1. Dudley and Stephens should be accused of a wrong because; even though they were suffering from intense hunger, there is no legal justification for murder. Also, Richard Parker did not have an equal chance of survival for he was not consented on the matter, and he was weaker.
They should have been convicted because despite the circumstances, they had committed—murder—a crime nonetheless. And, there was no proof that the men would not have been able to survive without food until rescue came.
I do not agree with their death sentence because although they did commit murder, they were suffering of extreme starvation—causing disorientation and rash behavior. I think that a more minor sentence—3 to 5 years—would have been more appropriate.
2. Brooks should not have been charged with murder or any other crime because he had clearly dissented any motives to kill Richard Parker. On the eighteenth day, Brooks was not in accord with killing Richard Parker—even for survival. On the nineteenth day, he did not agree with drawing lots to decide upon which crewmember was going to be killed, and the lots were never drawn. Finally, on the twentieth day, he did not support Richard Parkers murder or death. It may be argued that because he had participated in feeding on Richard Parkers flesh, that he was guilty, but the only reason he did so was because he was suffering from extreme starvation. In conclusion, Brooks was not charged with accessory to murder considering the fact that he dissented all suggestions to kill the innocent, Richard Parker, and given the circumstances he could not have saved the victim anyways.
3. All four men on this boat either had rights and/or responsibilities that they should have followed.
Dudley and Stephens both...
... middle of paper ...
...ncreased. Without food, they would have suffered a slow and painful death due to harsh climate. Lastly, the survivors from the plane crash only ate those who had died from an avalanche; they never committed murder. The fact that the survivors did not kill the people that they ate—like Dudley and Stephens had—means that they did not commit any major crimes.
Dudley and Stephens should have waited until one of the crewmembers died before eating his body. If Dudley and Stephens had acted accordingly—only eating a crewmember once they had died, it is almost certain that they would not have been imprisoned. But by killing Richard Parker, they have not only violated the law, but various morals, and human rights as well. In a word, Dudley and Stephens most definitely should have waited for a crewmember to die before disobeying the law, and breaking several moral codes.
Koch cites the pleas of the two men executed who argued before they were put to death that murder is wrong regardless of the circumstances. Both convicted killers acknowledged that what they had done was wrong but further contended that putting them to death was equally unjust.
So what am I really trying to say here. Well, in the context of the society and the situation. I believe this punishment was fair. I believe such because the punishment was thoughtfully applied and was not biased or bought. It went according to the law and to social customs of the time and place and was, therefore, fair and proper. Being fair and proper automatically makes it
Based on the evidence and trial proceedings, I believe that Kenneth should not have been given the opportunity for a plea bargain. Both men had tortured their victims a lot, so it does not make sense to allow one to have the slightest chance of gaining freedom in the future. Kenneth did help with the torturing, raping, kidnapping and killing of women, but he has the chance of getting out of jail. The jury ruling seemed to have fallen for what has been written as Kenneth’s charm because they did not condemn either man to death. Certain states in America have the punishment of death for perpetrators such as this duo but they wrote it off. In my honest opinion, this sentence seems to be too lenient because what Judge George said about them living a life of comfort is true. They should feel pain and regret for what they did.
While obtaining food seemed to be the entire purpose of life for the people imprisoned in the camps, it often killed more people than it saved. Though focusing on food seemed like a logical thing to do when you are being starved, it was not always very effective in helping people survive. There are many situations in the book illustrating how living for the sole purpose of acquiring food—under any condition—could turn out to be lethal.
In To Kill a Mockingbird, a conflict that connects to the theme innocence should be protected is the death of Tom Robinson. Once found guilty, Tom Robinson was placed in prison. Because of his race, Robinson knew he would be sentenced the death penalty. Soon after being convicted, Robinson tried to escape. He knew that he didn’t deserve to be punished. While trying to escape, he was shot 17 times by p...
