Effects Of Perry Mason

Clarence Earl Gideon was falsely accused of burglarizing a cigarette machine and jukebox inside a poolroom. When Gideon was sent to court to receive his sentence, he had no lawyer, therefore he had to defend himself. Despite his valiant efforts, Gideon was sent to 5 years in prison. While there, Gideon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus hoping to challenge his conviction. His ability to file for a petition is a positive right, so even though he was not given a lawyer, despite his need and right to one, some of his positive rights—filing a petition—were still upheld.

David Feige’s Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey nto the Inferno of American Justice invites people from all walks of life to a second hand experience of the criminal justice system hard at work. What is most interesting about Feige’s work is its distinct presentation of the life of a public defender in the South Bronx. Instead of simply detailing out his experiences as a public defender, Feige takes it a step further and includes the experiences of his clients. Without the personal relationships that he carefully constructs with each of his defendants, Feige would not be able to argue that the criminal justice system is flimsy at best, decisions always riding on either the judge’s personal attitudes or the clients propensity towards plea bargaining.

This means that those charged with lesser crimes are pushed to the back of their caseloads. Public defenders are overworked and underpaid meaning that many times they cannot do their job to the best of their abilities. Sadly because of this system, many of their clients sit in holding cells for months or years, awaiting for a trial that is continually pushed off by their attorney. While the system of free public defenders seemed like an equal foot for criminal clients to stand on in the justice system, it is in reality a very messy and disorganized system that overlooks those without the most pressing issue. Gideon V. Wainright was a landmark case, arguably one of the most important cases of the sixties.

I am 21 and for as long as I can remember I have heard many stories about innocent people being accused of and being punished for crimes they did not commit. On Monday, March 20th of this year, I met Anthony Ray Hinton and learned about his story. Arrested on suspicion of two capital murders at age 29. He was convicted and sentenced to death despite having a reliable alibi and passing a polygraph test. It was only after repeated efforts by the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) team that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction based on his attorney’s deficient representation and he was eventually exonerated after 30 years in solitary confinement on Friday, April 3rd, 2015.

During the Salem witch trials, in colonial Massachusetts between 1692 and 1693, more than 200 people were accused of practicing witchcraft, and more than half were executed. These accused citizens would be placed on trial with a judge and they would either plead guilty or face a series of tests to prove they weren’t witches. In the novel, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller a group of young teenage girls are caught in the act of witchcraft and are used to help seek out the following witches in the village. They become the jury of the court and their judge who is brought in to accuse and place the victims on trial is Judge Thomas Danforth. Danforth, however, is not an effective judge for the fact that he was very closed minded, and only cared about

Since the founding of our judicial system there have always been individuals claiming innocence to a crime that they have been found guilty of, traditionally, after their sentencing no matter how innocent they may or may not be would have to serve, live and possibly die by the decision of their peers. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck alongside Peter J. Neufeld faces this issue by challenging the sentencing of convicted individuals who claim their innocence and have factual ground to stand upon. The Innocence Project uses the recent advances in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing to prove their client’s innocence by using methods that were not available, too primitive or not provided to their clients during their investigation,

Nature versus nurture is one of the most controversial debates in contemporary psychology. The debate concerning whether or not humans are born with the preset characteristics that will shape lives for years to come or whether actions are a result of the events and the environment that pave the way for our behavioral characteristics. Capote’s “In Cold Blood” gives the audience a detailed look into the upbringing of the character Perry Smith, creating a sympathetic outlook towards his past and attempting to bring a sense of understanding as to how a seemingly harmless young man could brutally murder four innocent people. In the case of Perry Smith, nurture was the cause of his actions in regards to the Clutter family murders.

It can be argued that the jury was not a proper representation of his peers. Along with other factual errors surrounding Dixon’s false conviction,

In In Cold Blood, the issue over the death penalty is prominent. Did Perry and Dick deserve to die? Should the severity of one’s crime determine one’s fate? Although Truman Capote writes the novel in a straightforward, “from a distance” way, he conveys, through his characters, theme, and plot development, that the death penalty is an issue that should be looked at from all sides and that the legal system itself is the real issue at hand, and that the death penalty is used as a means to suppress the distress and indignation of the citizens surrounding the case, instead of suppressing the victim himself.

In the United States 1,625 cases has been wrongfully convicted, for crimes they haven’t done nor have any connections to it. Sedrick Courtney’s is a prime example of wrongfully convicted people. The Case of Sedrick Courtney is form to show how our criminal justice system is corrupt. Sedrick Courtney was wrongfully convicted for the robbery on Shemita Greer in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

According to the presumption of innocence,”a man is innocent until proven guilty”. Throughout the United States there are many different views by many different people and controversial court cases can display so. The controversial court case of Dr. Sam Sheppard, Sheppard was accused of killing his wife Marilyn Sheppard during the early morning of July 4, 1954. On December 24, 1954 Sheppard was guilty of murder in the second degree, but in November 16, 1966 Sheppard was found not guilty in his re-trial. In the controversial court case of Sam Sheppard, the guilty verdict initially incorrectly prosecuted Sheppard of murdering his wife Marilyn Sheppard.

He says the defendant accused of murder was let off and “eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway” (12). Prejudice clouds a person’s judgement and does not allow the individual to see all the facts. It only allows them to

It confirms the already assumed. During the court trial, Dr. Jones was asked “From your conversations and examination of Perry Edward Smith, do you have an opinion as to whether he knew right from wrong at the time of the offense involved in this action?” (296). The doctor replies with a simple no. I strongly disagree what the doctor decides to reply. He claims he has no opinion because of Perry having no opinion.

In “The Brain on Trial”, David Eagleman claims that the justice system needs to change its sentencing policies due to the discoveries of neurobiological diseases that cause their sufferers to behave in socially unacceptable ways and/or commit crimes. Eagleman uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to present his viewpoint. The most important one is his appeal to logic. By using mostly examples, along with direct address to the readers, Eagleman is able to argue that the legal system has to modify its sentencing policies to take into account the advances made in neuroscience due to the increase in the amount of accused and/or convicted people who have been found to have harbored some kind of brain disease or damage. Eagleman

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.