with reasonable arguments for their belief of guilt, some rational and other irrational. Old Man argument: Juror number nine pointed out that, the old man made a testimony. The old man said that he was in bed, heard the boy scream “I’m gonna kill you”, ran to the door and saw the kid run downstairs, all within fifteen seconds. Yet how is all that possible for a man who carried two canes and had two strokes within the past two years.

The pieces of evidence found in the kitchen by the women paint a picture of a desperate woman

The most persuasive pieces if evidence in this case for the defense was the fact that the women who claimed to have saw the boy stabbing his father did not have her glasses on. Other persuasive pieces of evidence for the defense were the fact that the old man could not have possibly gotten to the stairs to see the boy running down in time and the fact that one of the jurors was able to find the exact same switchblade. The most persuasive piece of evidence that the prosecution had was the fact that the man heard the 'boy' yell, "I'm going to kill you!”

On August 22, 1924 the famous orator Clarence Darrow, dubbed “the attorney for the damned.” begins his 12 hour-long closing arguments, for the most covered news story since World War I. Darrow mixes ethos and logos appeals, bringing tears to the eyes of the judge and many in the courtroom, to serve justice by saving his clients, Leopold and Loeb from the death penalty. Darrow implores the Judge to spare the lives of Leopold and Loeb. As Darrow said, “I am pleading for life…I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love.” (Placeholder1; Linder)

The case immediately garnered national attention and described as a thrill killing and Leopold and Loeb were

The year is 1984 and Darryl Hunt has just is now sentenced a life in prison for the alleged rape and slaughter of Deborah Sykes. In 2004, he was exonerated after nearly 20 years behind bars because he was wrongly convicted based off false eyewitness testimonies given during the trial (Blau, 2016). There was no physical evidence that connected him to the crime, yet, but based on the eyewitness testimonies he was sentenced to a life behind bars for a crime he never committed. A somewhat similar scenario plays out in the film 12 Angry Men, when a jury must deliberate on a life or death sentence for a boy who allegedly killed his own father. While this case has the evidence stacked against the accused boy, a lone member of the jury disagrees with the consensus given and takes it upon himself to play devil’s advocate on behalf of the boy in the hopes of saving him from certain death. This becomes a high stakes battle of wits, when the juror meets opposition from the eleven other members of the jury.