Minnie Pearl Thomas Research Paper

Hence the drug paraphernalia law was enacted to prohibit the use of equipment. This law was discussed when Social Worker Jeff was providing clean needles to individuals in the community who used crack/cocaine intravenously in order to reduces the spread of HIV. The use of crack cocaine is associated with high-risk sexual practices as well as the use of unclean syringes that leads to the spread of the HIV virus. Crack/cocaine was highly prevalent in the 1980s and received a wide spread of media attention. Mandatory sentencing law was passed by congress and sentencing for crack cocaine use or sale can be up to 20

• Indicted in San Diego in 1995 for money laundering and conspiracy to import tons of cocaine. His more creative means of transport included transferring the powder inside fire extinguishers and cans labeled CHILI PEPPERS.

In “A Jury of Her Peers,” Minnie Wright grows up in Dickson county along with: Mr. Lewis Hale, Mrs. Martha Hale, Harry Hale, Mrs. Peters, Mr. Peters, Mr. John Wright, and Mr. George Henderson. Minnie Foster is known to others as a sweet and cheerful young girl. After  marrying John Wright, Minnie Wright is not seen or spoken of throughout the town, “Time and time again it had been in her mind ‘I ought to go over and see Minnie Foster’--she still thought of her as Minnie Foster, though for twenty years she had been

Have you ever thought of how cool it is to be able to sit and watch a movie in which the

His report found that almost all his offending was based on his methamphetamine usage. Mr Jones also pleaded guilty to all the crimes committed and therefore was able to receive a 30 % reduction according to the sentencing act. This allowed Mr Jones to save the court money for legal proceedings and therefore is rewarded by pleading guilty with a 30 % reduction. Judge Beazley also sentenced Mr Jones in pursuant to 18A in the sentencing act which consolidates all the crimes to make one sentence for all the crimes combined. Under the controlled substance act 52 E the drugs that the police seized are

and didn’t do. She parties while her child, Caylee, was supposedly “missing”, murdered her child

Just because of her race she was not able to receive the things she needed. According to the law though, she was qualified for treatment but of course there are always loop holes to get around certain terms and conditions of the law.

1993 recorded the highest number of violent crimes in D.C. during the crack epidemic with 16,888 violent crimes recorded. It is apparent that the increased penalties and stiffer sentences for possession and distribution of crack cocaine did not result in a decrease in violent crime. Violent crime in D.C during the crack epidemic increased despite the imposition of stricter sentencing guidelines. During a subcommittee meeting on crime, terrorism, and homeland security in 2009 Judge Gohmert stated, “This sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine raises important public policy issues, on the one hand, because African-Americans comprise the majority of crack cocaine offenders to crack cocaine penalties that resulted in a disproportionate number of African-Americans serving longer sentences than powder cocaine offenders.”

Since the inception of mandatory minimum cocaine laws in 1986 to the advent of the Armstrong case, not a single white offender had been convicted of a crack cocaine offense in federal courts serving Los Angeles and its six surrounding counties. Rather, virtually all white offenders were prosecuted in state court, where they were not subject to that drug’s lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. The impact of the decision to prosecute the black defendants in federal court was significant. In federal court they faced a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 10 years and a maximum of life without parole if convicted of selling more than 50 grams of crack. By contrast, if prosecuted in California state court, the defendants would have received a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum of five years (United States v. Armstrong, 1996).

The majority of the crimes being sentenced that day were drug crimes. A multitude of those being sentenced had attended drug rehabs or was scheduled to enter a drug rehab as a condition of probation on the sentence for the offense they had committed.

The United States district court for the District of Columbia is where the case first started. From there it went to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. After being trialed in the District of Columbia court of Appeals, in August of 2010 it went to the United States Supreme Court. The District of Columbia had original jurisdiction in the case and first trial Jones in 2006 where the jury returned with a guilty verdict on one count of conspiracy to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute 5 or more kg of cocaine and 50 more grams of cocaine base. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled out Jones’s conviction because the data that was transmitted from the device that was implanted on Jones’s vehicle was not submersible in

She pleaded not guilty. The trial was initially fixed for 23 July, 2001 but was adjourned due to the illness of her counsel. She maintained her plea of not guilty and the trial was re-fixed for 15 October, 2001. After a medical assessment the prisoner was officially charged with the murder on 18 October 2001 and pleaded guilty to the charge. The court accepted her plea of guilty her conviction of murder was recorded.

Character names are very important in A Jury of her Peers. The two characters, John and Minnie Wright, are the focus of the story. The name Minnie has significant symbolism. Minnie is derived from mini or minimized, which was very descriptive of her oppressed relationship with John and also the male insensitivity

The men talk with a rough familiarity born working together and knowing one another. The women seem less acquainted and don't ever call each other by their first names. But at the men's first disparaging remarks about Minnie's housekeeping and women 'worrying over trifles,' the women move closer together" (Smith 177). This is what set up the women to try and find the evidence that they need to protect Minnie Wright from being charged with her husband's murder.

The audience and characters assume that Minnie is guilty, but with due motivation. “Two housewives, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, accompanying their husbands who are investigating the murder of a man by his wife, discover in the kitchen the clues which indicate the motive of the murderess” (Alkalay-Gut 1). The audience assumes that Minnie’s solitude, imposed on her by her husband, has lead her to be depressed. “Alienated from her husband, powerless and silenced by the circumstances of her marriage, and isolated from her neighbors, Minnie is an unseen woman long before she murders John Wright” (Noe 16). What if Minnie’s solitude was self-inflicted? Just as Mrs. Hale could have visited Minnie, Minnie could have visited Mrs. Hale and other women in the area, but chose not to. The audience assumes that John Wright treats Minnie coldly or harshly. Mrs Hale says, “No, Wright wouldn’t like the bird—a thing that sang. She used to sing. He killed that, too.” (Glaspell 1391). “Her life has been made miserable by an individual who has complete control of her” (Alkalay-Gut 3). What