Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How stigma interferes with mental health care
How stigma affects mental health patients
Essays on stigma in mental illness
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How stigma interferes with mental health care
All of a sudden, it is you that now has the importance. It’s you, the jury that has the power to potentially change the life of this man sitting here. You have the power to abide by the justice system. You have the power to do the right thing, right here. And that is to let my client, Joshua Hayden, walk away a free man today. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn’t any of our lives that were on the line that day- not me, not the prosecution, not any of you in the jury- none of us. But Joshua was. And look at us all, putting him in the line of fire. You know what is worse? My client has a serious bipolar disorder! Medical experts have proven this, and this is why I asked for my client not to be present for part of this speech. I do not have the cold heart of the prosecution to break him down further by hearing this medical evidence. And yet, he is being interrogated further. Facts don’t lie. And this is exactly why we come into court... for the truth! And this is it! He did not invent this story as an excuse, or for your sympathy to cloud your ability to make a judgement. This psychiatric illness has been with my client since childhood. We’ve already seen this, haven’t we? Where he was seen on CTV wearing his pyjamas to the park when it was …show more content…
The prosecution want you to believe something illogical, degrading and unreasonable- that this is just an excuse, that it was an impulsive attack. But really, it’s a misrepresentation of facts. Truthfully, if my client wanted to get away with murder, he could’ve easily done so. Mr Weaver lives alone in the countryside, a very secluded area. Any right man with the intention to kill would’ve done it at night. Instead, it was done in broad daylight with nothing to cover up. Is this really what a clear headed, normal person would do? Maybe the weight of the responsibility has just set in now. Maybe the answer has just clicked in your head now. And the answer is: not
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.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
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,
... others that as soon as they claim they hear voices or are claim they killed someone because they did not like the way a person’s eye looked that they can get off on a lighter sentence. The defendant has planned all of this out, and if it works out the way he has planned it, there will be a murderer released from a mental institution after a short period of time instead of being locked up for the rest of his life with the other criminals like he deserves. If this person were insane, he would have not have mentioned anything about the old man’s fortune if it were so unimportant that he would have never mentioned it at all. The States believes that the defense has failed to prove it burden of 51% and this man must be convicted and sent to a prison before he murders someone else and uses “insanity” as an excuse again.
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
Now, to the layman, that appears simply to be a frame up – when you arrest and charge and find the evidence subsequently. To make matters worse, when we examine the manner in which that evidence was put forward by the prosecution (a matter for which the director of Public Prosecutions must be held responsible), we find some startling inconsistencies, strange and frightening things. Like one man giving three statements. – two of them before Arnold Rampersaud was arrested, never mentioning the accused or anything to do with the accused. A third statement made after he had been arrested conveniently mentions the accused.
Erik Peterson faced a number of challenging situations with Jeff Hardy, a high level employee with CelluComm, the parent company of GMCT. At first we see an awkward relationship with Jeff Hardy whom Peterson had been assigned to work under by Ric Jenkins, partly due to the lack of concrete relationship guidelines between the two (Sami, 2013). Hardy had very little operational experience, and Peterson felt that he was unable to receive constructive guidance from Hardy. As a subordinate to Hardy, Peterson should have instead attempted to resolve this problem early on as it was a critical relationship within the GMCT Company. Consulting Hardy by letting him know of his concerns would have been a more efficient and respectful manner in handling the situation. This relationship building would also have been integral in facing the Peterson-Hardy communication issues with respect to the local municipalities and fire department. Operant Learning Theory (Johns & Saks, 2014, p.54) suggests that as a result of this negative consequence Peterson should be able to improve his interpersonal skills specifically with superiors within the organization moving forward. As a subordinate to Hardy, Peterson should have instead attempted to resolve this problem early on as it was a critical relationship within the GMCT Company.
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
The Supreme Court allowed the execution of an inmate, who can’t remember the 1985 murder that sent him to death row. The court decision was unanimous and there were no noted dissents. The inmate, Vernon Maddison was sentenced for killing Julius Schlute who was a police officer responding to a domestic call. Vernon shot him twice in the back of the head. As the execution came closer and closer, Mr. Madison asked the court to cancel his death sentence. He wanted it to be canceled because he said he could not remember what he had done. A psychologist hired by Madison’s lawyers agreed that he understood what he was accused of, and how the state planned to punish him. Mr. Maddison said he understood his crime was wrong and he should be punished, but he just could not remember what he did and for this reason he thought he should not be executed. The court said “He is legally blind.His speech is
My client Albert Fish is accused of molesting and murdering 30 or more young children but, he wasn’t in his right mind when he committed the crimes. Now I'm not asking you to forget what Mr. Fish has done but I ask you the jury to consider what I'm about to say when making your final decision. Albert Fish has always had a troubled childhood. With everyone in his family having some form of mental illness. Up till the age of 5 he was constantly molested by his father. His father died when he was 5 and his mother didn’t want any of her kids so she sent them to an orphanage. This is where the real torment started he was beaten every day, molested, forced to masturbate in front of others. That’s level of abuse is something that many people never
With a skater cut, three days of scruff, an oversized punk rock T-shirt, and a pair of torn Vans on his feet, it was hard for me not to rush to judgment. But Kyle was my client, and my job was to prepare him for his upcoming deposition. It was my last week into what had been a successful eye-opening internship at a law firm in South Florida. My Atticus Finch dreams had been somewhat shaken, and my rose colored view of the legal world had been somewhat brought down to reality, but I was still enamored with the law and the court system, though the visions of my calling surprise witnesses in order to crack a case to get my innocent client off a trumped up charge were now more steeped in veracity. I was now smack in the middle of the rather mundane
In the month of February, i visited the Superior Court of Bakersfield California. I sat down on the trial of Timberlake vs People. This trail was murder and gang related. The man being charged was a 33 years old and his name was Paul Timberlake, who was suspicious of committing a murder. The judge that over saw the trail was John R. Brownlee. The District Attorney was Mr. Russel. Lastly, The Public Defender was Mr. Lucard. As i opened the door to the trail room, I noticed the room was full of seriousness. Everyone had a blank facial expression and showed no signs of joy. I made my way to the audience seating and sat down quietly. The Judge called forth the prosecutor. The prosecutor order two police officers to come inside the trail to serve as witnesses. Once they came inside, he played a video of a
This article discusses how Danny Bond was born with a bowel disease that caused excruciating pain. At thirteen, he started talking about killing himself. When his mother resuscitated him after his third suicide attempt, he told her that she had let him down by saving him. His condition worsened shortly after he turned twenty-one, and he told his parents that he wanted to die and would need their help. His parents knew that helping im would be a crime. Ultimately, he starved himself to death and asked his parents to stay by his bedside to make sure that doctors don’t intervene.
“Please raise your right hand to take the oath” the officer says. Silence washes over the courtroom. “Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)?” “Yes” She says. She sitting right next to the judge, microphone right in front of her. She sits there looking around the courtroom. She sees him there sitting calmly with no worries about what’s happening. She wonders if they’ll believe her, they have to believe her, there's evidence. I hope the jurors would see past his good boy facade. I hope they really see him for what he is. A rapist. I get introduced to the court and so the nightmare begins. The trial begins, and the lawyers begin
The trial today commenced with the accused entering a not-guilty plea. Soon after, the Crown proceeded to call upon their witnesses. The neighbour was the first to be called, and his testimony was clear and concise. His unwavering surety when he said “I’m certain that I saw [the accused] point a firearm at me”, rendered his claims credible and convincing.