The Death Of Judge Rusty Sabich

The criminal justice system is meant to protect the innocent, and punish those who are guilty of a crime. However, no system is perfect, and as a result, sometimes the innocent become victims of the system that was meant to protect them. How exactly do these innocent people become victims of the system? Sometimes the person gets framed, and the crime scene is staged to point a finger at them. Sometimes, there is no strong physical evidence against them, yet circumstantial evidence is used by the crown to put them away. This happened to a 17 year old boy named Adnan Syed in Baltimore, Maryland, who was imprisoned for life, for the alleged murder of his ex-girlfriend Hae Lee. Throughout the Serial podcast, Sarah Koenig is able to critically analyze information which proves Adnan’s innocence. Firstly, Asia’s letters gave Adnan an alibi for the time of the murder. Secondly, Adnan’s innocence can be demonstrated through the lack of any strong evidence and the prosecution’s use of circumstantial evidence which can be disproved. Thirdly, Jay’s constantly changing testimony is not credible evidence of Adnan’s guilt, making him innocent.

After reading “the Innocent Man” by Pamela Colloff’s who write a long journalism about Michael Morton, who was found guilty for murdering his wife Christine was sentenced for fifteen years in prison. Later founding that Michael was Innocent after reinvestigating his case, capturing DNA testing and finding new evidence was able to help prove his innocence. The theme of this essay a widow husband who seek to fight for his freedom in prison and staying connected with his son. Michal son Eric gave him a reason to have hope that they would one day reunite and his son would know for himself that he did murder his wife. The point of view of this essay although a man is falsely accuse for a crime he did not commit he is self-determined to fight.

“The only two people that know I am innocent, is myself and the killer.” Imagine being blamed for a crime you did not commit, and nobody would believe you no matter what you said. Steven Truscott had forty-two years of his life taken from him for being charged with a crime he did not commit. He was charged at only the age of fourteen for murdering and raping twelve year old Lynne Harper. He then became the youngest death-row inmate after one of the most famous trials in the history of Canada. Steven Truscott should never have been convicted for the murder and rape of Lynne Harper due to the fact the forensic evidence was questionable the

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

In the book Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee (Dee Goong An), the main character is Judge Dee, a magistrate in China’s Tang dynasty. The roles of a magistrate include but are not limited to, being a judge, detective, jury and police officer. The book follows three of Judge Dee’s cases, the Case of the Double Murder at Dawn, the Case of the Strange Corpse, and the Case of the Poisoned Bride. In order to be a distinguished and powerful magistrate, one must lead with Confucian and Legalist values. Judge Dee is an effective magistrate because he blends both Confucian and Legalist values seamlessly, and is well aware of the Tang dynasty’s social hierarchy.

A very popular debate goes on between people on whether or not capital punishment should exist or not. “A Death in Texas” was wrote by Steve Earle, and the main subject is capital punishment. The death penalty should not be allowed, and should not even exist, because it’s murder itself, people can change, and we don’t have the right to take another human beings life.

The issue of morality is a dominant theme in both texts, providing a central and critical theme in the narrative arc. In ‘Montana 1948’, Wes is conflicted when he hears about his brother’s rape accusations and is unsure whether to stand by his his family and ignore all the accusations or pursue morale justice against his brother’s actions at the expense of his family name. A similar situation arises in ‘Twelve Angry Men’ when the jurors take their initial vote and only one of the 12 jurors, the 3rd juror, takes a moral stance and is prepared to fight for justice by voting ‘not guilty’ due to the doubt present and lack of evidence available. He decides to take the moral high ground choosing to analyse the evidence before giving his conviction, claiming that he can’t possible “send a boy off to die” without at least “talking about it first”, thus considering the fate of the boy and the moral decision he must make. Despite criticisms and anger faced by other jurors, he reasons with them in a civil manner before agreeing that there is reasonable doubt to the accuracy of the evidence of whether

The book is written by Steve Bogira, who is a reporter for a newspaper is Chicago. He goes into the courtroom 302 whose judge

In today’s society the criminal justice system that we live in is flawed in so many ways. Some say that it works while others go to prison or jail for crimes that they didn’t commit. In this paper I will be covering specific examples from the book, The Innocent Man, where the defendant’s rights were violated. John Grisham talks about innocent men being innocent and convicted for murder and sent to unlawful court proceedings. In this paper I will be focusing mainly on the violations of his 6th amendment. The 6th amendment is the right to effective assistance of counsel.

During our negotiation with D.G. Barnhouse (DGB), we intend to utilize an integrative bargaining strategy with management. Before coming to this conclusion, we weighed the advantages and disadvantages of a distributive approach, however, we eventually decided to take an integrative and predominantly interest based stance versus a position based stance in our negotiations after assessing internal and external environmental factors. In addition, we settled on this strategy because we ultimately believe that management and the union share at the very least, one fundamental common interest, which is the firm’s financial stability. That being said, even with our plans to use integrative bargaining, we still plan to negotiate assertively to achieve

Innocent until proven guilty is a phrase that applies to our judicial system in modern times; however, when the play Doubt by John Patrick Stanley was written this phrase did not always apply. The play is a parable that makes you think about how gossip and rumors can cause havoc and potentially ruin someone’s career. In the play the rumors that are flying are rumors about whether or not Father Flynn is innocent or guilty to the crime of molesting a young boy named Donald Muller. Critics still argue whether he was innocent or guilty to the crime today, and no answer is known. However, based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play Doubt: A Parable, one could conclude that Father Flynn is innocent due to the fact that he had reasonable evidence

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.

Steven Avery, a family man, a victim of injustice and an accused murderer. One may have reasoned that his murder conviction was a crime of passion, due to the injustice Steven suffered from his 1985 false conviction of rape and assault, but that may have been before his story caught national attention. A documentary, “Making a Murderer”, directed by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, arose from his story’s infamy. With this documentary came numerous questions as to Avery’s possible innocence, but above all else answers that shed light on a possibly corrupt justice system that appears intent on framing Steven Avery for Teresa Halbach’s murder. “Making a Murderer” effectively portrays a message of the injustice of Steven Avery’s murder conviction and possible corruption within the Manitowoc’s justice system through the use of footage and accounts from people who were involved with his conviction.

This is case that faces Mary Barnett. The issue in this case is that On January 23, the litigant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her life partner in San Francisco having left her six-month-old little girl, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Mary Barnett returned home a week later to find that her child had died of dehydration. She called the police and at first, to let them know that she had left her kid with a baby sitter. She later expressed that she had left the child and she didn 't mean to return, and that she knew Alison would die in a day or two. She has been accused of wrongdoing of second-degree murder; purposeful homicide without intention. In the event that she is sentenced, she could face up to eighteen years in prison. This piece of writing tries to give the verdict of the case after critically examining both prosecution and defendant side.