Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
British involvement in africa
Impact of colonization on native people
Impact of colonization on native people
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: British involvement in africa
This trial was between a group called the Mau Mau and Great Britain. Great Britain colonized Kenya in 1895. Great Britain's colonization of Kenya had major effects, good and bad.But in the early 1900’s, the Kenyans wanted independence. They formed a independence group called the Mau Mau. The Mau Mau were mostly made up of a tribe called the Kikuyu. As they tried peaceful protests and demonstrations, the Mau Mau were usually attacked by the British. Britain believed in order to stop the Mau Mau from their independence movement and the violence they were causing on the Britain's, Britain needed to use force. The purpose of this trial was not to make a decision about if Britain's violence was justifiable or not, but to figure out if the Mau Maus …show more content…
violence was justifiable or not. The purpose of this trial was to find if the Mau Mau’s violence was justifiable or unjustifiable. We used what we saw and heard during the prosecutor's case and defendant's case to make a decision. The Prosecutor's Case believed the Mau Mau’s violence was unacceptable and they should be punished for their actions.
In order for the us, the jury, to agree with the prosecutors, they brought witnesses to the stand. Jacinta Waruiru was the first be called to the stand. She was a witness to the vicious Mau Mau attack. She told us that her family was a loyalist to the British. She was Chief Luka Wa Kahangara’s wife. Mrs. Waruiru told us about the day she and her family were attacked. She told us that the Mau Mau came to her house and killed thirteen members of her family. They killed her husband first and her housewives and their husbands housewives too. While running with a child in her arms, the Mau Mau shot her in the leg, head, and back. At that time she dropped the child, and he/she got shot while on the ground. As Mrs. Jacinta was seeking shelter behind a tree she saw her family get tortured and killed by the Mau Mau. Also she told us that all of her cattle were killed, her family’s house was burned down, and her husband’s body was cut up into pieces by the Mau Mau. The Prosecution also brought Ian Henderson to the stand, a colonial police officer. He was responsible for the capture of the Mau Mau leader, Dedan Kimathi. He came up to the stand and told us about how all he wanted was peace in Kenya. He said that since the Mau Mau have been in Kenya, it had become more tense. Prosecution also brought Evelyn Baring to the stand. he was the governor of Kenya. He told us …show more content…
that he brought education, schools, and hospitals to Kenya. Baring said conization helped Kenya. Another witness for the prosecution was Winston Churchill. He was for imperialism and believed that higher power countries like Great Britain should control countries like Kenya. The defense's case argued that the Mau Mau’s violence was justifiable.
order for the jury to agree with the defense they first brought Hussein Onyango Obama to the stand. He told us that he was not a part of the Mau Mau. And also said that he has had done nothing wrong to the British. but he was captured and tortured by the British for two years as a thought he was involved in the Mau Mau. Obama also served for the British. Dedan Kimathi was a leader of violence against Kenyan and British authorities. He said said he and the Mau Mau tried peaceful protests, but they did not work and so used violence to try and fight for their independence.
Mr. Dedan also told us that British forced labor onto Kenyans, what up their tribes, and took away their culture. He said in order to defend themselves from the mistreatment by the British they needed any use violence. Barbara Castle was also a witness for the defense. She was a member of the British Parliament. She told us she went down to Kenya to investigate the allegations about the British police bragging about brutally killing the Kenyans.
We decided that the Mau Mau’s violence was justifiable in this case.The one fact that made us lean towards the decision was that there were among 30,000 Kenyans who lost their lives toward this uprising, and only 30 British died. As both the defendants and prosecutors did an excellent job, I believed that the Defense's case was more organized with facts, arguments and quotes that helped me
as a Jury member have empathy and sympathy for the Mau Mau.
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
George Atzerodt did not have a fair trial. Some people might say that the trial was fair. Consequently his trial was not fair was because it was a time of war so the trial had military officer. The military officer were from the union and George Atzerodt was from the confederate. This made the trial unjust because the military officer were union biased and they wanted George Atzerodt to lose. Another reason why the trial is unfair was because the trial conducted by the said Judge Advocate General as recorder aided by Assistant and Special Judge Advocate as he made designate. The
in the text it says (Boston gazette 4). One of the boys asked a group of British soldiers. "If they intended to murder people" the British had said “yes, by g-d, root and branch.” not so later one of had struck the young lad leaving a wound on him. The evidence helps prove that the British were trying to hurt the colonists. It proves this because when the boy asked they told him upfront and began to attack him when he was unarmed.
