Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens

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

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.

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.

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

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 otherwise 'free' murderer to justice. The case made me think about the effect of the

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

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

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?

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?

(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.)

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

On October 3, 1955 one of America’s most immense juror cases had finally announced a verdict , O.J Simpson was found not guilty in killing his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman - Nicole’s friend. Only to find out years later that O.J. was actually guilty for this crime, when detectives went to O.J.’s estate home they found multiple evidence such as blood all over his white Bronco, hairs of his on Ron’s shirt, and even footprints of Simpson’s shoe size. Was the United States justice system so corrupt and prejudice to the point that they let a guilty man free just because of his social status and money. Simpson displays the main topic in the short story 12 Angry Men which is whether the United States has a prejudice unfair justice system. Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose the writers and directors of 12 Angry Men wrote and produced a play about 12 jurors that briefly discuss a trial and come to a verdict , personal issues develop which causes conflict and only makes the process more grueling. The accused boy is being found guilty for murdering his father, 12 jurors are put in a hot room in New York and spend hours briefly viewing the scenario. Although one might think that the justice system should be left in the hands of citizens ,the director of 12 Angry Men , Sidney Lumet demonstrate that the United States justice system is unfair and is simply corrupt , inefficient , and unjust due to the jurors biased way of thinking, ignorant attitude ,and the lack of

“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.

This case was debating whether a mentally retarded criminal can be sentenced to death. A man, by the name of Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. After a day of drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, Atkins and his accomplice, William Jones abducted an airman from a nearby Air Force Base, and robbed him of the money in his wallet. When they were not satisfied with the money from his wallet, they forced him withdraw additional money. Following the abduction and robbery, Atkins shot the man eight times. Atkins was given a death penalty, while his accomplice was given life in prison. Atkins brought forth a case, claiming to be mentally retarded and that it would be “a cruel and unusual punishment”