More handpicked essays just for you.
Criminal justice system in oj simpson case
Problems with the oj simpson case
Problems with the oj simpson case
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
O.J. Simpson is Guilty
This paper attempts to prove that O.J. Simpson is guilty by giving
evidence from both sides, and statements made by witnesses.
On June 12, 1994, two people were brutally killed. Those two people
were Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Nicole was O.J. Simpson's ex-wife.
O.J. was arrested the next day and charged with double homicide.
O.J. pled innocent to murder chargers against him and went to trial in
criminal court. The trial lasted a year, and caused worldwide media excitement.
There was so much evidence against him, it seemed almost impossible for
him to be that he'd be found innocent. For example, the famous bloody glove
found behind the guest house was proven by DNA testing to have O.J.'s blood and
hair, Nicole's blo...
We were presented with many facts that all pointed to Mr. Washburn as the murder. In the house all of the entrances were thoroughly inspected by authorities, and they found no sign of ransacking. “[They] examined all the locking mechanisms, all the doors and windows. In [their] opinion there was no evidence of any forced entry” (P.81). When police looked for fingerprints, “They were all of the Washburn family and the maid” (P.81). There was no trace of an outside party; somebody usually in the Washburn house committed the murder. While in the living room, an officer found a drop of blood. The evidence technician was called the next night to run some tests. “He sprayed the living room carpet with luminol. It is a luminous spray, and when it comes in contact with blood it illuminates” (P.82). To both men’s surprise the whole living room was illuminating. After spraying further the men found a trail from the living room through the kitchen to the garage. In the closet the men found a wet mop, which was tested for blood and also came back positive. Somebody tried to clean his or her bloody mess, and try to save himself. The physical evidence proves the killer was somebody who was familiar to the Washburn household.
Two detectives were assigned to the case: Harry Hanson and Finis Brown. [2] When they and the police arrived at the crime scene, it was already swarming with people, gawkers and reporters. The entire situation was out of hand and crowded, everyone trampling all over any hopes for good evidence. [2] One thing they did report finding was a nearby cement block with watery blood on it, tire tracks and a heel print on the ground. There was dew under the body so they knew it had been set there just after 2 a.m. when temperatures dropped to 38 degrees.
Aristotle seeks flourishing happiness in life. He believes that this can be achieved for each individual through the embracement of virtues. Aristotle believes that virtues are the mean of two vices. This is the basis of the Aristotelian “Doctrine of the Mean”. This paper will explore the basis of the Doctrine of the Mean, its connections to Eudaimonia, and its success or lack thereof.
A crime being committed is the first event to initiate our criminal justice system. On June 12th 1994 a double murder was reported at the residence of Nicole Brown Simpson the ex-wife of the then beloved Orenthal James (OJ) Simpson. It was discovered that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman had been brutally murdered and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began their investigation, this being the second step in our criminal justice system.
Ross, David (1925). Aristotle The Nicomachean Ethics: Translated with an Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-283407-X.. Re-issued 1980, revised by J. L. Ackrill and J. O. Urmson.
something made for a specific purpose) or from nature has a specific ergon, or function. For example, the function of a lamp is to provide light, and for a plant to live. So, a good lamp, would be one that provides light well. Something is considered good, then, by how well it performs its function. But who is to say that, like plants, living is not a human function as well? Aristotle addresses this issue. He claims that if humans are different from, say, plants, then they must also have a differing function from plants. If deities are purely rational beings and animals are driven by instinct and emotion, humans share both these things and land in between the two. This makes humans distinct from other beings. Aristotle recognizes these shared traits and names the human soul in two parts: the non-rational, and the rational, which performs a “special function” (N.E. 1.7 1097a35) unique from plants and animals. The rational side of the soul – one that expresses reason which distinguishes humans from animals – is deemed higher than the non-rational. So, the human function is to express reason. More importantly, humans must express reason well, which involves managing the non-rational side. Aristotle states that, “For in the continent and the incontinent person we praise their reason, i.e. the of the soul that has reason, because it exhorts them correctly and towards what is best;
According to the Innocence Project (2006), “On September 17, 2001, Chad wrote the Innocence Project in New York, which, in 2003, enlisted pro bono counsel from Holland & Knight to file a motion for DNA testing on Tina’s fingernail scrapings.” The state had tested the DNA that was under Tina’s nail from the first case but at that time it was inadequate and could not be tested. It was not until now that we have the technology capable enough to test it. In June 2004, the test came back negative to matching both Jeremey and Chain Heins but did come from an unknown male. The state argued that it was not enough to overturn the conviction so Chad’s attorney asked the state to do some further testing and to compare the DNA from under the fingernails to the hairs that was found on Tina’s body. It was in 2005 that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed that there was a match between the DNA under Tina’s nail and the pubic hair. According to LaForgia (2006), “this particular type of DNA, the report stated, was found in only about 8 percent of Caucasian American men.” During this process there was a new piece of evidence that Chad’s attorney had learned about during the appeals process, a fingerprint. There were some accusations that the prosecutors never disclosed this information about this third fingerprint and if they did it was too late. The jurors did not even know about this fingerprint and if they did this could have changed the whole case. This fingerprint was found on several objects that included the smoke detector, a piece of glass, and the bathroom sink. It was soon discovered that this fingerprint matched with the DNA found on the bedsheets that Tina was on. This was finally enough evidence to help Chad Heins become exonerated in
Kevin, Johnson. “DNA clears Ramsey family in JonBenet’s death.” USA Today n.d.: MAS Ultra-School Edition. Web. 20. Feb. 2014.
