The Greek Speech, Against The Stepmother, And An Episode Of Law And Order

It is inferred that the parents should take care of their children and have their best interest at heart. This however, is not the case in Greek and Roman mythology. The killing of ones own children, or filicide, was not viewed as negative upon in their era. The contemporary times contrast with the ancient Greek and Roman’s because it was justified to use any means necessary to obtain a higher status. The Greeks and Romans valued keeping a high social reputation and having respect for those of great power. The motherly union between their children conflict with the reality that the father strives to retain or gain control. These circumstances cause a tense bond between the members of the family. The strained parent to child relationship in

The Fells Acres Case was set against the backdrop of many other child sex abuse scandals that had caused mass hysteria across the nation. As a result of what was considered to be a newly found epidemic (child sexual abuse), members of the court were influenced by convictions in other cases, leading to influence on the Fells Acres Case before it even went to trial. Emotional appeal heavily influenced the verdicts within the Fells Acres Case as a result of personal bias influenced from the media. The moral reactions of the prosecution and other members of the court resulted in the preconceived notion of the verdict before the trial began: that the Amiraults were guilty on all counts. Those of the prosecution approached the case with their own perspective; their opinion reflected their own practices and beliefs, thus causing the outcome to validate what they were originally looking for: a guilty verdict. The criticism Rabinowitz portrays explains how the mindset of the prosecutors disregards all of the facts leading to a just verdict and instead promotes finality. As a result, in the Fells Acres Case Justice Elizabeth Dolan allowed the testifying children to face away from the accused in hopes to create a less intimidating environment. As a product of Dolan’s emotional agenda, the justice had violated The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights that requires the accuser to face the accused. Furthermore, resulting from moral reactions, prosecutors and judges ignore the plasticity of children and their memories as well as the impact such plasticity’s have on the

It also deals with the questions of morality and psychology of a person who assumes the position of the judge while offering to judge the innocence or guilt of the accused and how the final holding is affected by the subjective conscience of the

A notable tension that was written about in this document was the cruel and harsh treatment of the accused by the justices. Cary relays that his wife’s treatment was inhumane, physically abusive and demeaning. During testimony, she was asked to stand for a long period with her arms stretched out. Cary’s wife was crying and afraid that she might faint. When Cary asked if he could help support her, “Justice Hathorne replied, she had strength enough to torment those persons, and she should have strength enough to stand.” When Cary spoke out against this treatment, he was told to be silent or that he would be removed from the room. Cary’s wife was later taken down on the floor by one of the witnesses. Cary spoke out on “their inhumane dealings, uttered a hasty speech (that God would take vengeance on them, and desired that God would deliver us out of the hands of unmerciful men)”.

The cumulative effect of this perspective is that if the judge is hard on the allegedly obscene editors and misrepresents their defence to the jurors, this would only be what you would expect of such a second-rate individual. Robertson’s presentation, based on truth, is heavily influenced by bias and opinion against the judge and, thereby, in favour of the defendants. The eventual verdict of guilty is seen to be inevitable. The editors were sent to prison for psychiatric examination.

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

In this story, Dubus invites the reader to mull over the disparity between people’s ethical responsibility to society and the primal urge to protect and avenge their loved ones. At the end of the story, Matt tells Ruth what happened, but it is clear that he feels deep remorse for the action he has taken. He, his wife and friend Trottier will be forever scarred by the responsibility of keeping the secret of murder. Nevertheless, Dubus does not judge Matt and label him either a hero or a sinner; he simply presents the ethical problem to the reader.

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

This ancient Athenian murder trial centralizes around the expectations of marriage, the role of women in ancient Greece, and the dangers a husband faces after failing to properly supervise his wife. Euphiletus stands accused of the murder of Eratosthenes, his wife’s lover. According to Athenian law, if a husband finds his wife in bed with another man, it is the husband’s right to determine what penalty the male adulterer will face. The Husband could demand he pay a fine, or even justifiably kill him. The time period of Euphiletus’ trial had come to acknowledge financial compensation as the common settlement for such offenses. Eratosthenes’ family is having Euphiletus prosecuted for premeditated murder; leaving Euphiletus to convince a jury

In order for a trial to be brought, the police and prosecutors might be able to prove that the elements of the particular offence are present. In this criminal case both Actus reus, Mens rea as well causation was clearly shown through the behavior of Katherine Knight.

They appeared in a courtroom like setting with the goddess Athena to judge the trial of Orestes for matricide. The prosecution (The Furies) began the questioning. The Furies accused him of being guiltier than his mother because he killed someone of the same blood as himself. Apollo argued but with a patriarchal standpoint all based on the notion that a woman’s life is worth less than a man’s. He argues for paternal rights, saying that the father who plants the seed, is the only true parent.

Greek literature is characteristic for it’s deep ties to the culture and heritage. Looking through specific passages of texts provides context to the way of life in early Greek culture. Through the following climatic passage from Aristophanes’ comedy Clouds, Aristophanes utilizes literary devices to convey the play’s overall theme that logic does not necessarily equal morality. Aristophanes utilizes devices such as tones, rhetorical questions, and sarcasm within the literature in order to provide a successful mode of introducing and conveying this theme. Pheidippides Let’s return to my earlier point, the one you made me interrupt; answer me this, to start things off: did you beat me when I was small?

Justice and gender are put into relation with each other in Aeschylus’ Oresteia. In this trilogy, Greek society is characterized as a patriarch, where the oldest male assumes the highest role of the oikos (household). The household consists of a twofold where the father is the head, and the wife and children are the extended family. The head of the oikos is the only one who possesses the authority to seek justice. This is because the father acquires the authority through the inheritance law or male lineage. On the contrary, Greek society seems to transform to a matriarch when Clytemnestra solely murders Agamemnon because she, like primitive males, exercises destructive justice and enters the cycle

The jurisdictional primacy exercised by the Roman legal corpus, and the prudential exercise of the laws therein for the administration of the populace, might be efficaciously understood in the context of the maxims propounded in Ulpian’s writings: honest vivere (“to live honorably”), alterum non ladere (“not to injure another”), and suum cuique tribuere (“to grant each man his due”, Radin 394). The maxims aforementioned, though not legal principles, might be construed as pious hopes that the application of legal rules shall render [promptly] a just and prudent verdict that adheres to the directives of the penal code. A careful reading of the facts of the case presented in the matter of Apuleius suggests that the premise of the motion to invalidate

In this paper, I will discuss a play by Athenian playwright Aristophanes, The Wasps. First, I shall give a brief overview of the The Wasps. Then, I will examine the courtroom scene of the play and argue that Philocleon is not an impartial juror. Next, I will discuss generational gap in Athens. Finally, I will conclude the paper with my outcome of the investigation of the conflict between Misocleon and Philocleon.