Abel Ramirez Araiza SOCI 1301 Assignment 2 7 October 2010 Control Room Controversy can easily misconstrue the actions and opinions of others in various ways. Pointing the finger and defining criminal acts does not seem hard, especially when policy makers are the ones doing it (Lecture). In the Control Room, media is the main object in which surrounds the movie. At the beginning, George W. Bush comes out on the television giving a speech to the Arabs about “peace” and promising that America is not seeking war between Iraq, only peace. After the speech subtitles stated, “Bush talked about peace, yet people were getting killed”, which to me, after watching the entire movie, basically summed up the main idea of the story and how ideological
Its role is to fulfill what the fore fathers wanted when they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
We agreed it was ineffective and decided a ballot initiative was needed to expand the number of murder categories eligible for capital punishment. We felt such changes would give prosecutors better tools for meting out just punishments, and that a broadened statute would serve as a warning to all California evildoers that the state would deliver swift and final justice. We thought we were creating a national model for capital
D. I think what they need to do is modify the law to say that the third strike has to be a violent felony IV. In an opinion the court holds that a defendant serving a sentence under the three strikes law may file a writ of habeas corpus. V. California voters considered Proposition 66, which aimed to significantly revise the Three Strikes law. IV. Three Strikes revised Annqunette Williams March 18, 2013 I do support the proposed amendment to our Three Strikes Law, arguing that it will help protect the public from the small, hard core population of career criminals.
They used proof of Dahmer’s decisions to protect himself during sex, and the acid to get rid of the bodies to create his sentencing. They jury said that evidence helped determine that he knew what he was doing. The jury came up with the verdict and sentenced him to 957 years in prison. Dahmer was said to be stoic as the verdict was read and people in the court claimed that their faith in the judicial system was restored. The court’s decision moved him to Ohio to carry out his sentence.
Reaction for The brain on trial Jingyi wang In this article,David Eagleman showed us that how the foundations of our criminal-justice system are beginning to crumble and he argues that a “forward-thinking legal system” will respond to neuroscience’s increasing capacity to demonstrate the illusory nature of free will by developing “customized rehabilitation” for criminal behavior.In additon,he thought that we should redesign our legal system to reflect how much we know about the brain.After reading this article,i agree with a lot of what he argued,but sometimes we just can't make things too extreme. He uses several cases that shows the criminals were found to have brain abnormalities to support his idea. As the first example he used at the begining of this article, Eagleman points to Charles Whitman, a 25-year-old who in 1966 took the lives of innocent strangers from the University of Texas Tower in Austin, as well as those of his wife and mother. An autopsy of Whitman’s brain revealed a tumor, which, according to Eagleman, accounted for Whitman’s self-reported experience of being “a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.” He argues that Whitman’s tumor was compressing the amygdala, a region of the brain known to be involved in fear and anger, and suggests that this tumor was principally responsible for Whitman’s homicidal actions.This made me pretty curious.After searching some information about this, i found that the damage or pressure to the amygdala won't directly cause a human being aggresive.This case is not strong enough to support his arguments. Eagleman urges to drop assessment of blameworthiness, or intent altogether, and instead look to the future, at reducing recidivism.
He concludes by saying anesthesia needs to be abolished, and in order to kill a person we, as a people will find a constitutional way to kill them. The article that Blecker wrote supports his view of executing the death penalty more often and without hesitation. In the beginning, there is an ethical appeal since he is professional in this field, his degree and status is shared to help support his argument to the audience. The audience understands that the author knows what he is talking about and all his arguments have a valid point. He starts by ridiculing his opponents on the death penalty by stating, “Let the
This shows he cares more about what is right for the people then his own personal benefits. The authors used very strong language quoted by Del. Davis throughout the paper such as, “the death penalty is flawed, ineffective and racially biased. And if we can get enough people to understand that, then in a few years we can repeal the death penalty in the United States once and for all” (Jealous & Braveboy, p. 11). Those sentences speak a lot about how powerful words can affect us.
The criminal justice system is not different and constantly evolves to adapt to its environment. The court system in the United States is overrun with cases and appears to be an ineffective way in offering the accused a speedy trial or an effective way to possible appeal a conviction. The following ideas are presented as ways of improving the appeals process. I believe in criminal cases that have sufficient evidence to convict the accused with a one hundred percent degree of certainty should not be able to be appealed at any level. For example, if the accused admits to the crime or if there is proof positive that the accused committed the crime, they should waive the right to an appeal.
Possessing the authority to remove or grant someone their freedom in the courtroom is a huge responsibility, therefore the ramifications of jury decisions being based on stereotypic preconceptions is tremendous for society, possibly destroying the reputation of the legal system as one that is impartial and fair. References: Lilienfeld, S. Lynn, S. Namy, L. Woolf, N. Jamieson, G. Haslam, N. Slaughter, V. (2012). Psychology: From inquiry to understanding. Pearson Australia. 579.