Even though Michelle concocted the plan, it was Byrom Jr. who actually committed the murder. Byrom Jr. admitted to committing in several jailhouse letters and, according to court documents, in an interview with a court-appointed psychologist” (cnn.com). In one explicit confession letter to his mother, he detailed how he killed his father in rage after a fight. Because Byrom’s defense attorneys never had the confession letters entered in as evidence, a jury never heard any of Edward Byrom Jr.’s confessions. This meant that without the confessions, Michelle was going to be convicted of the murder.
Wrongful Convictions This article discusses the issue of wrongful convictions, and how many innocent people pay the price because the justice system has failed them. The article focuses on the case of Paul House, a man who was wrongfully convicted of murdering Carolyn Muncey. He spent twenty two years in a prison for a crime that he did not commit. His case “includes mishandled evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, bad science, cops with tunnel vision, DNA testing, the near-execution of an innocent man, and an appellate court reluctant to reopen old cases even in the face of new evidence that strongly suggests the jury got it wrong.” (Balko). In 1986, Paul House, was the prime suspect in the murder of Carolyn Muncey.
In McCarthy’s, No Country for Old Men, money plays a significant role when it comes to ethical decision making. In the beginning, Llewelyn Moss comes across a crime scene where drug traffickers and drug dealers are brutally murdered by a third party, in pursuit for the money. Regardless, Moss greedily steals the money but leads him and his family to dangerous situations. In addition, Carson Wells is hired as a bounty hunter to kill Anton Chigurh and get the money, however, he ends up dying in the process. Finally, the crime and violence over money is so senseless, that Sheriff Ed-Tom Bell retires to prevent his life from being taken away.
Shortly after leaving Kanas City Dick and Perry were aressted and sent in for questioning. During the intaragation Dick refuses to give any details on the murder. Agent Dewey trying very hard to get the evidence he needs to take them to court lies to Perry to see if he will say any thing about the murder. Perry cracks and tell Agent Dewey every thing about the murder from who they killed first and who they killed last to what they wanted from the Clutters. This is what Agent Dewey had been waiting now he could take them to court and bring justice to the Clutters.
In my visual representation the images of Hitler and other dictators, groups such as the Klu kluck Klan, and Religious cults from history were used to portray this idea. A young man by the name of Tommy, is accused of murder, convicted and sent to Shawshank prison. When it comes to the Warden’s attention that Tommy is innocent and that he knows who the guilty person might be, he has him executed, in fear that it would paint the authority that sent an innocent man to prison, in a bad light. Also if this was brought to a judge’s attention someone would come to Shawshank prison to investigate Tommy’s claims and would see the abuse of authority that was going on. The Warden has Tommy escorted to an isolated court-yard in the middle of the night where he signals for the chief-guard to gun down an unsuspecting Tommy.
But also the theme of betrayal to individuals is represented in Consultation and In the Name of the Father. Jim Sheridan uses the theme of Betrayal of the law strongly in the plot line in, In the Name of the Father. The scene after Jerry is taken into jail without any evidence and his dad is also brought in, there is the actual man who bombed the restaurant. After finding this out, the police do not let Jerry and his father out; they just put the other man in jail. Jim Sheridan uses close-ups to express the emotion on each individuals face to show how everyone is affected by the betrayal of law.
However, Tom believes he will once again be judged by the color of his skin, and no evidence of any kind could prove his innocence. So, Tom makes an attempt to escape from jail. He is brutally shot seventeen times. The prison guards, filled with racial contempt for the Negro rapist of a white woman, not only kill Tom, but they also brutally mutilate his body by firing so many times. Mayella’s false accusations and lies caused Tom’s death.
Jennings has the right to sue Armington in Civil Court for Wrongful Act; pain and suffering brought on by being shot and seriously injured during the robbery (Miller, Jentz, 2008). In a Civil Court of law, all he has to do is provide burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence; Armington was robbing a drugstore, shot and seriously injured Jennings, the drugstore clerk during that time. Once Armington is found guilty (Verdict) by 3/4’s majority a remedy is render (monetary);damages to compensate for the harm or a decree to achieve an equitable result (Miller, Jentz,
The trial involves a nineteen-year-old boy, who is suspect of killing his father in a late-night altercation with an knife. His fate now lies in the hands of 12 jurors, each with his own determination to solve the case and reveal the truth. As the session takes its course, evidence becomes scrutinised, tempers rise, and the jury room erupts in a shouting brawl because one such juror finds reasonable doubts in the two testimonies that were deemed credible enough to convict. In his fight for an acquittal, the singled out juror found that the testimonial evidence was not only unreliable, but the timely fashion in which both the man and the woman alleged to have seen and heard the defendant were by far insufficient. Upon reaction to his vote, the dubious jurors immediately began questioning the man, not understanding how he could possibly think that way.
In January of this year, a judge in Luzerne County, Pa., was forced to acquit a man charged with homicide and first-degree murder in the death of a 1-year-old, and declare a mistrial on a number of other counts, after the court found out a juror had independently done online research about injuries sustained by the victim, and possibly offered to share her knowledge with the other jurors.” Imagine letting this happen to thousands of felons and then granting them freedom that they don’t deserve, just because jurors are careless. They are sworn to "to base your verdict solely upon the evidence” which they are not doing and are apparently taking the cases into their own hands and looking for other evidence that most likely is not