In psychology there is an error in thinking called the “Just World Phenomenon”, which states how people think that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. This phenomenon is an error in thinking since most of the time people have experiences that they don’t deserve, like wrongly being convicted. Sarah Koenig, the host of the podcast Serial, aims to shed light on the case against Adnan Syed, which seems to have a lot of holes in it. So could Adnan have been wrongly convicted or is he a cunning psychopath that could have done the crime? I think that there isn’t enough evidence to convict Adnan and that the jury should have acquitted.
The biggest piece of evidence that the state has against Adnan is Jay’s witness testimony
…show more content…
Asia says that she saw Adnan in the library that day, Adnan says he can’t remember where he was, Jay changes his story, Jen tells a different story from Jay, and it just keeps going. Adnan has no believable motive. The state says that Adnan hadn’t moved on from Hae and killed her out of pride. This is very hard to believe for several reasons. Adnan had moved on to Nisha and was calling her a lot since her number was saved as number one on his phone. Also, the window of time that Adnan had to pull off the murder was so slim and had no room for error. That means that he would have had to practice the route over and over again. Adnan would have had to be stewing with his emotions and hate toward Hae, but all of his friends never saw him as vindictive or angry leading up to Hae’s disappearance. The only evidence that he could be a psychopath who fooled everyone is the fact that he stole money when his was young from the mosque. People with antisocial personality disorder, more commonly psychopaths, do have trouble with the law when they are young. However, since it is an isolated incident and no one else in his life has described Adnan as violent or causing trouble, I highly doubt he is a psychopath. The motive just isn’t believable enough to convince me that Adnan could have planned and executed the
What would you do if you were convicted of a crime you didn’t do? The story of Serial narrated by Sarah Koenig is about a man named Adnan Syed. Adna Syed was wrongly convicted of killing his ex girlfriend Hae Min Lee.Jay Wilds is a friend of Adnan who used to smoke weed with him sometimes after school,but he is also a suspect in the case. This story is interesting because Koenig is trying to find out who the murderer is of Hae Min Lee or if Adnan can be proven innocent. Believe that Adnan is innocent of the murdering of Hae Min Lee because one piece of evidence which are letters that a woman named Asia wrote to Adnan claiming that she saw Adna that day and at the time Hae was murdered at the library and that she even had a little chat with him. Another piece of evidence is that Best Buy tweeted a tweet saying that they never had a payphone which Jay claims that Adna called him from to come pick him up.
In Episode 8 of Sarah Koenig’s podcast, Serial, Koenig claims that Jay isn’t a reliable enough source of information for the state to find Adnan guilty of the murder. She argues that there are too many inconsistencies in the story that he has told police over and over, and that there are too many problems in the story that the police use against Adnan.
...t his the evidence in front of a jury. Still believing in his innocence Jeff is filing for parole after fourteen years of eligibility. He is hoping to meet parole board criteria so he can be released on parole.
Can you imagine being convicted of first degree murder at only 17 years of age? Adnan Syed couldn't believe it either. In fact he was mortified when they charged him of brutally suffocating, his ex-girlfriend Hea Min Lee, to death. Adnan Syed was a pawn that the Baltimore detectives played with, a mere dupe to cast off as the true killer. Syed is like many Americans, he was never granted a fair trial. There is some actors that make Syed guilty, but perhaps it was just pure coincidence that got Adan wrapped up in this whole mess. One simply can't overlook the major factors that make him innocent enough to grant him a second trial. Adan has spent half of his life in prison, due to a wrongful conviction that happened many
Teachers, friends, classmates, relatives and parents could not believe he kills his girlfriend. The reality sometimes is very hard to face especially when feelings are involved. Parents never will accept that their own child who was raised with comfort, love and support could be capable of murder somebody. Disturbing people could be disguised very well under a charming appearance. Many serial killers were known as decent, brilliant and admired persons. When a teenager is carrying a burden as Adnan was, probably feeling guilty for giving back to his parents, his religion and customs could transform him in another person for a few moments when he felt betrayed, humiliated, dishonored and abandoned by the person for whom he did all this. Then he kill Hae Min Lee in a rage 's attack or probably as Jay said Adnan was planning the murder in detail; that is why the police could not found enough evidences to probe him clearly
Based on information provided by Sarah Koenig’s podcast, Serial, Hae Min Lee is killed by Adnan Syed, he yet says he didn’t murder her. Adnan is convicted of committing homicide, which he didn’t do, should not be in jail. This is for 3 main accounts; if something important happens a person remembers that day, Jay knew where Hae’s car was, and by how Sarah and her friend go by the day Jay described.
