Select one of the court case scenarios we covered. Argue your own point of view about how the case should have been handled.
45 Comments
lovin
11/13/2015 09:26:02 am
The case that i would fight is the Ernesto rape case i feel like even though his rights were not told to him he still confesed with his own consent and still told them he did it people like this need to be put away not matter what
Reply
Mason
11/13/2015 09:53:14 am
Amendment six and five state that everyone should be given a fair trial, in this case he was not so I think he should be set free or at least retried for the crimes
Reply
Seth Wadsworth
11/13/2015 09:33:36 am
The case I'm arguing is the case with Atkins. This particular case had a lot of people held with different opinions because the fact that he was "mildly mentally retarded" makes the decision of either killing him or putting him in prison for life a difficult decision. The article brought up the fact that his IQ is 59 which doesn't really change my opinion on him being killed. A lot of people were bringing up the idea of Atkins being killed was somewhat the equivalent of killing Cole. Even if his IQ was that low, he had to of had some mental capacity to know that robbing stores and killing someone is wrong. It also said in the article that the person he killed was shot 8 times. That kid that killed his mom with the handgun that was in her purse obviously didn't know what he had or how to use it, but Atkins not only pulled the trigger and hit someone in the chest, but also shot him eight times. I don't believe that the death penalty is a absurd or unusual punishment.
Reply
Alison Renee' C.
11/13/2015 09:34:00 am
SCENARIO TWO: I feel that they should be allowed to pray, if people don't want to partake in the pre-game prayer then they don't have to. The people who want to pray could maybe go and do that separately at a different time. You don't want to make anyone uncomfortable with religious actions but you don't want to go against anyone's religion by not letting them pray. If they had some sort of organized system, which is fair to both sides- the ones who want to pray and the ones who don't, this might clear some of the controversy in this subject. No one of course has to pray but the ones who would like to should have the right and freedom to do this. Everything should be done fairly, and having a system would probably work.
Reply
Ingalls
11/13/2015 09:46:26 am
What if our next football coach or principal is Muslim so they want the prayer on the PA system at games to be an Islamic prayer from which women are excluded?
Reply
Mason
11/13/2015 10:01:31 am
Is it a religious school? If so I don't see the problem with praying, and there probably wouldn't be a Muslim coach at a school with a different religion. Although if it is a public school I can see how there could be altercations.
Ingalls
11/13/2015 10:55:35 am
Yes, we are talking about a public school. Private schools do not have to abide by this law.
Gavin Burke
11/13/2015 09:35:35 am
The Atkins case, a mentally disabled man who committed theft, and murder. He was considered being put on death row due to his confession to a cell mate, after saying his partner was the one who pulled the trigger during an interrogation. In his defense, it was noted that he was of bellow-average IQ, labeled 'mildly-retarded'. He was also accused of possession and consumption of marijuana, and driving drunk.
Reply
Ingalls
11/13/2015 09:47:50 am
Considering his low IQ, I wonder if it is actually his "accomplice" orchestrating the whole thing? How easy would it be to influence someone!?
Reply
Layne Harris
12/2/2015 09:30:35 am
Even though he had the capacity to do these things, do you thing his lower IQ impaired his judgement of these crimes? Do you think he could have been more easily persuaded by his partner because of his low IQ? I know when I was a kid (the equivalent of the low IQ), if any role model in my life asked/told me to do something, I would have done it without question.
Reply
william hickey
11/13/2015 09:35:42 am
atkins case. despite having an IQ of 59, to have formed the thought to rob and kill a man by shooting him nine times seems worthy of the death penalty because it wasn't by any means in defense of himself of another. it was premeditated murder. he robbed the clerk then drove him to and ATM to get more money then took him out and shot him nine times. if he got it into his head that easily that oh hey maybe i should randomly rob and kill this guy, whats there to say that he wouldn't try the same thing in prison.
Reply
Harley
11/13/2015 09:52:42 am
Would he have still committed the crime without the influence of the other person? Can we partially blame the other participant for impacting and/or even clouding Atkins' judgement?
Reply
Cody Taylor
11/13/2015 09:55:33 am
I completely agree Hickey. What's to say he won't do it again?
Reply
Mason
11/13/2015 10:02:57 am
He is a threat to society at this point, he should be locked up or executed.
