Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing and contrasting death penalty issues
Comparing and contrasting death penalty issues
Death penalty analysis essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Comparing and contrasting death penalty issues
Jack McCoy has done a fantastic job at convince the jury for a guilty verdict of death penalty in the episode Teenage Wasteland of Law & Order. The closing argument that Jack McCoy presented to the jurors was convincing, logical, and emotional. McCoy began his closing argument by stating the fact that Mitch Regan is an 18 years old and he is already a cold-blooded murder. A fact that is undeniable and appealed to the jurors that Mitch is a cold-blooded murder, not just another unfortunate accident. And because Mitch Regan has continuously denied the hideous crime that he has committed and put the responsibility on others, that make him even worst as a person; “he has betrays us all,” as McCoy stated. McCoy also remind the jurors that, in the eyes of many people, he could have been their next door neighbored or a kid from the neighborhood. But that night, the night that Mitch Regan killed Mr. Ngai, he is no longer an innocent kid but a cold-blooded murder, someone they should fear; someone that has beaten the life out of someone else. …show more content…
But as McCoy continue on, he wanted the jurors to know that they need to remember Mr.
Ngai also. Mr. Ngai is a slight man, a man that care for his family very much and he was willing to works long hours, late at night, in the rain, so that his wife could be with his children. Jack McCoy also reminded the jurors that this hideous crime was plan, not just a reaction. The jurors must not only decide the fate of the defendant, but they need to also remember how Mr. Ngai live was taken away from him; it wasn’t just slipping away, it was beaten out of
him. “When he arrived to make a deliver, he was set upon, thrown down a flight of stairs, a filthy blanket forced over his head to stifle his screams, badly beaten. He vomited underneath the blanket. He breathed in his own blood. Yet all the while, he managed to plead for his life. But rather than evoke any sense of mercy, Ngai’s desperation only provoke more viciousness in the defendant – a savagery that silenced his pleas by crushing his skull with a rock.” Jack McCoy concluded his statement with plead to the jurors that they should not allow the defendant to put the responsibility on someone else, but judge him for who he is. “Forget what he looks like, and remember what he did.” What make the Jack McCoy statement strong was the fact that he connected himself to the jurors with different levels, whether it is emotional, logical, or even ethical appeals.
Convicted for the murders of his wife and two kids, thirty-four years ago, Dr. MacDonald still endures the agony of being accused of killing his family. Even after twenty-four years of imprisonment and several unlawful court hearings, additional documentation continues to up hold Dr. MacDonald’s testimony.
While researching this case I stumbled upon many others and I became aware of how many people have suffered from the injustice of being found guilty. While reading parts of the book “Real Justice: Fourteen and Sentenced to Death the Story of Steven Truscott” I learned that the police played a large role in why 14-year-old Truscott was found guilty of murder. The book showed that they forced witnesses to change their story to further “prove” Truscott’s guilt of the crime. This led to the conclusion that in this case (like many others) the police were solely and unjustly targeting one
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
Billy Joel once sang, “Only the good die young”. In life, it is true, the young and innocent seem to touch more lives around us than anyone else. In the Casey Anthony trial, Anthony was a suspect in the murder of her daughter Caylee. Caylee’s life shouldn’t be counted in years, it should be counted by how many lives she affected, the love she has gained, and the support the country has given her to find out what really happened. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, a boy killed his father; however, both cases were challenged by the obvious and the abstruse evidence. Large cities towards the east coast, in 1982, Twelve Angry Men, and 2008, Casey Anthony Trial, affiliated with two major trials able to modify the lives of the living and the dead. For that reason, during the Casey Anthony case, jurors were conflicted throughout the trial.
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
On May 2, 1998, Cynthia Harrison’s body was found in a restaurant where she and Defendant Timothy Lee Hurst worked. She was found bound, gagged, and stabbed over 60 times and the restaurant safe was unlocked, open and missing hundreds of dollars. The trial lasted 4 days and the State offered forensic evidence that linked Hurst with Harrison’s murder. The State also had witnesses that testified that Hurst had discussed his plan to rob the restaurant. Hurst and Harrison were the only people scheduled to work at the time of the murder. Hurst used an alibi defense, claiming he never made it to work because his car broke down.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
As a juror in any court case it would be difficult to come to one conclusion with twelve different opinions. The fictional play Twelve Angry Men proved this to be true, however, the jurors in the Sandusky trial found it relatively easy to decide on a verdict. Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State assistant football coach and founder of the 2nd Mile charity, was convicted of fifty-two accounts of child molestation. Although members of the jury would like to discuss every aspect of the case, in the end, convicting Sandusky guilty would be a simple task.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
My next claim is in regards to the “old man” juror. If it were not for him voting not guilty the second time, the boy would have been found guilty. He said the reason he voted that way was because of that one juror standing up to the other 11 jurors. He felt that everyone needed to hear all of the arguments because they were dealing with a man’s life. Thanks to that man, the boy was saved.
In one of Law & Order’s “ripped from the headlines” episodes titled “House Counsel,” a juror in a mob trial is found dead. Law enforcement investigates and learns that the mobster tampered with the juror in order to avoid a conviction and then killed him to keep him quiet. The lawyer defending the mobster is a good friend of Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy. Later in the investigation, McCoy discovers that his friend may have played a role in the jury tampering. When he suspects his friend is involved, McCoy sees an opportunity to get the mobster and prosecutes the attorney for the murder to leverage information about the mobster. In the end, the lawyer is convicted and the attorney-client privilege between the lawyer and the mobster is dissolved.
You can blame Dodd’s murders on the court systems failures, but we need to remember, although the justice system failed to keep Dodd from killing, Dodd ultimately committed those crimes against the innocent and not the justice system.
On August 20th, 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents inside their Beverly Hills home with fifteen shot gun blasts after years of alleged “sexual, psychological, and corporal abuse” (Berns 25). According to the author of “Murder as Therapy”, “The defense has done a marvelous job of assisting the brothers in playing up their victim roles” (Goldman 1). Because there was so much evidence piled up against the brothers, the defense team was forced to play to the jurors’ emotions if they wanted a chance at an acquittal. Prosecutor Pamela Bozanich was forced to concede that “Jose and Kitty obviously had terrific flaws-most people do in the course of reminding jurors that the case was about murder, not child abuse” (Adler 103). Bozanich “cast the details of abuse as cool, calculated lies” (Smolowe 48)...
...ted by peer pressure. At the end of the play, after all the other jurors joined up with Juror 8, Juror 3 was the only one who still voted ‘guilty’. This time, Juror 3’s perseverance collapsed and he finally voted on ‘not guilty’. Juror 3 is obviously not as brave as Juror 8 as to stand up for his singular thought on the crime. A reason for this might be because he doesn’t have the intelligence to use good arguments to prove his stance.
After the Supreme Court decision, Sam Sheppard’s lawyer “… went on to represent many high-profile clients, including the Boston Strangler, Patty Hearst and O.J. Simpson” (History Channel). The Supreme Court case remains as one of the most controversial decisions to this day. When Sam Sheppard left the prison, the possibility of a murderer on the loose began. To this day, nobody knows who killed Marylin Reese Sheppard. But the Supreme Court case changed many ideas in future legal trials and cases. A person cannot be tried in the press without evidence used to prove the suspect’s