However, the Second Mile stated that they never knew anything about the incident, although this may not be accurate. Curley and Schultz were charged with failing to tell the police, and falsely telling the grand jury that they were never informed them about the incident. McQueary was a graduate assistant at the time and he displayed more good ethics than the organizational leadership of the school. By Curley and Schultz covering up the incident the abuse could continue because no one ever knew of Sandusky’s extreme unethical behaviors. However, McQueary attempted to do what was right by informing his superiors; but that was not enough to stop the abuse.
Likening such statements to fraud, defamation, or lies to government agencies, all of which can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment, the dissenters argued that the government should have a free hand to prosecute those who lie about having earned military honors. The dissenters recognized that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech, but argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because the subject matter of the lies does not relate to any protected
John Parker Professor Duncan Criminology 3 December 2012 Va Tech Massacre 1. Is there any value in trying to discover why this event happened? Personally finding out why Cho committed this tragedy would not change the way of things in the slightest. For example, if the reason for Cho committing the massacre was that he was bullied it wouldn’t have a value. The most that our society can do it say don’t bully other people, which I have personally experienced does not mean that people will not bully others.
The declaration also says the subjects should be volunteer's, in which these men were not exactly volunteering. The men came forward and agreed to the study because they were deceived of its real meaning and were enticed by free medical care. The wrongs of the Tuskegee study 3 The declaration then continues by saying the investigating team should discontinue research if it seems harmful to the subject, in this case the doctor's continued with the study, withholding treatment from the men knowing this disease could eventually kill them. These actions leave me to believe the doctor's had no concern for the over-all well being of their patients. Science and society should never take precedence over the well-being of the subject, yet in The Tuskegee Study the PHS was more worried about what their findings could do for science then they were with their participants health condition.
On top of pleading not guilty, he refused the advice of the attorney presented to him to plead insanity and blame it on black rage. The attorney tried to convince Ferguson that he would be likely to win if he plead not guilty on the basis of insanity and black rage which came from the suppression of African Americans in a white society. He refused to plead insanity and repeatedly told the court that he was sane- although he refused psychiatric analysis as well. He fired his attorney, shortly after he was granted him, and refused his right to be represented in the court of law, his right as an American citizen protected under the fourteenth amendment. This is what made this court case so interesting.
However Judge Simpkiss dismissed Mr Alanov’s claims for unlawful arrest, unlawful detention and assault because he believed that due to the fact that Mr Alanov was behaving aggressively and suspiciously justified the arrest without further question. This has later been re-examined and the judge has come to the conclusion Mr Alanov’s appalling behaviour did not make the arrest
First, he broke the department policy by not video recording the interview which was essential to built a solid case if they had confess in which he claimed the two did. Secondly, he did not have either of the young offenders guardian(s) present which was a grand mistake. Not only did he confess to intentionally crossing the line by avoiding bringing in the parents and including them in the interview he probably is also guilty of coercing them in the confession. According, to the self-incrimination clause it clearly states that any statement made by defendant(s) while in police custody before trail will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have the right to remain silent, the right to consult an attorney before being questioned, the right to have an attorney present during police questioning, the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, the right to be informed that any statement they do make can
Is it really just because of this word? Well this word is not offensive unless taking in the offensive manor in which this book does not present. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain should not be banned from schools because many people hear this word quite often in rap music, it would take away the meaning of the story, and this would be a from of censorship.
Postman uses a point-by-point argument to prove that Huxley’s vision is more relevant than Orwell’s. Postman says “What Orwell feared were those would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one” (Lines 12-13). Orwell’s vision of banning books could never happen in today’s society because of the first amendment. Banning of books can only take place in schools because the content could be too mature for youth, but students could still read the books outside of
• MLK made sure to let the community knew that violence was unacceptable. ‘We must not be guilty of wrongful deeds’ and ‘let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. • During the spring of 1961,