"I can 't define what it is but I know it when I see it," (Loco Parentis"). In today 's society, parental neglect and abuse is covered on the news every single day across the globe. Recently a plethora of new cases are being defined as "Loco Parentis". Loco Parentis is a phrase in Latin meaning for in place of a parent and in court usually refers to a specific person or organization to take on some of the responsibility for the crime that has taken place. This is the conflict brought up in the case of John Telford and the murder of Chris Skinner , and the role of John 's father in this whole epidemic. While charging someone with "Loco Parentis" is not an easy task to accomplish in any case, Robert Telford 's actions of neglect and emotional …show more content…
Throughout this particular case the audience learns numerous details about how John 's personal life may have led him to be a killer. John was a part of a group at school known as the "freaks" who were constantly victims of the popular kids ' bullying and taunts. John was even mugged at the young age of only thirteen by some older classmates. John 's father 's response was highly negative and abusive, telling John repeatedly that he was ashamed of him and that he needed to toughen up and be a man, and bought his son illegal weapons and violent video games instead of helping his son confront his conflicts. Later in the case the jury is introduced to Leo Clayton a boy who has experienced numerous of the same traumatic events that John had been tormented with, except for the fact that Leo 's father actually listened to his sons silent cries for help and confronted Robert about John 's inappropriate behavior at school towards Leo. While this did not eliminate Leo 's problems it did open a healthy and communicative relationship between father and son and showed Leo that he was not fighting this battle alone and that he was …show more content…
While John 's mother never confronted her husband about his actions, or went to the police before the murder she did eventually confront the police during the trial. " Sandra Telford had her husband served with divorce papers at Riker," (Locos Parentis"). While this was the right thing in the end, later everyone was debating on whether or not she should go to jail as well, but in this case I believe that she was just as much as a victim as John and Chris were. For all the jury and police know she could have been physically abused, and even gas lighted by her husband which makes it even harder to leave. These possibilities make it harder to leave someone and with a total of 4,000 deaths every year related to domestic violence she could have been attempting to protect her own life. While she personally was not convicted of any crime in this case, Robert took a deal and got two to six years in prison, his son was sentenced to ten plus years. This particular sentence is unjust due to the fact that John could have been dealing with the abuse from his father starting from the time he was born, so he may not know right from wrong. Due to this factor and evidence in the case I believe John should be put into a mental hospital so he can attempt to learn right from wrong and get the therapy he obviously needs. Looking at the evidence against Robert I believe
Charles Smith attacked easy targets; many of those he helped convict shared parenting similarities. James Lockyer represented Marquardt and several others in which Smith played a part in the conviction. He asserts that being an “easy, easy mark” was the common denominator among those he helped exonerate from Smith’s wrongdoing and “Tammy was a good example of an easy mark [being] a young, single mother who was impoverished and on welfare” (Shapiro, 2011). It becomes very clear that Charles Smith targeted his victims regardless of the evidence found (or fabricated) to support their guilt or innocence. He speculated on issues that were so far from his line of duty as a medical expert, raising legitimate concern of his intention to fulfill his assigned role, or if his desire be a hero for the prosecution and secure convictions of ‘failed parents’. Tammy Marquardt easily fit into this category of poor parent being a “teen mother with a history of substance abuse and troubled relationships with men” (Shapiro, 2011). Her lifestyle and choices were classified as deviant, leaving her stigmatized. Her youth and heavy drug use raised questions about her ability to parent responsibly and were consequently used to convict her. The cold, hard facts of the case meant less to the Crown than the social status of the accused, as is often seen in cases of wrongful
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
For instance, Dally did not have much to live for. No family that loved him except for Johnny, just a couple of Old’ friends. He already has a police record, because of how is is so disobedient to the laws. The only fun in Dallys life was picking up girls and finding some new ways to break the law. He never cared for anyone but Johnny, and once Johnny had died that was the end. Dallas did not know how else to handle himself. When Darry got the phone call Ponyboys thoughts scattered then came to a conclusion, “But I knew that was what he wanted, even as the lot echoed with the cracks of the shots, even as I begged silently please, not him… not him and Johnny both - I knew he would be dead, because Dally Winston wanted to be dead and he always got what he wanted”(154). Like Pony said, Dally always got what he wanted and he definitely did. Once Johnny died he did not care about anything in life. Conversely, Johnny had a lot to live for. He is only sixteen years old and he has a lot ahead of him. Johnny was very law abiding he tried hard not to get into any trouble or break any laws. Now that he has made that mistake with Bob he thinks he has ruined his whole life. He has not, there is much more ahead of him. Johnny had died a hero by saving all those kids at the burning church. He finally understands, “Listen, I don’t mind dying now. It's worth it, It’s worth saving those kids. Their lives are
As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.