A media frenzy surrounded this case from the very beginning. O. J. Simpson conveniently had a late flight the night of the crime, meaning he would be gone for a while. Simpson’s Ford Bronco was seized as evidence as blood had been found on the inside and outside of the car, the blood later would be tested and confirmed as matching that of both victims. Along with the Ford Bronco being seized, a bloody glove was found at the estate of O.J. Simpson the night of the murder. A report from The New York Times about May 10, 1995 stated that “ In testimony that linked O. J. Simpson directly to the murder scene for the first time, a forensic scientist testified today that DNA tests showed a genetic match between Mr. Simpson's blood and splotches found near the slashed bodies of his former wife and her friend.
Paul House’s murder conviction in 1985 set the stage for the importance of DNA evidence inclusion in murder cases. The fact that it took 22 years to overturn his conviction gives the reason for reform in our criminal justice system (Neubaeur & Fradella, 2009). The public should realize that Hollywood is all lights, camera, action, and does not represent factual information. Most of these shows have that disclaimer at the beginning or end of the segment.
Philosophers since antiquity have argued the merits of mathematics as a normative aid in ethical decision-making and of the mathematization of ethics a theoretical discipline. Recently, Anagnostopoulos, Annas, Broadie and Hutchinson have probed such issues said to be of interest to Aristotle. Despite their studies, the sense in which Aristotle either opposed or proposed a mathematical ethics in subject-matter and method remains unclear. This paper attempts to clarify the matter. It shows Aristotle’s matrix of exactness and inexactness for ethical subject-matter and ethical method in the Nicomachean Ethics. Then it probes a resultant puzzle from the matrix, namely, the HL model of the happy life without consideration of mathematical justice (Bk. III) and the HJL model of the happy life with such consideration (Bk. V). Finally, it examines Aristotle’s twofold rationale for differentiating these two models in his overall moral feedback loop system: differences in the intellectual virtue of good deliberation; the priority of friendship over justice for the happy life. This suggests Aristotle saw no objection either to using mathematics as an aid to ethical decision-making for a happy life, or to mathematizing at least some parts of an ethical theory of eudaimonism.
If Aristotle had never been born, the world would be different because since logic is the fundamental of arguing and since good arguments are fundamental to philosophy and life it then creates an entire basis on communication, my second argument is dipping into the turbulent but astounding knowledge through metaphysics as we go we start to explore and uncover the free will and truths behind the ultimate nature of reality, my last argument will be on what Aristotle accomplished during the time when he taught Alexander The Great.
Aristotle determined that the purpose of humankind is to continually think rationally and to develop a rational character. He believed that we must obtain knowledge to determine which action is best. To determine which action is best, Aristotle believed that one learns right from wrong, through consistency and developing habits (Kraut). The end goal of all human life, is to feel happy. Aristotle concluded that, in order to be happy, a person must reason; the more one reasons, the happier and the more virtuous the person will be. Anything that does not contribute to happiness and becoming virtuous, is considered a vice. Aristotle believed that virtue ethics were something someone is born with however, virtue ethics must be molded. Many philosophers in other cultures agreed with him, however, some
Interest is sparked in this area that Aristotle writes of because there is a natural need for Ethics in human life. John K. Roth states, “Aristotle assumes that all things, human beings included, have a good, a purpose or end, which it is their nature to fulfill”. This helps one understand Aristotle’s way of thinking, and provides insight to the basis of his theories. A common theory explored by Aristotle is the Ethics of Virtues, and how to practice them. A theory included in Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is the unity of all the virtues, and in order to be virtuous, one must exhibit all the virtues. One of these virtues being practical wisdom, or Phronesis.
He disposed of his shirt, pants and most of his clothing from that night. But not his leather jacket. His jacket was one of his favorite possessions, so he didn’t throw it out. He made his friend clean it. When detectives interviewed him, they asked for his jacket. Michael had a piece of clothing with Patti’s blood on it which gave the State Police reason to arrest 59 year old Michael. Two other police sources found that traces of his wife’s blood were detected on the leather jacket through DNA testing that did not exist 34 years ago. Which was argued by Rodriguez´s defense attorney in front of the jury that key evidence related to this case was mishandled by police, because they kept bloody garments and a leather jacket Michael Rodriguez had been wearing close to each other, while the evidence was being