In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence.
This was something that honestly suited Adnan’s defense more than Jay’s. Remember when I said “He didn’t seem like some sort of assasinator?” Well, he really wasn’t. Why would he kill Hae anyway? Hae and Adnan had dated for about two years, but during the end, it’s like most high school relationships. Someone in the group, or both members, eventually lost interest and break up, which in this case, Hae was the one who broke up. She fell in love with another person, named Don. When they had a break up, Adnan was emotional, and upset. Now, that would make sense, but that was two months before Hae’s death. Why would Adnan kill Hae 2 months after they broke up? I mean, he was described as a player, and sometimes he’d cheat on her. Even after they broke up, many friends his said Adnan eventually got over it.
Coleman never presented any physical evidence in any of his cases, such as drug money, recorded conversations, finger prints, surveillance videos, etc. He relied simply upon his testimony, which was shaky at best as he contracted himself several times over the course of various trials. By all apparent indications, Coleman took shortcuts by being fast and loose with the facts. Again, financial incentives seemingly manufactured this scandal and
In this podcast Sarah explores and digs deep into the two options, is Adnan guilty? Or is Adnan innocent of his past? Adnan Syed should stay in jail and not be released from prison due to some main reasons that lean towards Adnan’s guilt. It didn’t seem like a healthy relationship should look like.
As one grows older, certain trends begin to appear that are difficult not to notice. Naivety begins to fade and the harsh realities people are faced with every day present themselves. These realities shape how people perceive and treat others. A certain theme, or rather lack of theme, that is extremely pertinent in today’s society is the notion of humanity. Humanity is defined, by Merriam-Webster, as the quality or state of being humane or having a compassionate disposition. Just Mercy, by Bryan Stevenson, is a book that perfectly embodies the theme of humanity. In this book, the reader follows the author throughout his journey from an idealistic, young lawyer to a revered attorney in his quest for justice for those deemed unfavorable by our
Albert Camus’ The Stranger offers one man’s incite into the justice of society. Monsieur Meursault, the main protagonist in the novel, believes that morals and the concept of right and wrong possess no importance. This idea influences him to act distinctively in situations that require emotion and just decision, including feeling sadness over his mother’s death, the abuse of a woman, and his killing of an innocent man. In these situations Meursault apathetically devoids himself of all emotion and abstains from dealing with the reality in front of him. When confronted by the court over his murder, he reiterates his habitual motto on life that nothing matters anyways, so why care? His uncaring response inflames the people working within the
A society that is ruled by liberty contains morals, morals that come with rights that must be respected in order to preserve integrity. In his article “A Right to do Wrong”, Ethics, vol. 92 (1981), pp. 21-39, Jeremy Waldron argues that if people in a society take moral rights seriously they must accept an individuals “right to do wrong” from a moral perspective. Having a choice to do wrong from a moral point of view creates diversity in a society which lead’s to development in the society as a whole. Waldron offers a paradox to explain his position on individuals having a moral right to act in ways that might be seen as wrong from a moral point of view. I will explain and outline Jeremy Waldron’s position on the idea of individuals having the moral right to do wrong, and I will also evaluate Jeremy Waldron’s position and demonstrate if there is really such a moral right using my views that will be enhanced by John Stewart Mill views.
New studies reveal that psychopaths not only understand right from wrong, but can justify their morally inappropriate actions regardless of the consequences. Psychology experts Maaike Cima, Marc Hauser and Franca Tonnaer devised a hypothesis that could potentially render previous preconceptions about psychopathy moot:
proof for the law to believe him. Due to him being a lawyer, he has