Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens

In the US Supreme Court case Roper V. Simmons, the decision that was to be made is whether or not the execution of a minor convicted of a crime representing cruel or unusual punishment as well as unconstitutional. Christopher Simmons was a junior in highschool, he talked among his friends discussing how it would be easy to get away with murder to the fact of their age. Mr. Simmons explained to his friends that he wanted to “kill someone by breaking into and entering the person’s home, robbing the person, tying the person up, and then throwing the person off a bridge”(Scott). In the early morning of September 9, 1993 Simmons and his friend went to Ms. Cook’s home and did exactly as planned by Christopher, the suspect knew the victim from a car

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

Christian’s case should not have been heard in an adult’s court based on the life challenges he had endured. The psychological torture he had endured in his poor and violent family including the cold blood suicide by his father in his presence could have led him to committing the manslaughter to his brother with a no sober

Hello, Jury i'm here to prove to you Johnny Cade is guilty for the murder of Robert Sheldon. On a Saturday night at 2:30 am Johnny and his close friend Pony-boy Curtis state that they were at the park when Robert and his 5 other friends came to their “territory” drunk. That's when one of Robert’s friend David gets Pony-boy and started drowning him by a water fountain nearby the park. Then, Pony-boy was about to drown when Johnny comes from the back and stabs Robert and that's when Robert’s friends saw and left running. So, Jury the thing that i did not understand is why did Johnny stab Robert if he want the one drowning Pony-boy?

Under Florida statute and case law, does the disclosure of attorney-client privileged documents inadvertently produced constitute a waiver of privilege when (1) counsel’s product liability team examined every document prior to discovery; (2) the disclosure occurred only on one occasion; (3) the extent of disclosure was minute; (4) notice of the inadvertent disclosure was made on the telephone, at deposition, and by amending the privilege log three months after production; (5) one of the internal memos sought advice from counsel regarding a defective accelerator that could lead to serious liability?

“It was the crime of the century” are the worlds that were roared around the world in 1924. As two intelligent young men with Harvard experience and wealth, evolved from petty crimes to murder. Defense attorney Clarence Darrow was begged to defend these culpable boys and plead against the capital punishment. Knowing that the entire town wanted to see Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb heads on a platter, Darrow attempted appealing to a judge rather than a jury. Darrow fought, Darrow persuaded, Darrow won. (Asyndeton) Darrows’ 12-hour speech was able to convince the judge, and the reason this was possible was because of the numerous rhetorical strategies used.

Shipwrecked, Thomas Dudley and Edward Stephens survived 24 days roaming the sea but during their ordeal they chose to sacrifice a young teenager, Richard Parker, in order to complete this feat. Upon being introduced back into society, Dudley and Stephens were called before a court due to the charges of murder they were facing as a result of their decision to consume Richard. Dudley and Stephens were eventually convicted of murder on December 9th, 1884; a controversial conclusion to arrive at but one I fully agree with (“Survival on a Lifeboat” 362). The indictment of murder was correctly issued in this case due to the fact that Dudley and Stephens were documented as having sacrificed the boy without any prior consultation. These two men should

Throughout ‘Twelve Angry Men’ and ‘On the Waterfront’ both Protagonists show how they serve justice to prove their opinions and win over what they believe is right. Both protagonists show that they want to do what is right and stick with what they believe, which is testifying against Johnny friendly in ‘On the Waterfront’ and Juror 8 voting against everyone and voting not guilty in ‘Twelve Angry Men’. Juror 8 voting not guilty is a testament to his courage of conscience ‘It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first’ along the entire storyline of the text Juror 8 does not back down and sticks up for his opinion until every other juror agrees. Similarly, Terry who is the protagonist in ‘On the Waterfront’ is given the confidence to stand up against antagonists Johnny Friendly, after being convinced that testifying and telling the truth is more important than just seeking physical revenge. After testifying he displays courage by facing the workers and Friendly at the Waterfront to reveal that he isn’t ashamed and that you can come back. By the end of both texts we are shown how each protagonist fights for their justice by standing up for their rights and doing what they want done for themselves.

Holmes, in 1841, the U.S. ship William Brown sank after hitting an iceberg. Crewmen, as well as Alexander William Holmes, believed that their overloaded lifeboat was in jeopardy of itself sinking and placed fourteen or sixteen travellers overboard to their unavoidable deaths in the freezing water. On his arrival back to Philadelphia, Holmes was under arrest and charged with murder. The grand jury dismisses the arraignment and substituted manslaughter. The judge in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania instructed the jury that necessity might be a complete defence but that "before the protection of the law of necessity can be invoked, a case of necessity must exist, the slayer must be faultless, he must owe no duty to the victim. The jury convicted Holmes and the principle of necessity was not tested by any higher court. He was sentenced to six months in jail and a twenty dollar fine. This case shows that United States v. Holmes thinks the actions of Holmes was wrong without no doubt but he had no other choice, Therefore instead of putting Roger Whetmore on the death penalty on this case, a six month and given a fine as well. To show that what they have done is wrong but since the "state of nature" was present, there was no choice so they can’t be given the death penalty as a

Murder can sometimes be the answer. In Michael Bruce’s ‘Gentlemen, Your Verdict’, Lieutenant-Commander Oram was faced with the decision to save five members of his crew by murdering 15, or allow all of his crew to die. Oram made the right decision to a great extent, as there was not a way out of his situation that did not result in the death of his crew, he did not inform the 14 crew members that were to die, that they were being killed, and he spared all but one of his married crew members.

In S.M, the defendant was charged with two counts of voluntary man slaughter, and two counts of aggravated battery. Id. The defendant, a fourteen-year-old boy was outnumbered four to one. Id. The defendant attempted to flee and even attempted shooting a warning shot into the air, but the other boys continued to advance on him. The defendant continued to be pursued even after he began shooting. Id. The court ultimately held that the defendant should not be found guilty of the two counts of voluntary man slaughter nor the two counts of aggravated battery, due to the fact that it could not be said that the juvenile’s belief that he was in immediate danger of death or

(271.) The whole case was based on two witness's testimony. " I shut my eyes. Judge Taylor was polling the jury: 'Guilty...guilty...guilty...guilty...' I peeked at Jem: his hand were white from gripping the balcony rail, and his shoulders jerked as if each 'guilty' was a separate stab between them."(282.)

The prosecution reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter as they did not believe the requisite degree of reckless indifference or lack of mens rea were sufficient evidence to support the charge of murder. The use of discretion is outlined in the

The main argument the defense is planning to use is that the Marines standing trial were executing an order in which they didn't think would result in harm. In his opening statement to the jury of nine, Capt. Ross drives the facts of the case into the jury. This would seem normal because for the prosecution, this case is based heavily on facts. The facts are that one Marine is dead, and two other are standing trial for his death. The defense's rebuttal points out that the actions carried out by the Marines were orders by their commanding officer.

A young lawyer who lacks experience and enthusiasm defends the case. The lawyer immediately jumps to a bargain plea in order to settle the case quickly. In legal terms, a plea bargain allows a lawyer the freedom to negotiate on behalf of the client. In return, the client pleads guilty to one charge, which means that a second charge would be dropped. Such settlements seem quicker and easier, whilst still providing with the guilty verdict for the prosecution. The Marines are set to face charges of murder, conspiracy to commit murder and conduct unbecoming a marine. The movie highlights a few ethical issues. One talks about the ethical conduct, acting in accordance with orders and duties. The first scene of the movie shows such an order being carried out, hence the questions to be followed are as follows, and did Dawson and Downey do the correct by following such an order?