It is sad to see youth with so many energy and potential get sent to jail at an early age. The crimes most of the young children commit are usually something that could have been prevented. Adnan Syed, a high school student in Baltimore in 1999 had a different case than the other young children that get sent to jail every day for drug and theft majority of the time. He is sentenced for life in prison because the judge believes that he have murdered his ex-girlfriend Hae min Lee. Adnan Syed is not guilty for the murderer of Hae min lee because there is no proof that he did nor is there a motive for him to kill her. There is no qualified proof that proves that Adnan killed hae. There is no DNA taste made in the rope and a bottle found near the …show more content…
Family’s usually tend to force their kids in to the religion they follow and expect them to make no sin which leads to the hide and seek game between the parents and the kids. Adnan’s family were Muslims that migrated from pashuar, Pakistan. Where the smallest thing as a man and women that are not related cannot be having a conversation what so ever. Dating was not acceptable, it’s either marriage or single. Adnan was not allowed to date or have girl friends or be a normal American teenage but he did it anyways without his parent’s knowledge. The prosecutor at the time claimed that Adnan’s motive to strangle Hae is that he gave up his religion, put himself in a river of sin and dissed his parent’s by dating a girl but when Hae called it off he was left with nothing. He killed her out of not love but pride. Even though this is an understandable point, Adnan was never really a strict Muslim. He goes out clubbing, drink alcohol, have sex with different girls…pretty much everything a Muslim person should not be doing. Him dating Hae didn’t make him anymore sin that he usually make in a daily basis. He never felt like hae have taken him out of his religion road because he was never in one. He didn’t have a motive to kill Hae because they both moved on in to other people but kept a good friendship between them so all of a sudden he couldn’t have felt betrayed enough to kill her. The reasonable question here is why did Adnan tell the police officer in the first interview that he was expecting a ride from hae that day and later when interviewed again denied asking hae a ride because he have his own car and don’t have a reason to ask her for a ride knowing that she always picks up her little cousin from school right when she gets out of school. Why would he lie about that, and did he really ask her for a ride as Jay and some of Hae’s friends claimed or he did not. Even though this
When Hae Min Lee disappeared on January 13, 1999, all of her friends (including the subsequently charged killer, Adnan Syed) thought that she moved to California. Hae’s body turned up a few weeks later on February 9, and the police later charged Adnan Syed, her ex-boyfriend with her murder. Jay Wilds, an alleged accomplice to the crime, confessed to the police that he knew that Adnan killed Hae and Adnan tasked him with burying her. The state later used Jay’s testimony as the foundation for their case, even though it contradicted some of the state’s own physical evidence. While Jay’s eyewitness testimony does identify Adnan Syed as Hae Lee’s murderer, it is self-serving and inconsistent, with no physical evidence to corroborate it. Therefore,
Based on information provided by Sarah Koenig’s podcast, Serial, Hae Min Lee is killed by Adnan Syed, he yet says he didn’t murder her. Adnan is convicted of committing homicide, which he didn’t do, should not be in jail. This is for 3 main accounts; if something important happens a person remembers that day, Jay knew where Hae’s car was, and by how Sarah and her friend go by the day Jay described.
Adnan's innocence away from him? Jay's story was documented, but his first story kept changing, which seemed off, if he was there shouldn't there be one story and only one story? But his final story, the story that never changes is the one after the mysterious session. Although even that story has flaws. Many to be exact. He says Adan called him after he killed Hae, but we know that they were never friends, only mere acquaintances. Theoretically, would you call an acquaintance after you you killed
On February 25th, 2000, Adnan Syed was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, via manual strangulation six weeks prior. Brutal right? So are false convictions. Adnan Syed did not murder Hae Min Lee nor did he have anything to do with her death. However, without a doubt, Jay Wilds, his alleged partner in crime, was involved.
When a teenager is carrying a burden as Adnan was, probably feeling guilty for giving back to his parents, his religion and customs could transform him in another person for a few moments when he felt betrayed, humiliated, dishonored and abandoned by the person for whom he did all this. Then he kill Hae Min Lee in a rage 's attack or probably as Jay said Adnan was planning the murder in detail; that is why the police could not found enough evidences to probe him clearly
This reason makes sense because Asia and even a friend of hers claim that they saw and even spoke to Adnan that day and at that time Hae was murdered. This part of the story is when Asia found out Adna was arrested so she wrote him a letter explaining what she remembered about seeing him that day and time. This is from the letter “Im not sure if you remember talking to me in the library january 13’th,but I remember”. This means Adnan is innocent because he was not murdering Hae at the time he was at the library. Therefore Adnan is innocent because Asia’s letters prove that he was at the library at the time Hae was
So, because there has not been any evidence presented that can prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Adnan is not guilty. The first piece of evidence against Adnan is a testimony given by his acquaintance and partner-in-crime, Jay. The State uses this as one of their main claims. However, there are many reasons why this is the wrong way to go. First of all, the State is using circumstantial evidence, meaning that this ‘proof’ depends on whether or not Jay is telling the truth.
