Power can be defined as the ability to influence or outright control the behavior of people. A variety of different things can drive power, including both knowledge and experience. Power in most cases is needed to establish authority. In today’s country, the United States government has a lot of power. It has so much power that even American citizens are beginning to complain about it. Having all this power and authority has allowed the government to make decisions quicker. However, by making decisions faster, some mistakes can be made and innocent people can be convicted. This point is directly exemplified when using two New Yorker articles, “Surviving Solitary” and ‘A Shot to The Heart.” Both articles consist of results produced quite …show more content…
quickly by the government and have both had negative impacts on people’s lives. To begin, the article “A Shot to The Heart” by Stephanie Clifford directly supports my point and is very sad. This article is about an New York Police Department(NYPD) investigator named Peter Forcelli who arrested the wrong guy in a murder case he was part of.
Now, it takes a lot of courage for an investigator to stand up and admit a wrongful conviction, especially in a case that he helped to convict. That brings me to think agree with the statement of Chief Justice William H. Rehmquist “the justice system has not yet learned to confront the fact that, even when there are no easily identifiable misstep, it can produce an unjust outcome.” (Clifford 4) It is because of this reason, that manyinnocent people end up in jail. Despite the efforts to get them out, many of them are denied. It took nine years for federal agents to even consider looking into the Edward Garry conviction case. In addition, it took another three years for Garry’s lawyer to get a post-conviction motion, which was denied by a Bronx judge, saying that the new evidence wasn’t credible. And still, Garry has yet to be absolved for this crime that he did not commit despite witnesses testifying on his behalf. This is a really depressing case because of the fact that Garry has become broken. “Garry gives the impression of a man who has been inside literally and figuratively for far too long.” Twenty one years of his innocent life that he may never get back. All because this justice system has failed him as a
citizen, yet growing up “He’d never mistrusted the police or the courts, though.” (Clifford 6) Even when he was falsely accused of the murder he said, “I thought at the time that the court system was fair. I always thought, I’ll go to trial and I’ll go home. It didn’t work out like that”. (Clifford 6) Having trust in the justice system for so many years and then falling victim to it, can really break a person’s soul. Eventually while in prison Garry, “stopped leaving his cell much, preferring to eat canned food from the commissary instead of going to the dining hall.” (Clifford 6) Garry was basically putting himself into a solitary confinement, which takes a lot of suffering because he may feel that he has lost touch with everybody and the outside world. The government making decision to quickly can destroy a person just like that! In addition to the one above, surviving solitary confinement is a tough punishment. Prison is hard enough, but solitary confinement is on another level and can really break a person mentally. In the article, Surviving Solitary by Rachel Aviv, a man named Albert Woodfox is known as being the longest standing man to live more than forty years in solitary confinement in American history. Just like Edward Garry, Woodfox was wrongfully accused of killing an officer in the prison. There was evidence to prove his innocence as well, yet he was still convicted of the crime. Regardless of testimonies from inmates giving Woodfox an alibi for when the crime was committed, the jury still found him guilty. Now, where is the justice in that? I don’t understand how the judge could even let this ruling be allowed despite all the evidence shown to prove his innocence. The ruling was unjust, but no one thought to take a second look back whatsoever. It could have been the fact that he was a member of the Black Panther Party and Woodfox believed himself to be a political prisoner, “I have always considered myself to be a political prisoner. Not in the sense that I’m here for a political crime, but in the sense that I’m here because of a political system that has failed me terribly as an individual and citizen of this country.” (Aviv 4) After the murder of the officer occurred, the warden “assumed that the murder was a political act” because “You had a group of Black Panthers inside who felt that they had to do something to get attention, and they decided to kill a white person.” (Aviv 4) A person shouldn’t be convicted for a crime based on assumptions, race, or organizations they are apart of unless crimes are being committed. However, because the warden is in power he can do whatever he wants and get away with it, like promising another inmate freedom if he lies about what happened with the murder. “Brown said that he had been drinking coffee with Miller when the four Panthers ran into the dorm, pulled Miller onto Brown’s bed, and stabbed him.” ( Aviv 4) This story shouldn’t have been admissible in court because for one inmates aren’t even allowed to have coffee with guards. And second, the prison’s chief of security told the warden’s wife himself “that Brown was one you could put words in his mouth.” ( Aviv 4) Therefore, that statement shouldn’t be trusted. However, the warden wanted to blame and frame Woodfox and other Black Panther members for the murder and he sure did. Woodfox and Wallace were convicted and sentenced to life without parole in Closed Cell Restricted. During their time in solitary they found another Panther, which is where they became the Angola 3. They didn’t allow themselves to go insane or crazy like most people do after being solitary for so long. They still tried to fight their cases, but it was like any move they made forward, the system knocked them right back to where they were, in solitary. They were never meant to win and they didn’t win. Woodfox was the last of the Angola 3 to be in CCR after Wallace died and King’s conviction got overturned and he plead out to a lesser charge. Once Woodfox was all alone, he decided to plead guilty to the murder of Miller. So, as you see, decision being made by the government can have a direct negative impact on people. Innocent people are convicted of crimes each year and it really breaks their heart. Making people give up years and years of their life just due to mistakes made by the justice system and government. I think that more things should be taken into consideration when deciding the outcomes of cases like these.
