Was Simon Yates Justified in Cutting the Rope?

Matthew Wales's was, of sound mind when he bashed his mother and step-father on the back of the head with a piece of wood, as they walked to their car after the dinner at Matthew and Maritza's Glen Iris home. Matthew claimed to have drugged their soup to make them drowsy. "THIS time was different to those others when I had dreamt of killing my mother," he says. Autopsies however, suggested that their injuries were not restricted to blows to the back of the head. Neck and head injuries found on the couple would have caused unconsciousness, but not death, according to a pathologist. There were signs of asphyxiation.

My conclusion is that yes, Yates is sick, but I feel a strong possibility of her understanding the wrongness of her actions to the rest of society but in her opinion acted in the greater good based on religiously psychotic feeling of heaven and hell which was a foundation of making a decision to take her children’s lives while understanding it was wrong and should have been dealt with by a swifter and stronger hand of justice. My opinion aside this is the conclusion and information brought forth by unbiased research as to the case and analysis of Yates. Only one of a twelve mental health experts who testified concluded that the Yates was legally sane when she drowned her five children in the family bathtub.

As you might find yourself stuck in a life or death situation waiting to be rescued you may begin to wonder how you got there. Well it's been proven that most accidents are caused by one person's own lack of knowledge and the underestimate of the wilderness around them. Its because of that i believe people should be held accountable if it was directly caused by them.

The Court found that Georgia’s system for applying the death penalty was “judicious” and “careful.” Gregg had gone through two trials – one to determine guilt and one for sentencing. Further, specific jury findings of “aggravating circumstances” were necessary to impose the death penalty. There was therefore no Eighth Amendment violation, and the death penalty was constitutional. The Court ruled, “The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance in the United States (n.d.,Web).

Simpson was vindicated for the murders of his ex-wife and her friend. Everyone was wondering how an elite football player could commit this abject crime. He is not guilty yet; however, he is most likely the murderer.

1. Dudley and Stephens should be tried for murder. For one, the country they were tried in stated in law that "Any person who deliberately takes the life of another is guilty of murder." In addition, the killing was indeed intentional. According to Dudley and Stephen, they as well as the now deceased Brooks, drew lots to determine who would be killed and then eaten. Brooks who was at the time the weakest drew and lost. However, Brooks then took back the notion of the loser being eaten and refused to oblige. Dudley and Stephen on the other hand didn't care and eat him anywhere. This is murder.

BIS should not be held responsible for Craig's inability to handle the slope and his decision to take it upon himself to walk onto another slope that required more experience. A reasonable person would have concluded that the best way to exit a slope was to follow the path of that slope to avoid the risk of injury to themselves and other skiers.

However, a rational appeal would be that by law Christopher Barber should be punished for what he did to his son. Even though she did not want to hurt him intentionally, it still caused him his life. It changed the life of those around him. Christopher Barber also made his life change in a big way since on his record it will say that he was charged with the death of his own son. It was wrong for Christopher Barber to treat his son the way he did.

Sweeney should have made the decision to inform the crew when he discovered the fuel problem

guilty for starting the duel that led to his own death. The body was to be dragged by a hurdle,

If placed in the position of jurors who heard the arguments of 1978, personal consideration would have included benefit and harm, instead of relying on the cost/benefit analysis. Investigation conducted by the prosecution discovered that the engineers for Ford had knowledge of the defect during pre-production crash testing. Contrary to practicing ethically halting production to correct the defect, the automobile manufacturer indicated making changes to the tool design were not cost effective; essentially placing a dollar value on human existence. Ford motors appeared to be concerned with the cost and amount of time necessary to fix problem; rather than the lives lost or people permanently affected by the burning vehicle.

He was accused and sentenced to death for the rape and killing of two white girls. The type of accusation that was grounds for the death penalty, especially for a black man in the south. However, Was the execution of John moral right action? Based on the definition of utilitarianism as that an act is right if it produces the greatest sum of satisfactions to a great number of people. Then, most people will agree since they were outraged by the crimes " two innocent whites’ girls" raped and killed by a black man. That is the perfect scenario for a death sentence. The question would be, was he guilty of the crimes he is accused of? There was no time to find out since there should be a perpetrator brought to justice to decrease the anger of the white population outrage by these acts. Paul, the senior and commanding officer, had to take into consideration the whole situation. knowing the fact that he is not well-liked by everyone, especially by Percy Whitmore a guard who thinks he can get away with anything because he is the governor's little boy. Most guards like Howell felt that John was innocent and he is a good guy but, could not do anything against the death sentence. John’s execution is done in the

Whip let these issues get the best of him and realized when things had to come to an end. Whip tried to control his addictions 7 days before his testimony and he failed himself. When things like this happens that’s when drug addiction camp comes a long and rehab. He was sentenced to jail time and over the year he had become sober. He had to face the truth in order for him to actually help himself.

The urgency to sell adventure to anyone who would pay or bring publicity was not the only stressor Hall and Fisher were under. Another factor was the amount of pressure on both of the guides to run a successful business. Although they were friends, they were also rivals. The previous year, Hall failed to actually get any of his clients to the top of the mountain. Fisher, while he was a well-respected climber and had even scaled Everest without oxygen, had never led a guided tour before. He was set on obtaining a few high-profile clients to get his business off the ground. Both men were under tremendous pressure to do well this season. This contributed to their decision to push past the deadlines to turn back, as well as to bring unprepared clients.

There was a legitimate conflict that arose from conflicting agendas and responsibilities. The Springfield project was clearly a higher priority than the Johnsonville audit and Sands should have told Palmer, that although he is valuable to the audit, he would be more successful for the Springfield project. Palmer could have pulled another resource to take Olds place or hire a contractor to fill in the time when Olds would not be available. Olds was caught in a stressful situation where he was working in an environment in which he was being told to do two different tasks and had two different agendas by two different managers. This all led to infighting over Olds being shared across both projects and the two managers competing over for one resource. Palmer and Crosby were only concerned about their respective projects and Crosby knew what his end game was all along. Palmer was not clever enough to outwit Crosby and therefor he lost out on Olds.