An example of the state committing an unjust act against the individual was evidenced in the recent Troy Davis case. Even if Davis was guilty, there was enough doubt for the state to delay his execution in order to determine the best course of action to take. This is just one widely recognized example, there might be many more examples of unjust acts committed by the state. Should for some reason Troy Davis had been broken out of prison against the will of the state, once again Socrates would not justify this. It's situations such as this that makes me not believe in legal obligation to the extent which Socrates does where it's almost absolute.
Also, I have stated the APA’s position on the subject, then compared it to my personal views. Next, I discussed the court rulings in the case of Ake v. Oklahoma, the APA’s stance on this case, as well as explaining if my personal opinion sided with the court or the APA. Finally, I discussed the ethical issues raised by this subject. I have demonstrated the necessity of the insanity plea as a viable defense for individuals with mental disorders. Furthermore, I explained the hardships faced by indigent defendants who truly need a mental health professional to assist with their defense.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
In Primal Fear, Aaron Stampler has been given a label as insane, in order to convince his defense lawyer, Martin Vale, that he is as innocent as he appears. The power between Stampler’s multiple personalities proves that even the best lawyers lose the toughest of cases. Throughout the story, we are made to believe that Martin Vale believes Aaron’s story. The evidence clearly shows that Stampler is guilty right from the get go. With that evidence, we, as the audience,
According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. So, violence destroys community and brotherhood by planting hatred rather than love. The third way based on King is nonviolent resistance. He believes in this way no individual or group need give in to any wrong, nor need anyone resort to violence in order to right a wrong. According to king, this is the method that oppressed people must follow to win against the unjust system while loving the perpetrators of the system.
Having a brain abnormality must be proved by the defense, not the prosecution. The defense must argue that the individual did not know the right from wrong. This basically does not mean they are mental ill or deranged now but only at the time of the offense. It’s usually a challenging weight to overcome, since the incident may have took placed months or years after the event. Sometimes, the insanity defense is the only way a criminal defendant can avoid tough punishments.
1. Do you think the protagonist, “Kevin,” in this story was guilty of the crimes he committed? Why or why not? I believe Kevin was guilty and I believe the judge was spot on with her explanation. It is true that he could not control it, but when he knew it was wrong he should have went for help.
Is Tom Robinson Guilty or Innocent? A trial is all about the evidence and its validness, if the evidence has any doubt that it could be wrong it shouldn’t be in the trial. With this in mind, one could argue that he is not guilty because the lack of evidence. Furthermore, Atticus Finch disproved all evidence of the Tom Robinson trial. Also, you have to factor in the time period of this trial, which was in the 1920’s to the 1930’s.
They continue to bring up the topic of pious and unpious actions. Euthyphro claims “the pious is to do what I am doing, to prosecute the wrongdoer…not to prosecute is impious.” Then, Socrates exclaims he is the defendant in his case because he believes it is difficult to accept the common knowledge the people believe about the goods, since there is no plausible evidence. As the dialogue continues, Socrates claims that “different gods consider different things to be just…for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects…(page 9, 7e)” Then the same things would be both pious and unpious. Simply, the nature of Socrates is to question and further complicate matters by counter arguments. Then Socrates states that the matter is finding who the wrongdoer is rather than how he must be punished.
Larceny According to Lawbrain.com, the crime Larceny is unlawful taking of someone else’s personal property and is most commonly known as theft today. This crime originates from the common law of England and was developed by the royal courts of England in the 17th century. The reason why this crime was developed was to bring punishment to those who took private property through nonviolent means because “they” wanted to differentiate against robbery. Robbery involves unlawful taking of personal property through violent means. The courts felt that taking without any violence involved shouldn’t receive the same punishment.