Logan
11/13/2015 10:38:47 am
I would have to disagree with you William. What makes you think that Atkins was the one that actually shot the person? I agree more with Harley. Atkins could have been persuaded to attend because of the accomplice. Also, it is easier for the accomplice to defend himself, rather than Atkins being able to defend himself. With Atkins having that low of an IQ, what would make you think that he knows how to properly use a firearm? Shouldn't the accomplice have to face the same fate as Atkins?
Reply
Dakota
11/13/2015 09:38:48 am
Scenario 7: The search of T.L.O. was in fact a legal search due to the fourth amendment; which states that an individual's possessions cannot legally be searched without a probable cause, without reason, or without a warrant. The reason it was acceptable for the principal to search through the girl's purse was because T.L.O. and the other girl were caught smoking in the bathroom by a teacher which gave the principal a reason to search through the girl's belongings. There was a probable reason for the search, therefore it was in fact legal.
Reply
Hayden
11/13/2015 09:51:02 am
I agree
Reply
Emily
11/13/2015 09:51:14 am
TLO denied that fact that she was smoking, though. Does that fact that she was caught in the bathroom with the other girl that WAS smoking give the principal the right to look through her stuff?
Reply
Ingalls
11/13/2015 09:58:05 am
And, if she wasn't caught by the principal, is the accusation merely hearsay? If so, why wouldn't I tell Mr. Kirkland that a student I am not fond of had been caught smoking, etc.?
Mason
11/13/2015 10:07:15 am
Amendment 4 says that u cannot search another persons without reason, in this case I believe the principal has every reason to search her purse, since she was an accomplice.
Chris Loo
11/13/2015 09:40:16 am
Scenario 3
Reply
Emily
11/13/2015 09:49:25 am
The fact that he is physically able to load the gun and pull the trigger is not the problem with this case. Even the fact that he knows what he's doing is not the problem. The fact that he might not have known that it was morally wrong to shoot the man is the problem. He may not even know the consequences of shooting someone. He may not understand the concept of death. This is why mentally handicapped people are on the same spectrum as kids; kids don't understand the concept of death, and sometimes neither do handicaps. He may have known what he was doing physically, but he may not have known what would happen or who would be affected when he did.
Reply
Ingalls
11/13/2015 09:50:44 am
And now you are thinking like a Supreme!
Chris
11/13/2015 11:29:44 am
most kids do understand death at a young age because they have experienced it somehow. Atkins had a moderate disability, or the IQ of a young elementary student, he still knew what he was doing. if the courts can try an eight year old as an adult, then this man can be sentenced to the death penalty.
Ingalls
11/13/2015 09:44:13 am
Scenario 8 was the hardest for me to reconcile. On the one hand, I think that the First Amendment is the most important we have. People should be able to show their disgust or disagreement with the government and governmental policies, such as war. Unfortunately, we have cases like this because people take their liberties, perhaps, too far.
Reply
B-CAN-DOO
11/13/2015 10:06:46 am
I totally agree with you.
Reply
Layne Harris
12/2/2015 09:39:11 am
It could be said that the first amendment is very unclear due to the definition of 'Peaceful assembly". In this case, the protesters obeyed all the regulations they needed to in order for the protests to be considered legal. What Phelps did was certainly morally wrong, but in the eyes of the law his actions were fine. In this way, the first amendment could be considered a 'double-ended sword' in that any individuals morals really mean nothing in the eyes of the law.
Reply
Emily
11/13/2015 09:45:03 am
The Ernesto case really erks me. The fact that Ernesto admitted to raping the girl should have been good enough evidence, but no. Nobody told him his rights. Really, someone should have told him his rights so that they could use the statement against him in court. I feel like being read that right was a given, considering whatever he said could be used against him. It might even be common sense. Plus, it says IN THE STATEMENT that it could be used against him. And the statement isn't even that long, you can read it. "What if he can't read it?" If he can sign his name, he's probably not illiterate. However, everyone should be read their rights before going to court, especially if it involves a confession. If Ernesto had been given his rights beforehand, this whole situation probably could have been a lot easier and he probably would have gone to jail like he deserved.
Reply
Ingalls
11/13/2015 10:01:45 am
Was his confession and subsequent signature coerced? There seems to me a pretty promising case of police misconduct in this one--especially given the length of the interrogation.
Reply
Shelley Grace H. B.