In the novel, Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson, Kabuo Miyamoto is arrested for murder without any substantial evidence. He was charged with a crime he did not commit. He was accused based strictly on his race. Kabuo’s trial was unfair because there was racial conflict with the Japanese following World War II.
To the American people, a trial by jury was viewed as a fundamental right. To take away the right to a fair trial was an offense they did not take lightly. A trial by jury gave, “…raw power to determine facts and law insulated the people from oppression by the king, judges, and even legislature” (Blinka, 57). For the British government to threaten to diminish that power, was an act that colonists viewed as a threat against their civil rights, and freedoms. In enacting the Administration of Justice Act in 1774, the British government was directly aggravating the American’s views on a right to a fair trial. The disagreements between the colonists, and Great Britain would lead to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and a charge against a King and government they declared unfit to rule.
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
To understand the fact that the mood of the novel was a very racially charged, the reader can reflect back to this time period in history and understand why it was so hard for Kabuo Miyamoto to receive a fair trial. One piece of historical evidence that show the racial animosity that majority of the population felt toward Japanese Americans the aftermath of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In the early morning hours of December 7, 1941 the United States was deliberately attacked by the Empire of Japan (Shandley 5). Within a few hours the Japanese has destroyed a majority of the Pacific Fleet of the United States naval capacity (5). Yet to the average American they took much more. The attack drove the American way of life into that of xenophobic thought. Never before had the United States been invaded in such a was as the events of December 7. Americans, in shock, feared anyone that they believed as being “enemy alien”(Desai 2). The American government in an effort combat this fear and to resolve the chance of “Japanese Aggression toward the United States as a whole” enacted the Executive order 9066 (Desai ...
“The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).
The truth can sometimes depend on the circumstance and the person who states it. When confronted with conflicting accounts or questionable details, a judge within the court of law must decide the sentence of an individual with these obstacles in place. In this case, the defendant Dannie McGrew has been charged with the murder of Barney Quill, but claims that it was self-defense. The following contains a thorough explanation as to how the judge decided upon the verdict of acquittal.
Even after all the proof of their innocents and the 99 witness that protested their innocents the jury still put them to death. Also during this time Attorney General Mitchell Palmer lead raids known as the Palmer Raids agai...
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
In Corsicana, Texas Cameron Willingham and his family’s home was burned down the twenty-third of December is 1991. According to the report Cameron was asleep when the fire started and survived the accident with only a few injuries, as for his children they were not so lucky, they lost their lives to the tragic accident. At the time of the accident Cameron’s wife was buying presents for their children for Christmas. According to a witness and her Daughter Diane and Buffie from a few houses down went outside and saw Cameron screaming, “My babies are burning up!” Diane and Cameron tried countless attempts to rescue the girls from their room until the fire department could get there. According to the New Yorker “The house, in short, had been deliberately transformed onto a death trap.” According to the reports on December twenty-fourth and twenty-seventh of 1991 the fire was declared arson and they later decided to conduct a criminal investigation. Cameron was questioned by the investigators on December 31st and was then later arrested on January 8th of 1992 for the death his three daughters.
(a) Prosecutors have nearly limitless discretion in the most critical matters they must consider, yet they are held to very high ethical standards.
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
The judge was a middle-aged male who looked intimidating and seemed to be well respected. To my surprise, we did not have to stand up when he entered the room. After the judge came out I assumed the jury would follow quickly after. However I quickly learned that there would be no jury for this particular trial. After a few minutes, the handcuffed defendant entered the room wearing an orange prison jumpsuit. He was a middle-aged, African-American male who was involved in a narcotic conspiracy case. In addition to the defendant a probation officer, the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer were also present. Aside from me, my classmate and a student from Georgetown the defendant’s wife and sister were in the