Justice In Montana 1948

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

By having multiple roles in the community and being the Sheriff of Bentrock, it puts Wesley in an even tougher position. Wesley is seen as a well respected member of the community, but during the novel he becomes very conflicted with himself and has to face one of the biggest decisions of his life when he has to chose between family or justice. He overcomes this conflict with himself by making the right decision no matter what anyone else thinks or is trying to tell him. There is plenty of description of Wesley at the beginning and through the novel. His conflict can be seen When he challenges gail “Are you telling me this because i’m Frank’s brother? Because i’m your husband? Because i’m Marie employer? ... Or because i’m the sheriff?”. This shows us that he is not sure what to believe anymore or what to do. Another time that we are shown Wesley's internal conflict is when he locks Frank in the basement instead of taking him straight to the police. He knows that Wesley needs consequences for his actions, but he is not sure how to do it, he just wants to do what's best for everyone, but sometimes that isn’t always possible. The technique of dialogue is used to show us the conflict Wesley has with himself and the true battles that he has to be able to face justice. We are shown all the barriers that he has to overcome and how this has shaped him into a person. Through the aspect of Wesley’s conflict, Watson has helped to understand the concept of how hard it actually is to chose between family and the law, sometimes it is harder than we think to do the right

In Montana 1948, it's obvious that Hayden Family are the most powerful in their area; "They couldn't arrest us- we are the law." It must be the reason why Frank, the doctor, felt that it's okay to take advantage of his American Indian patient, because he knew that no one is going to be against him; "If you could hear him talk. As if he had no more concern for what he did than if he had kicked a dog. No. He'd show more remorse over a dog." However, Wes is the only one who is responsible in capturing his brother because he is a sheriff, and he has the 'power'. That's why it's easy to say that he is responsible in carrying out justice. Yet, Wes didn't do the right thing, putting his brother in the basement instead of jail, because he is aware that Frank is the favorite son of their dad; "Then why have you got him locked up here and not over at the jail? This is your brother. My son." It's also because of the prejudice on his mind- it's shown when he didn't believed his own wife immediately when she told him that his brother is doing something immoral. As a result of his fear,

In Montana 1948 the idea of loyalty versus justice was shown in the event. When Wesley and his father Julian are disputing about Wesley’s brother, Frank, and how he is locked inside the basement, Wesley states that “This isn’t about family, this is a legal matter”. This implies that Wesley has chosen Justice over loyalty. Watson’s intention for making Wesley choose Justice over loyalty, was to show how difficult it can be for a person who has a huge amount of responsibility in the field of justice and choose either loyalty to family or justice disregarding how bad the situation is. This is crucial in society today, because countless of people who work for the law, will always have the hard decision of choosing loyalty to their family or choosing justice.

Julian had built up the Hayden name from his ranch and being County sheriff for many years. In the end he was one of the main people to break the Hayden family apart in the name of loyalty towards Frank. Julian believed that “Screwing an Indian…You don’t lock up someone for that… A respected man” was the correct way to see things. His unjust belief system conflicted with the law even though he worked by it for many years. Julian also kept the 'open secret’ about Frank’s obsession with Indian women even though he knew that it already made an impact on people in Bentrock. Julian was told to do deal with this problem early on by Bud but let the incident pass instead. Julian’s wealth and high status allowed his dominating personality to overrule what was right in the mind of justice for the sake of what was most suitable for

The United States’ attention was captivated on the Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama during the 1930s. During the time period, this case revealed the brutal treatment towards African Americans more than any other event. The case began on March 25, 1931, when a group of young white and African American youths were traveling on a train to find a job. A physical encounter broke out between them and the white youths were thrown out of the train. Then they reported the incident to a stationmaster, who stopped the train. The police arrived to gather the nine African Americans and brought them to jail. Nine young African Americans were recognized as the “Scottsboro boys”. They were accused of rape of two white women on that train. The white jury convicted eight of them, all except one, the youngest at 12-years-old, and were sentenced to death. These youths were falsely charged with raping two white women in Alabama. Although there was no evidence that linked the African Americans to the white women, they were still charged with sexual assault. The two women -- fearing prosecution for their sexual relationship with the white men agreed to testify against the black youths. The Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama is crucial in both Civil Rights history and in the evolution of the Constitution.

It is common knowledge that crime exists all over the world and that justice and punishment may vary in different countries and societies. However, how justice and punishment is enforced in a society and globally is not common knowledge. Global justice refers to the belief that the world is unjust; while social justice, in a manner of speaking, refers to the fair treatment of everyone in a society.(“Social Justice”). Both social and global justice value human rights, remove inequality, and holds people accountable for fair practices.(“Social Justice”). If someone commits the same crime as another person, for example, they should receive the same punishment. That is what most people would be inclined to believe, but in the reading “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman, crime and justice is reviewed and defined in an uncommon way. Reiman discusses justice in a society where a crime was committed against him and his wife.

Vanessa Vermont, a gorgeous woman found dead in her own kitchen, laying on the floor with a fatal head wound on the back of her head. Just recently she bought a new broiler and need and outlet over her kitchen counter, something her husband could do. And it is right where she was murdered. There is also a woman’s briefcase on the floor near the kitchen. Which means Mrs. Vermont was leaving, which in turn could’ve enraged the husband.

In the novel, Montana 1948, written by Larry Watson, a story of a young boy named David and the events of a cataclysmic summer holidays are recounted. Set in the heart of North America in the 19th century, when Native Americans were considered B class citizens and persecution was inevitable ever since the Europeans first arrived on the continent. David matures in a short span throughout the text from naivety to maturity as a result of the series of horrendous events he experiences. The murder and sexual assault of Marie Little Soldier evokes a case in which Wes, David’s father and sheriff of the county must re-moralise his choices as his brother Frank is to

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

J. Simpson. In addition to his numerous law review articles and books about criminal and constitutional law, he has written, taught and lectured about history, philosophy, psychology, literature, mathematics, theology, music, sports – and even delicatessens. [1]

In Part One Wesley is a conflicted character because as the sheriff in town his duty is

Although governments have debated the death penalty since the beginning of time, the advent of mass media and Hollywood has increased the scrutiny that the death penalty has faced. Many movies were produced that followed the lives of people on death row.

This essay is purposed for the evaluation of the provocative case, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, more commonly referred to as O.J. Simpson. On the 12th of June, 1994 the homicide of Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, occurred at her home. Reports of a body sprawled out the front of Nicole Simpson’s house were made through a 911 call. On arrival, police made the discovery of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman’s dead bodies outside the house. The review of this investigation will be achieved through; Assessment of the key aspects of the process of investigation. Evaluation of the main investigative flaws made throughout the investigation. Identifying strategies to prevent these flaws from happening in

The Arkansas trial raised discussions about the demarcation of science from nonscience. Towards the end of the trial Judge Overton justified his decision by providing five criteria, which stated the definition of science. Discussions arose which argued for and against these criterias. One of the philosophers that claimed that creation science was indeed science was Larry Laudan. Laudan expressed his disappointment towards the decision of the trial, and stated that the trial failed to recognise the falsifiable theories that creationists made. Gilkey and Ruse were a couple of the philosophers however, that agreed with the decision arguing that creation science failed to comply with the standards of science especially through its conclusion of an unexplainable divine creator. In this essay, I will discuss the arguments that aid the demarcation of science from nonscience, and ultimately conclude with an