The agents were overpowered both in numbers and in firepower. Although it is tragic that two innocent FBI agents had been killed, this case was an injustice to Peltier and he did not deserve the punishment given to him. The only thing the FBI had right was that two of their agents had been killed. They had poor leads and were determined to get a conviction for the murders and Peltier was their last chance. What failed to be verified was who killed the agents.
Ms. Petrocelli is contrasting his plea of innocent, by convincing the jury that he is guilty only because he was at the scene during the robbery-homicide was taken place. He is also being charged because he is associated with all three men that were physically involved in the murder of Mr. Nesbitt. This is insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Harmon is guilty in this case. If this was accurate, then anybody who was at the scene of a crime should also be guilty. There
To begin with, Wargrave tries to bring justice to innocent victims, but ends up breaking the law in the process. He chooses to kill the guilty who cannot be touched by the law in order to avenge the lives that were lost due to those people. Justice Wargrave has no right to choose the punishments of individuals at fault, no matter how horrible the crime one has committed. But, he
In this case, we should be aware of the past tense verb ‘was’. Because Singleton became insane while in prison for felony capital murder, his death sentence became uncertain. Although it seems obvious there is an unstated premise and that is that his death sentence became uncertain. The validity of this argument is demonstrated by a deductive sequence. The argument is valid because the premise and conclusion are both true.
Why are we trying Bales? In the article “fReeBale-Yes!” English professor Michael Fisher introduces his readers to a recent crime committed by a US Army soldier who allegedly shot and killed 16-17 innocent lives while deployed on a tour in Afghanistan. Fisher states that Staff Sergeant Robert Bales should plead guilty for the charges against him whether he committed them or not. I personally respect Fishers argument although I strongly believe Bales has already established a foundation for a path towards his own freedom by receiving the right to be tried in the US rather than the country his crime was committed in. Fisher proposes valuable points about the possible outcome of this trial if Bales was to be set free by the American court system.
CRIM JUS 105 September 12, 2012 Civil law vs Criminal law O.J Simpson Case November 2 1994, American Football Star and Actor, Orenthal James Simpson was accused by the People of the State of California of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. Simpson was found acquitted of the murder in a criminal trial and liable for wrongful death in a civil trial. How could he be responsible for the death of both Brown and Goldman in a civil case but acquitted in a criminal case? By examining how the American criminal justice system works in this case the audience can understand why O.J Simpson received the sentences that were bestowed upon him. Simpson was acquitted, meaning declared not guilty, for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.
In 2007 a book titled If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer was released and many people considered this to be O.J.’s confession. Even though it wasn’t a direct confession courts could use the book as a guide to find more compelling evidence to convict him. The only problem with that is they can’t because The Double Jeopardy Rule prevents the courts from ever trying him again for the murder of his wife and her friend. Situations such as this one causes Americans to lose faith in the U.S Court System when they witness a guilty person get away with a crime where there is evidence that proves them guilty. Also this only encourages other criminals to believe that they have a chance of getting away with crimes, therefore increasing the crime rate.
In fact, the state of Texas has a reputation known for enforcing the death penalty. However, in all of the years mankind knowing of such barbaric punishment, can one actually say that it is just and applied fairly? Despite the fact that the death penalty may seem like justice, the death penalty is a barbaric act that is not applied fairly and is unjust to mankind because there have been innocent people convicted of crimes that they did not commit. Certain factors such as race, location, and money play a large part on how unjust and fair the death penalty is applied. The death penalty is a barbaric action that is unjust and applied unfairly to mankind because although half of the homicide victims are people of color, more than 80 percent of the prisoners executed were convicted of killing whites.
According to (Turvey, 2011), the term serial killer developed from an FBI profiler special agent; Robert K. Ressler. Ressler, depicts the offender as individuals who are obsessed with some type of fantasy that he or she has not been able to fulfill, therefore causing him or her to commit their next crime. The act that defines the serial killer is when there are two or more related murders. (Turvey, 2011, pg. 542) Serial killers are a complete headache for
The right to bear arms has by far been the most unequivocal mistake our founding fathers have ever made. Guns not only perpetuate violence, but they set a precedent for impending violence all throughout the world. Violence that would not happen if it were not for the use of guns. Adolf Hitler, a man who has seen first hand the destruction of gun control has stated: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing” Allowing people throughout the country to own a weapon will cause utter and complete chaos.