Although Johnny did kill someone these are reasons why a boy named Johnny is innocent. Johnny is innocent and is the hero of the gang because he had saved kids from a burning church and he kept Bob from killing Pony. This proves that Johnny is a hero of the
The investigation for the death of these young men and teenage boys continued for approximately 6 years, Gacy not being a true suspect until the awful end. One of the key factors in Gacy’s incarceration was the statement made by a boy named Donald Vorhees. No one could believe it when Vorhees came forward, claiming that John Wayne Gacy had molested him and then hired an employee to attack Vorhees in order to prevent him from testifying (“John Wayne Gacy Biography”). Gacy was finally caught when a surveillance detective on the case was in his home and smelled something awful coming from the heating vent. It would later be revealed that this smell was the decomposing bodies of twenty-nine teenage boys and young men (Bonn). When his house was searched, police found a class ring that seemed to belong to one of the victims, clothes that were much too small for Gacy, and an assortment of other suspicious items (“John Wayne Gacy”). The lack of suspicion surrounding John Wayne Gacy allowed him to get away with more crimes than any other, less respected member of
July 15, 1999, was an ordinary night for Kristopher Lohrmeyer as he left work at the Colorado City Creamer, a popular ice cream parlor. Kristopher had no idea that his life was about to end. When Michael Brown, 17, Derrick Miller and Andrew (Andy) Medina, 15, approached Kristopher and demanded his money and his car keys. Before the boys knew it shots had been fired and Kristopher was dead. About an hour after the fatal shooting of Kristopher Lohrmeyer, all three men were in custody and telling their version of the night’s events. Michael and Derrick who had run away after the shooting confessed to police and named Andy as the shooter. According to the three boy’s testimony, they had only recently met and needed away to get some quick cash, so they developed a carjacking scheme and headed to Andy’s house to pick up 2 stolen handguns. The three boys were uneducated and had spent most of their time on the streets in search of drugs. The judge ruled that they would be held without bail and there was probable cause to charge them all with first-degree murder (Thrown Away, 2005).
In conclusion, John seemed to be heavily influenced by his peers and environments, the interview of John’s mother provided us with some background and the conditions of his family. John’s mother is a single mom who appears to be overwhelmed by works, making it difficult for her to look after her own child. John on the other hand, would not cooperate and identify his peers and in additions, he is showing no sign of remorse. Although, John is only a fourteen years old boy, his actions and behaviors will certainly be developed into a more serious crime if we allow the pattern to continue. Lastly, I think John needs to be fully evaluated, he should be punished with harsher punishments and he needs to be isolated from his peers along with the treatment programs for his drug abuses.
As juror number one, I had to research why Johnny should, or should not be tried for the murder of Bob Sheldon, the Soc. I also had to research murder among teens and what happened during the killing of Bob Sheldon. During my research, I found that murder was considered a premeditated killing, and I also found that Johnny can only be tried for murder in Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina because of his age. Johnny was planning on saving, Ponyboy Curtis, who at the time was being drowned by David, the Soc Bob had told him to “give Ponyboy a bath.” In trying to save Ponyboy he pulled out his pocket knife and stabbed Bob Sheldon in the back therefore causing David to release Ponyboy and flee the scene. After finding that information I also found that Bob Sheldon and his group of friends had stopped their car on The Greasers side of town and got out to show them a lesson for taking out their girls. ...
However, Matt Fowler had different reasoning for his actions. After burying his twenty-one year-old son who was just on the cusp of graduating college, he finds that Strout, his son’s murderer, has been released on bail pending trial and until then he has resumed his normal life. Watching his wife not only mourning the loss of their son, but also having to see the killer in daily activities, has caused a mental and emotional strain on their life. The affect on Fowler’s family that Strout is walking around free and seemingly unconcerned is one of the main reasoning that is posed when Fowler and his friend Willis T...
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
I believe you bring up an excellent and important point in regards to this case; how parents must feel dealing with the terminal illness and death of their child. I think that consideration is what makes understanding Robert Latimer difficult . It brings up a lot of emotion and for good reason. I understand why it invokes oppostion, but I feel assumptions are made about him that aren't fair. We don't know if he feels guilt or was relieved to have her gone. From what he says, he feels confident about his decision. So to evaulate from a Utilitarian perspective, he is certain he choose the scenario which caused his daughter less unhappiness and suffering. For me where this story is complicated, is that he didn't consider the societal perspective.
Tracy’s father was faced with an unfortunate decision, and in his decision, I cannot condemn him for his actions. Now saying this I don’t believe what he did was particularly the right decision or particularly the wrong decision. As for his life sentence, it’s quite outrageous. My reasoning for this is because of his actual intentions and his mental rationale in doing so. He claims that he did it out of love and mercy, which I whole-heartedly agree with. With Tracy’s condition already being a significant trouble to live with and the fact that her surgeries brought her much pain and suffering is something that would be hard to bear. They claimed that she had the mental capacity of a four month old baby, so in that sense, it’s almost like watching an innocent baby constantly in pain. One part of the case says that Tracy’s mother believed that the many surgeries especially the one that removed her upper thigh bone were not surgeries but mutilations. I can see why her mother would think this. I can only imagine what it would be like to watch your loved one constantly be mutilated and going under the knife. Surgery and visits to the doctor alone can be stressful enough in itself, let alone ones that can be perceived as mutilations. Additionally the case states that Tracy had 5-6 seizures a day, which would imaginably be hard to watch and care for. Ultimately, I cannot in any way condemn Tracy’s