Reluctantly, the doctors said it was possible. To decide who would be the one to be eaten, Whetmore suggested they should roll a dice; Upon approval of the idea, Whetmore proceeded to lose the dice throw and was consumed by the remaining explorers. Finally, on the thirty-second day, the survivors were rescued. However, the surviving cave explorers were then indicted for the murder of Whetmore upon being recused. After trials had concluded, the Supreme Court deemed the cave explorers guilty in the murder of Roger Whetmore.
After they were rescued, they were put on trail and found guilty for the murder of Roger Whetmore, and sentenced to be hanged. A petition of error was brought before a court of five supreme justices to appeal the verdict based on the letter of the statute “Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death”. Although the letter is clear and simple ,it does not take into account the complications and the circumstances surrounding the case .It could be looked at, on the first hand, from the point of murder and the repelling idea of cannibalism, but on the other hand, in such situation when the matter of survival takes place, one might justify it, considering the decision was made on a fair basis, and even argues the lack of a clear letter of the law concerning such a predicament so no conviction shall take place. Each justice driven by his own morals and common sense tries to put the pieces together leading to the verdict he sees fit. After thoroughly going through the details of the case and the arguments of his colleagues Handy, J starts by saying “I never cease to wonder at my colleagues' ability to throw an obscuring curtain of legalisms about every issue presented to them for decision” .The justice here wonders whether complicating the facts of a simple case by going out of context with legal terms and ideologies ,would only serve as obstacles resulting in increasing the perplexity of the case and preventing the basic human common sense from looking at the core facts to reach the desired conclusion.
Firstly, we frame the question, and the question will be “Should Carl shoot the two rapists?” then create the maxim, for Carl’s situation will be “When my daughter was raped then I want to see the justice be done, then I kill the men, otherwise they may just get few years in jail only.” Then, the interesting point is universalizing the maxim, so if Carl kills and everyone can kill. Moreover, we should think about the Carl intention. I think this is really unusual thought about killing and justice connection. So think about the universalizing the maxim for two boys’ action if two boys rape people then everyone can rape others without the guilty. Maybe Carl’s situation in Kantianism is more understandable because intention matter not consequence.
Inductive or Deductive Reasoning Name:Inductive Instructor’s Name: Wilson University: john Tyler Date: 4/11/2014 Inductive Reasoning: A Case of Twelve Angry Men Twelve Angry Men is a movie that out rightly uses inductive reasoning to judge whether or not a Puerto Rican boy is guilty or not of killing his father with a switch blade. The judge in this case gave instructions to the jury to treat the case as a pre-meditated murder which deserved a mandatory death sentence. Just like any other lawful cases, the judge emphasized on the fact that the boy is innocent until proven guilty. The aspect of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ forms the basis for argument in the Twelve Angry Men. While in the jury room a vote was conducted to determine what people thought of the boy –guilty or not guilty.
The juvenile court did make the decision to transfer his case, therefore; Stanford would be trialed as an adult under a state statute permitting such action as to offenders who are either charged with a class A felony, capital crime or anyone over the age of sixteen and charged with a felony. ( (Death Penalty in America,)Legal Studies 485, Spring 2003. Stanford was convicted of murder, first degree sodomy, first degree robbery, and receiving stolen property. He was sentenced to death and forty five years in prison. Stanford appealed this sentencing on the notion that his eight amendments protectipon against cruel and unusual punishment had been violated.
In one scene, Dredd, the street judge, faces a standoff with a criminal who had just murdered innocents, and by following procedure he states the sentencing of the crimes, life in iso-cube without parole, and ask if he complies. Dredd then added that if he does not comply the sentence is death. (The iso-cube is a form of
1) Analyze how the jurors’ personality traits influenced the group decision process. In so doing, identify the most critical moments which can support your argument. Moreover, identify the main roles within the jury, and describe possible correlations between jurors’ personality traits and such roles In the 1957 classic film “12 Angry Men”, group dynamics are portrayed through a jury deliberation. On “the hottest day of the year, without air-condition”, 12 jurors have the duty to decide whether a young boy from the slums murdered his father and should be executed. To render a verdict, they must unanimously vote that the boy did or did not kill his father beyond all reasonable doubt.
By the end of my speech you will better understand both sides of the death penalty 3. The death penalty is a very controversial topic to this day and we will just slightly skim the surface with facts and statistics on one of the biggest arguments of all time. Introduction (20 points) 1. Ana Marie Cardona was sentenced from Miami-Dade County for the torture murder of her 3-year-old son. The boy was nicknamed “ Baby Lollipops” because of the tee shirt he was wearing when the police found his beaten body.
The movie has some very interesting narrative elements. The plot is about a man who is wrongly convicted of the murder of his wife and her lover. He is sentenced to serve out a life sentence at Shawshank Prison. The movie is set during the years of 1947-1966 and follows his experiences once he arrives at the prison. In act one, although Andy profusely claims his innocence, he is convicted anyway and sent to Shawshank.
Then it cuts to being questioned in a courtroom. He is on trial for the murder of his wife and her lover. Andy is sentenced to two life sentences for the murders. It is now Red (Morgan Freeman) in front of a prison council trying to get parole. He is denied the request.