Our cluttered legal system takes almost a quarter to half time of the individual’s lifetime to conclude a case. The slow, cumbersome and long trials i.e. there are absence of rapid disposal of cases which results in the backlogged courtrooms. The effects of the backlog cases on the court system and the courtroom work group means that the defendants have to wait longer between arrest and trials is inordinately long, in order to get a verdict on their case which also affects the number of conviction rates. Another is poor communication between the courtroom work group, and laboratories about the statuses and updates of cases, and having lack of staff and resources to research and get the job done.
In this essay I will be stating my reasons for Tom Robinson’s innocence in the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird”. The evidence I will be giving will put Mr. Robinson in the right and will question Bob Ewell’s actions towards Mayella Ewell. Tom Robinson is a good man and would never rape another human being. When we first hear of the case Tom Robinson was accused of raping Mayella Ewell after coming home from work. It was said that Robinson took advantage of Mayella, when in fact through this case the Ewell’s took advantage of Mr. Robinson.
Many laws have evolved and changed meanings over time, and therefore, the “law of our land” must be applied as accurately as possible for the criminal justice system to work effectively. The original content for which the amendment regarding counsel stemmed from a need to reinforce the standards set by colonial Americans when they were facing the English. The right to counsel was not necessarily a positive state because often the counsel appointed was not working necessarily for the defendant’s best interest. Nowhere does the amendment explicitly state that the accused will be provided counsel by the government (Sonneborn, 2004). There has been an addendum that had to be put in place later to combat any legal issues that would have been faced when integrating the right to counsel clause into the modern criminal justice
When Tom Robinson has to task the stand Mr. Gilmer starts badgering him by asking him very critical questions and not giving him time to answer which is also not allowed in court. Also he starts to bring up irrelevant facts such as why he was running if he has nothing to hide, and even though Tom Robinson gave him a relevant answer it still makes him look suspicious and like there is more to the case than was already stated, which there wasn’t. To sum everything up, this piece of evidence shows that the people around did not treat him as a person being tried should be and it greatly affected the jury’s
I think the problems are that the norms of the 1950's were wrong and people got too involved in other people’s business. I feel that most people during the 1950’s who discriminated were ignorant as hell and didn’t understand what was really going on. I feel like people who were forced to act a way that was considered to be the right way or thing or grew up in a family that were brought up to hate people of color were the people who had the most problems and secrets that society wouldn’t even accept. During those times, people were so quick to judge someone only to distract people from their personal lives and problems. For example the scene where Frank and Cathy are arguing about her spending time with Raymond and Frank shows Cathy his strong
Most seamen were reluctant to continue service due to inhumane treatment. Several captains were court-martailed and released from service because of the treatment of their crew. Pay became a major issue as well. Two months salary could only buy two pairs of shoes. Many able seamen were recruited by privateers, thus Reuther
Malcolm’s path in life was abruptly challenged when he went to prison, yet he harnessed the forces within himself to triumph his misfortune. Now I didn't go to prison, but I was confronted with a catastrophe that nearly devoured me. I was suddenly confronted with the law and being accused of a crime I did not commit. I was humanly furious because the law was suddenly being used as a word against me. During the proceedings, I was terror-stricken because I didn’t know how to properly address a court and I couldn’t afford an Attorney to speak on my behalf.
This case led to the questioning of whether the legal system is effective for the individual and the community and whether it really brought justice to the victims of crime. A large proportion of society feel let down by the legal system, as a mechanism put into place to protect and bring justice has obviously failed in this case. The fact that serious sex offenders who place a black mark on the well being of victims, both physically and mentally being let off in less than 20 years caused a lot of conroversy. Although it may be argued that 55 years was a harsh penalty and didn’t warrant the crime, the victim’s of the crime received a much harsher sentence, a life of trauma and a constant feeling of alarm. Denele Crozier a Women's Health NSW executive officer asked the question many women had asked after the appeal was established ``How many times do women have to be constantly let down and disappointed by the legal
The beliefs of Brigham Young and the Latter-day Saints had been challenged for thirty years. The Mormons literally ran out of anywhere else to escape and build their sanctuary. Their morals and values received constant challenge and they themselves were frequently and violently confronted. The Mormons found themselves as outcasts in their own country. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution only seemed to apply to those with more conventional
Claude-Louis Berthollet was Proust’s major opponent, which stirred a famous debate. Berthollet disagreed with Proust, thinking, “the elements could combine in any proportion” (2). The debate between Proust and Berthollet went on for several years. Although Proust would eventually be proved correct, Berthollet’s authority partly hindered the acceptance of Proust’s theory. Another problem was Proust’s inability to completely articulate why the reagents behaved the way they did.