Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The power of american judiciary as a branch of the government
Role of judiciary
Role of the court system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Paul Butler says in his article, “Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No”, “If you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote ‘not guilty’…As a juror you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you will become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.” This is in reference to jury nullification. It is an actual constitutional doctrine that is premised upon the idea that the jury (ordinary citizens), not government officials, should possess the final word on whether an individual should be punished. As Butler explains, jury nullification is for the most part a good thing. It was necessary to end prohibition, it has caused prosecutors over the years to change tactics when …show more content…
Offit shares her understanding of being a juror for New York in drug-related cases. Additionally, she continues in making a comment in regards to who should make decisions. Offit specifically says, “…there are better correctives than leaving our freedom to the whims of ‘ordinary citizens’…” This statement implies that Offit perceives the law to be something above the norm. It should not be a power vested in the common individual nor utilized. Rather, Offit’s comment points to such powers being possessed only by officials from the law. This is seen in the continuance as she says, “Mr. Butler’s argument for institutionalized nullification concedes the flaws in the law without proposing a fairer replacement.” There is not a true explanation as to how “institutionalized nullification” would concede the flaws nor does she elaborate on what would be a “fairer replacement” as she does not truly understand the law outside her experience as a juror. All things considered, this coupled along with her perception of law being above the norm leads to this example to be a “Before the Law”
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
In “Westbury Court,” author Edwidge Danticat tells the readers about how one drastic event in her childhood can completely change her whole life. Danticat grew up in an apartment in a seemingly unprivileged area called Westbury Court in Brooklyn, New York. One day after school, she came home with her younger brother and immediately turned on the television to watch her favorite show. Suddenly, she and her show were interrupted by an abrupt knock on the apartment’s door. Apparently, there was a deadly fire coming from the apartment across from theirs. By then, Danticat realizes the importance of the phrase that her mother told her after the tragedy, “Sometimes
Are we really humans? What is the definition of a Human being? What makes us Humans? Society is so complicated that anything can be true these days. In Judith Butler’s essay, “Besides Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy”, she talks about how humans are vulnerable to life around us socially and physically, and humans are dependable on others. She also uses examples such as grief to define who we are because when humans go through the grief process it reveals who that person really is and it can change that person forever in. Some people go through the grief process differently because it affects everyone. Losing someone close to you can change your prospective about life and how you look at things. We live in a country where everyone is going to be judged and looked at differently no matter what gender a person is.
17 years old at the time of the crime, Simmons was tried as an adult. Simmons confessed to the crime and his sole defence at trial was an attempt to dongrade his punishment through the introduction of character evidence. The jury recommended the death penalty, which was imposed by the judge. In the judgment of the US Supreme Court, the laws of other countries and international authorities were instructive for the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. International consensus as reflected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child provided respected and significant confirmation of the conclusions drawn. International agreement on the juvenile death penalty
Torie Boschs “First eat all the lawyers” appeared in Slate october 2011. Her piece was to reach out to horror fans and to explain to them why zombies are a great monsters in current media. Zombie fanatics who read this short essay will love her vast knowledge of zombies while others who still do not understand why zombies are horribly terrifying can get behind her argument. Bosch explains that the current zombie craze has to do with our current society and how white-collar workers would be left defenceless in a world over run with a rampant horde of zombies. While blue-collar workers can flourish in this current state as they have more skills suited for survival. Boschs essay uses rhetorical devices such as ethos, foil and satire to make her
In February 1761, in front of the Superior Court of Massachusetts, which included John Adams at that time, James Otis fought about the use of writs, representing the merchants of Boston. He objected writs along with the merchants that he represented, and so it was when he was in the hearing, he told the court that he refused any compensation the merchants tried to give him for representing them on the fact that “in such a cause he despised all fees” (“James Otis: Against Writs of Assistance”).
The Butler act affected American society by making many Americans question their fundamental mindset during the Scopes trial. Fundamentalism was a religious movement particular to Protestant (WASP) values, that became very popular in the United States in the early 20th century. Despite Fundamentalism being a religious movement, it advanced its way into schools in Tennessee; this helped form the Butler act. The Butler Act was put into motion in 1925, it was a law used to control and adjust science being taught in schools. In spite of the fact that the governor and the people of Tennessee trusted that the Butler act was ideal, especially to “protect the children” against science, they were encroaching upon the freedom of anyone who did not hold
In Supreme Court cases, it is difficult to determine which side the judges will rule because the cases are often very controversial. The Constitution and one’s rights need to be protected, and if it goes against the Constitution, the consequences will not be agreed upon. As a result, in Holmes’ analysis, it ultimately brings to light the importance of results often being black and white, but they truly aren’t. The public still has a long way to go in not only understanding the law, but also the reasons why judges make these different decisions. But the most important thing is that the U.S. Constitution is always followed.
On the quiz, I scored a 4 out of 10. I guess I don't know too much about my American History. Throughout the quiz I learned that a president can serve in the office for ten years. From my understanding, I was thinking it was eight years.
“Most Supreme Court Cases regarding criminal justice try to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society. The Supreme Court has the difficult task of bringing balance between these two often conflicting goals.” (POLICE, 2011, p.181).
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system. Edward Humes follows the cases of seven teenagers in juvenile court, and those surrounding them.
I believe that Zola was sympathetic to the miners of this time and their families because he used his main character Etienne to educate readers on the living conditions of these miners. He described with great clarity the way in which they lived so closely to one another with neighbors being able to hear one another through thin walls, and how they never made enough money to even afford a loaf of bread after paying for debts and rent. Zola described their day to day life by providing detail on how a miner’s day usually went from the time they awoke at three in the morning to go to work until the time they prepared for bed, only to follow the same monotonous routine the next day. He then also contrasted the miners’ way of living to that of the owners and shareholders of the Montsou Company. He took us into the home of the Gregoires whose annual income came directly from a hold in the Montsou mines. Unlike the miners’, the Gregories awoke at nine in the morning and sometimes even later because they devoted a lot of time to sleeping in. They had an annual income of forty thousand francs, always had ample amounts of food on their table, and
On the surface, William Godwin's Caleb Williams (1794) is merely an entertaining murder mystery and detective story. The tale of an unfortunate servant who learns the truth of his master's past and flees for fear of his life, it has thrilled generations of readers. However, Godwin designed the work "to answer a purpose more general and important than immediately appears on the face of it."2 Written immediately after the publication of Godwin's first and most famous work, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793), Caleb Williams serves as a vehicle for Godwin to introduce his philosophy to the general public. The issue he addresses in the novel is that of "things as they are... While one party pleads for reformation and change, the other extols in the warmest terms the existing constitution of society."3
First, I believe they are wasting a lot of time and money into arresting people for a victimless “crime.” Second, the repercussions that follow a marijuana
Should the aim of law be primarily focused on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals aimed at the good of the society? The question of law and morality is difficult mainly because it needs to be addressed with current social conditions that exist, the morals and values that the particular society has. In general, the laws in any society should not only be focused on regulations, but it should also protect individual’s liberty. Devlin debate was based on deciding whether law should enforce morality. He debated about what the law ought to be and whether morality should be enforced by law to form a good society. Furthermore, John Stewart Mill did not write specifically on law and morality. His argument constituted mainly on the anti-enforcers side of law and morality because he believed in individual liberty. John Stuart Mill's assertion that the only justification for limiting one person's liberty is to prevent harm to another