Brown then asked Judge Sebe Dale’s to drop the case because a black man was not on the grand jury. Brown did this because of a recent ruling made by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling stated that it was unconstitutional for a jury of an all-white person to convict a black man. The ruling went on to say that one African American had to be on a jury when an African American was on trial. This defense tactic by Brown was a legally intelligent thing to do, but this actually became the motive for the mob to kill Parker.
... differently depending on what their personal biases and prejudices are. This shows that just because the jury could not successfully sentence her to the death penalty, it does not mean that she in undeserving.
...hould have gone to prison for the evidence that they found. And this should stand as a reminder for future police officers that they need to follow all the rules set forth by the 4th amendment and stop this from happening again. Just to save some paperwork the police officers cost them to lose this case and someone who should be in prison is free to do this again.
There are four men stranded on a boat who are introduced in the beginning of the story. The cook, the oiler, the correspondent, and the captain are all on a boat that "a man ought to have a bath tub larger than" (360). As the men fight the crest of each wave they encounter, it is obvious that this is a desperate situation. Showing their powerlessness the narrator describes a group of birds as sitting ."..comfortably in groups, and they were envied by some in the dinghy, for the wrath of the sea was no more to them than it was to a covey of prairie chickens a thousand miles inland" (363). Even though the men are in grave danger, the sun rises and sets and a shark even swims by but seems to have no need for the men in the boat. The men even believe that the waves are harsh on them and want to capsize the boat. The narrator explains that "[the waves were] nervously anxious to do something effective in the way of swamping boats" (361). Even though it is obvious that the ocean always has waves, it is hard fo...
In the film “ A Few Good Men” the rule of law and fundamental justice were not followed by Lance Cpl. Harold and Pfc. Louden Downey. The rule of law was disobeyed as soon as Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden acted above the law. They committed a criminal offence and disregarded Pvt. Santiago's rights. Although, the orders were given by superior officer, Col. Nathan Joseph, the fact of the matter still remains the same, a crime was committed . Pvt. Santiago’s rights were not taken into consideration, which inevitably lead to his death. Although Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden clearly disregarded the rules of law and acted above the law, procedural justice was still exercised. Both Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden were given rights to a fair trial and the
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
Many parallels can be drawn between the works of W.E.B. DuBois and those of James Weldon Johnson. Johnson was greatly influenced by many concepts created by DuBois, especially those presented in DuBois's classic work The Souls of Black Folk. Johnson was so impressed with DuBois and his ideas that he sought him out in 1904 at Atlanta University. The two men developed a strong friendship and later worked for years together in the NAACP, Johnson's diplomatic temperment often balancing DuBois's more volitile one.*
"The only thing we've got is a black man's word against the Ewells'. The evidence boils down to you-did-I-didn't. The jury couldn't possibly be expected to take Tom Robinson's word against the Ewells'.
These people were executed cruelly by capital punishment in countries all over the globe. 970 of these people were women and children. They are all children. The countries allowing this barbaric method of punishment to happen have probably never thought about this scheme of punishment is actually successful in the deterring of crime. I have many reasons for arguing against capital punishment.
In 1842 a tragedy occurred when a ship struck an iceberg and more than thirty passengers piled onto a rescue boat that was meant to hold a maximum of seven people. As a storm became evident and water rushed into the lifeboat, it was clear that in order for anyone to survive the load would need to be lightened. The commanding captain suggested that some people would need to be thrown overboard in order for anyone to survive. There was a great argument on the boat between the captain and the passengers who opposed his decision. Some suggested that the weakest should be drowned, as miles of rowing the lifeboat would take toll on even the strongest. This reasoning would also make it absurd to draw names of who should be thrown over. Others suggested that if they all stayed onboard no one would be responsible for the deaths, although the captain argued he would be guilty if those who he could have saved perished in the process. Alternatively the captain decided that the weakest would be sacrificed in order to save the few left on the lifeboat. Days later the survivors were rescued and the captain was put on trial for his virtues.