11/13/2015 09:45:54 am
Scenario 8 is the case I found to be the most upsetting. U.S. soldiers put their life on the line every day to help make our nation a safe place to live. They do so much for us that the least we can do is bury them in a cemetery respectably once they are killed, no matter what their religion, sexual orientation or any other opinionated structure they believed in is or was. U.S. soldiers have families that love and care about them. They have people who they love and care about. People that would do anything for them and people they would do anything for. Their families and loved ones who lose them to the military deserve to see them buried, they deserve to see them respectfully deemed a hero by their fellow soldiers at their funeral. Matthew Snyder should have been buried without complications. He deserved to be buried without complications. I will forever respect him for his endeavors as a U.S. soldier despite the fact he was raised Catholic. Religion has nothing to do with sacrificing yourself for your country. The Westboro Baptist Church should not have picketed his funeral because he put himself out there - he risked his own life and in return, he was killed and disrespected for his religion. That is all kinds of wrong and I feel angry just writing about it, let alone reading it. The point is - Snyder should've been buried respectfully without any picketing Church's frowning upon his religion. I don't want to get any angrier this early in the morning so I'm going to stop by simply saying that it is so very wrong to disrespect a soldier, whether he's deceased or living.
Reply
Allie
11/13/2015 09:46:19 am
In scenario number two, it involves Amendment I because of free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. The state cannot force sponsored religious activity on its citizens by forcing them to choose between attendance and their own constitutionality protected rights. But, however, if a citizen were to be the one to start a prayer, it was okay. My opinion on this topic is that a pre-game prayer should be allowed only if a student brought it up. Going against someone's religion by not letting them pray is no better than forcing religious actions onto someone with no religious belief.
Reply
Mason
11/13/2015 09:48:04 am
Scenario 7, T.L.O v. New Jersey.
Reply
Logan
11/13/2015 10:02:51 am
I agree with you Mason. The principle was checking T.L.O.'s purse out of reasonable suspicion, which allowed them the right to check for illegal substances. After he/she found the cigarettes, it allowed them to further there search. It was well written and a good response in regards of the situation.
Reply
Hayden
11/13/2015 09:48:31 am
In Scenario seven, two freshman students were caught smoking in the girls bathroom at school by a teacher.They were immediately taken to the principles office etc. One of the girls referred as "TLO" (Terry) told the principle that she wasn't smoking in the bathroom. The vice principle Theodore Choplick asked if TLO would join him in his private office. While they were in they he also asked her if she would hand over her purse. when they went through it they found many items such as marijuana, rolling papers, a pipe, empty plastic bags, and a large amount of dollar pills, some letters that shows TLO was dealing marijuana, and an index card saying she owed TlO money. she was taken to the police station by her mother. she was expelled from school nd was fined for one thousand dollars. In my opinion, when the two girls got caught smoking in the first pace i think they should have called the police right away and let them be the ones to handle it. I didn't think it as necessary for the Principle to be the one to go through the girls purse, i think they should have let the police station do that as well,but they never mentioned anything else about the other girl that was also in the bathroom.
Reply
Ingalls
11/13/2015 09:54:21 am
It is that issue that also hung up the Supreme Court. Should civilians be able to make "citizens arrests" and thus make a search after arrest? Ultimately SCOTUS decided, however, that students in schools do not have the same expectations of privacy of personal property.
Reply
Harley
11/13/2015 09:49:09 am
Scenario 5 -
Reply
11/13/2015 09:52:21 am
The case that I would argue the outcome is the Ernesto confession case where on March 13, 1963, Ernesto confessed to the Phoenix Police Department that he had kidnapped and raped and eighteen-year-old girl. I believe he should not have been set free by the police department even though he was not told of his right to remain silent or that anything he says could be used against him. After he was taken in by police, he signed a document saying " I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will". If Ernesto wasn't guilty of the crime he wouldn't have confessed, nor would he have even signed a legal document stating that everything he says and does is under his own free will. I don't believe Ernesto should have been let go because of the circumstantial evidence found that first led to the arrest and because of the confession Ernesto gave of the particularly heinous crime he has committed. There is enough evidence that points to him that even if he didn't know his rights, it wouldn't make a difference because he has committed the crime and admitted to doing so.