There was several pieces of evidence that helped build the case, but none was enough to actually convict Adnan of murder. For instance, there was no DNA evidence that proved Adnan killed Hae. DNA evidence was found in Hae’s car that belonged to Adnan, but then again Adnan had been in Hae’s car before since they had dated for a while. Sarah even asked her own nephew, Sam, to recall what he did on a specific night six weeks ago and he seemed very torn about his answer. Sam says, “Not a clue”.
In conclusion there is enough evidence in the Serial Podcast and other information available to say the Adnan Syed is the killer of Hae Min Lee in 1999. Adnan had more reasoning than anyone else to commit this murder. Adnan's family conflicts built up anger inside him causing his emotions to erupt and murder Hae. Lastly the phone log and where each call pinged the towers, giving an idea where Adnan was
First off, Adnan had always felt a little guilty for dating her because she wasn’t Muslim like him. It didn’t really look good in their religion when people did things like that. Plus, if his parents found out, he would be in A LOT of trouble because he was not supposed to be dating anyone in the first place. But his parents did end up finding out in a pretty bad way, at least that’s what I think. They found out because while Adnan and Hae were at a school dance, one of the parents called his parents and asked about Hae.
For one, unlike Ian he was convicted and found guilty of a non-homicide crime yet still also found himself in a life sentence. For better or for worse, Joe wasn’t confined but “was [instead] repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted,” the trauma from which eventually caused him to develop multiple sclerosis (Stevenson 259). Unfortunately, these two cases are not uncommon in the justice world. As a matter of fact, “by 2010, Florida had sentenced more than a hundred children to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses,” (Stevenson 153). One of the primary reasons for this originated in the idea that harsher punishments will act as a deterrent for kids who want to break the law. However, recently studies have suggested that because the prefrontal lobe of the brain is still in development until the age of twenty, children don’t have the mental capacity to make the best decisions, especially under stress. Additionally, children normally wouldn’t have access to weapons or drugs, which allows the argument that adults should be held responsible for making such objects available to them in the first place
Heinous crimes are considered brutal and common among adults who commit these crimes, but among children with a young age, it is something that is now being counted for an adult trial and punishable with life sentencing. Although some people agree with this decision being made by judges, It is my foremost belief that juveniles don’t deserve to be given life sentencing without being given a chance at rehabilitation. If this goes on there’s no point in even having a juvenile system if children are not being rehabilitated and just being sent off to prison for the rest of their lives and having no chance getting an education or future. Gail Garinger’s article “ juveniles Don’t deserve Life sentence”, written March 14, 2012 and published by New york Times, mentions that “ Nationwide, 79 adolescents have been sentenced to die in prison-a sentence not imposed on children anywhere else in the world. These children were told that they could never change and that no one cared what became of them. They were denied access to education and rehabilitation programs and left without help or hope”. I myself know what it’s like to be in a situation like that, and i also know that people are capable of changing even children when they are young and still growing.
In the article On Punishment and Teen Killers by Jenkins, sadly brings to our attention that kids are sometimes responsible for unimaginable crimes, in 1990 in a suburban Chicago neighborhood a teenager murdered a women, her husband, and her unborn child, as she begged for the life of her unborn child he shot her and later reported to a close friend that it was a “thrill kill”, that he just simply wanted to see what it felt like to shoot someone. A major recent issue being debated is whether or not we have the right to sentence Juveniles who commit heinous crimes to life in adult penitentiaries without parole. I strongly believe and agree with the law that states adolescents who commit these heinous crimes should be tried as adults and sentenced as adults, however I don’t believe they should be sentenced to life without parole. I chose this position because I believe that these young adults in no way should be excused for their actions and need to face the severe consequences of their actions. Although on the other hand I believe change is possible and that prison could be rehabilitating and that parole should be offered.
This was something that honestly suited Adnan’s defense more than Jay’s. Remember when I said “He didn’t seem like some sort of assasinator?” Well, he really wasn’t. Why would he kill Hae anyway? Hae and Adnan had dated for about two years, but during the end, it’s like most high school relationships. Someone in the group, or both members, eventually lost interest and break up, which in this case, Hae was the one who broke up. She fell in love with another person, named Don. When they had a break up, Adnan was emotional, and upset. Now, that would make sense, but that was two months before Hae’s death. Why would Adnan kill Hae 2 months after they broke up? I mean, he was described as a player, and sometimes he’d cheat on her. Even after they broke up, many friends his said Adnan eventually got over it.
It is expected that at a young age, children are taught the difference between what is right and what is wrong in all types of situations. The majority of Supreme Court Justices abolished mandatory life in prison for juveniles that commit heinous crimes, argued this with the consideration of age immaturity, impetuosity, and also negative family and home environments. These violent crimes can be defined as murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault and the like depending on state law. With these monstrous acts in mind the supreme court justices argument could be proven otherwise through capability and accountability, the underdevelopment of the teenage brain and the severity of the crime. Juveniles commit heinous crimes just like adults