The wrongful conviction of Tammy Marquardt was also aided by the misconduct of the parties involved. Goudge (2008) claimed that Smith, other medical experts and prosecutors operated with a “think dirty” mindset, which presumes guilt first, rather than the ‘innocent until proven guilty‘ doctrine highly valued in the justice system. “The Goudge Commission found the actual words ‘think dirty’ in instructions from Ontario’s chief coroners, pathologists and police chiefs in 1995” (Shapiro, 2011). In Ms. Marquardt’s case, there is no way to conceal the fact that the professionals of the adversarial system did not satisfactorily perform their roles. It has already been demonstrated that Dr. Charles Smith “saw his role as supporting the prosecution,
These are not the only reasons for urgency to find a killer; the Solicitor General of Atlanta’s circuit, Hugh M. Dorsey, desperately needed a successful conviction because he had recently failed to convict two accused murderers. He was concerned about putting together a case that would hold up in court; no matter what lengths he had to go to in order to accomplish this. Overtime, it became obvious that Dorsey did not necessarily believe that Frank was guilty, but recognized that the political values of his position were uncertain.
Power is a great privilege to have and a person can take advantage of the power if they have it. Getting the privilege of power can be abused and misused depending on the person it is given to. Sometimes if the power lands in the wrong person’s hands they can use it to benefit themselves. In the novel called Montana 1948 by Larry Watson, the power of the law is being abused in the situations occurring throughout the book. Having power and privileges can make a great impact on your life and other people’s lives and give you a variety of advantages.
Omar Abdul Ballard had admitted to the rape and murder of Michelle Bosko; his was the only semen found. Furthermore, Ballard tried to tell police that he alone had committed the crimes. Yet despite the physical evidence and Ballard’s statements, the courts decided to continue their cases against the other four men. Even the lawyers that should have been trying to defend the Norfolk Four did little to actually defend them against the charges and instead opted to try to get them a lighter sentence. Their own lawyers seemed unable to get over the fact that the men had confessed to the crime. Even with explanations of long interrogations, threats, and lies by the police these lawyers were unwilling to believe that innocent men would confess to such a heinous crime. Instead, they were urged to “cooperate” with the police and tell the “truth”. With this type of advice the men went up to the witness stand and committed perjury lying under oath and relaying their false confessions to the jury. The problem it seems is that the police and the courts were not interested in the truth or justice, they are looking for an easy way to close a case. They were looking for someone to blame and they were unwilling to admit that they were wrong when evidence seemed to show they had a made a
Power is earned, not given. There are many different types of power that people can earn. Power becomes a problem when it is not questioned or tested. Therefore, the one with the power would have total control over anything or anyone they wanted, or they would feel that way. People with power feel invincible when it is not questioned. Throughout history it has been proven that this creates a problem. For example, Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal is similar to the scandal with Father Flynn in Doubt. Doubt, by John Patrick Shanley, exemplifies an underlying message that unquestioned faith leads to abuse of power. Specifically, shown in Father Flynn’s reputation, cover up, and resignation, which all correlate to Richard Nixon’s Watergate Scandal.
This case was subject to many errors throughout its duration. One of the largest immediate inaccuracies was that this case didn’t have many of the elements necessary to constitute a crime (Gaines & Miller, 2008). There was no proof of actus reus or mens rea, no concurrence, and the attendant circumstances did not incriminate Ryan Ferguson in any way (Gaines & Miller, 2008). Additionally, during the court proceedings Ferguson was not fully informed of his privilege against self-incrimination, and took the stand without being properly prepared for what was going to occur (Gaines & Miller, 2008). There were also many errors made under the supervision of Detective Kevin Crane, including eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, and law enforcement misconduct during the court proceedings (Gaines & Miller,
Garrett, Brandon. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2011. 86. Print.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
C. Wright Mills in his article “ The Structure of Power in American Society” writes that when considering the types of power that exist in modern society there are three main types which are authority, manipulation and coercion. Coercion can be seen as the “last resort” of enforcing power. On the other hand, authority is power that is derived from voluntary action and manipulation is power that is derived unbeknownst to the people who are under that power.
Power has been defined as the psychological relations over another to get them to do what you want them to do. We are exposed to forms of power from the time of birth. Our parents exercise power over us to behave in a way they deem appropriate. In school, teachers use their power to help us learn. When we enter the work world the power of our boss motivates us to perform and desire to move up the corporate ladder so that we too can intimidate someone with power one day. In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness Kurtz had a power over the jungle and its people that was inexplicable.
Power has always been seen as the killer of morality. Powerlessness, however, allows and almost encourages a leader to use his strength to his advantage. The ascent to despotism may begin by instituting slightly stricter laws that give
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
Power is authority and strength, which is any form of motive force or energy, ability to act, or control. When too much power is given, a dictatorship government can form, in which all decisions are made by one authority. In the book Animal Farm, by George Orwell the author portrays how “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton).
Power is defined in the course study notes as the “ability of individuals or groups to get what they want despite the opposition”. Power is derived from a variety of sources including knowledge, experience and environmental uncertainties (Denhardt et al, 2001). It is also important to recognize that power is specific to each situation. Individuals or groups that may be entirely powerful in one situation may find themselves with little or no power in another. The county Registrar of Voters, who is my boss, is a perfect example. In running the local elections office, she can exercise the ultimate power. However, in a situation where she attempted to get the county selected for a desirable, statewide pilot project, she was powerless, completely at the mercy of the Secretary of State. Power is difficult to measure and even to recognize, yet it plays a major role in explaining authority. In organizations, power is most likely exercised in situations where “the stakes are high, resources are limited, and goals and processes are unclear” (Denhardt et al, 2001). The absence of power in organizations forces us to rely on soley hierarchical authority.
Power acts as a catalyst in a society which is vulnerable to mass hysteria and causes individuals to favor unjust trials for personal gain.