Reply
Logan
11/13/2015 09:55:51 am
Scenario 7 is about two Piscataway Township High School freshmen that were caught smoking in the bathroom. When taken to the principle's office one confessed to smoking and the other refused. The girl that refused was then taken to a private office where she continued to deny smoking. The principle then forced the girl to hand over her purse, without using any physical actions to obtain the purse. It was then that the principle found a pack of cigarettes and rolling papers, which allowed him to keep searching through the purse. He then found a small amount of marijuana, more rolling papers, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a large amount of one dollar bills, a list of students who owed the girl money, and two letters that implicated that the girl was dealing marijuana.
Reply
Dylon
11/13/2015 09:57:47 am
In scenario five, Ernesto was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen year old. He was sentenced 20-30 years after signing a confession. The Miranda Rights were not sighted to Ernesto, he wasn't aware of his rights to remain silent and was not informed that his statements could be used against him. Yes, they did get a confession from him but because he wasn't advised of his rights the confession was thrown out and he was let free. In the peoples eyes, he should have been thrown in jail for what he did to that girl but, for example, in 21 Jump Street Channing Tatum didn't read the Miranda Rights to the guy he attempted to arrest and all charges were dropped.
Reply
Layne Harris
11/13/2015 09:59:35 am
In scenario 4, 'Wisconsin vs. Yoder', I feel as even though it was ruled in favor of Yoder due to the first amendment (religious freedom), It is still wrong to take children out of school before they are mentally and physically ready. In this case, it was cited that "The court found no evidence that by leaving the Amish community without two additional years of schooling (when the legal dropout age would take effect), young Amish children would become burdens on society." basically saying that these children were deemed to be 'good enough' to leave school. The individual states' compulsory education laws were set into place for a reason, so it seems pointless now that they have been voided.
Reply
Ingalls
11/13/2015 10:07:35 am
I would agree.
Reply
I Did It!
11/13/2015 10:00:45 am
Scenario 8 is a personal case to me because it involves a family that lost a love one that was protecting the United States. With protecting the United States LCPL. Snyder was also protecting all of the protesters rights as an American. I personally think that all the protesters should have been removed from the streets because they have crossed the lines of the first amendment and the rights to protest. The protest that happened was not a peaceful protest at all, it was a protest to hurt the family. I know that not everyone is supportive of the troops, there were a lot of people that posted comments on a youtube video that was about the crash that killed my cousin and another Marine. A lot of people take Freedom of Speech to far, they also take the right to protest to far also. It is very disrespectful to go into a funeral where there are family members and friends that are having a rough time with everything, just to protest. There are many different ways that the police could have handled the situation, I personally think that they could have handled it better but I dont know all the laws and rights to protesters. I think that if you die while serving the United States you should be welcomed home with respect and buried with respect as well. When my cousin finally came home he was greeted with respect from everyone, at his funeral there were people that nobody in the family knew that came and paid their respect to Josh by showing up to the funeral. People from Montana, Oregon, Nevada, and Southern Idaho that came to pay respect. I believe that all military members should get the same kind of respect, LCPL. Snyder deserved the kind of "Welcome home" that Josh got.
Reply
Wyatt
11/13/2015 10:02:41 am
Scenario 7: In scenario 7, two high school freshmen are caught smoking in the high school bathroom, and escorted to the principals office. One of the freshmen openly admits to smoking in the bathroom, whereas the second one does not. The principal then asks to have a look through the second girls bag. The principal quickly finds a pack of cigarettes, justifying his accusations. But even after finding the cigarettes he continues to look through the girls bag which uncovers marijuana, a pipe, and alist of students who owed her money.
Reply
Hunter
11/13/2015 10:39:45 am
Scenario 3 is a the toughest one to argue in my mind. Whether or not to put a mentally retarded man on death row or sentence him to life in prison is a tough choice. I feel as if you were to treat this case as if the mentally ill man was a child (as we normally tend to do) would be the proper decision. There is a constitutionally sound way of taking care of this case and a morally sound way. Its constitutionally right for a man that has murdered another to be executed but I believe that when a man is mentally retarded it is morally right to give him the chance to be taught right and wrong.
Reply
Ingalls
11/13/2015 11:06:58 am
I agree--and so does the Supreme Court. People with "Diminished Capacity" have to be treated in accordance with their "mental age" development.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
InstructionsRespond to the Weebly questions in 200-300 word explanations. Respond to two other people's posts in a meaningful and constructive way. Archives
April 2016
Categories |