President Obama-Writing Assign.#6:Part 3

    President Barack Obama expressed his point of view on the issue of same-sex marriage by saying that it should be legalized for Gays and Lesbians to have the right to get married just as it is the same for heterosexual couples. Even though some states have recognized that homosexual couples should have the same rights as straight couples, it is still a very controversial issue in the United States. It is still controversial because some Americans strongly believed that the "true" definition of marriage is between a man and a woman and they believe that it should stay that way for a very long time. In May 2012, the voters in North Carolina voted for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, partnerships, and civil unions. The voters of North Carolina voted for a constitutional amendment on the ban for same-sex couples to be married, or to have a civil  because the bible claims that it is a sin for men to have sexual relations with other men. Now they have a prohibition on Gays and Lesbians to be involved in partnerships, so they can express their love for one another. What John Stuart Mill would say about this particular issue is that they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. It should not have anything to do with religion or anyone else's personal opinion on who has the right to get married. Patrick Devlin would argue that it has something to do with the decency on the values of the family and they are afraid that it would break down the structure of the families and the rest of society.

Writing Assign.#6-John Stuart Mill part 1

    According to John Stuart Mill, the major problem for a democracy is that government can often times influence its citizens by using coercion in order to get what they want. The government can create laws by deciding what people can or cannot do, for example, it would be against the law to steal from someone they know or complete stranger for any reason, other than getting the things that they want or need for survival. If that individual is caught, he or she will be severely punished by serving some time in jail. This can be viewed as a person's liberty being unjustified because that person is taking someone else's property without the other person's permission. Another example of an individuals liberty being justified when it comes to self-defense. If someone was trying to hurt another person by stealing or committing attempted murder, he or she has the right to defend themselves if they are being violated by someone they know or do not know. That is true for every human being and for animals as well. The existing laws that would violate Mill's principle is denying a person's right to marry someone from a different cultural or religious background, or even of the same sex. Nowadays, it is legal for people of different races and religions to get married, but it is still very difficult for homosexuals. Even though some states have made same-sex marriage legal, other states still believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I agree with this because it is the 21st century and we need to be respectful of other people's beliefs and the lives that they choose to live. It is not a perfect world, but change is slowly coming. The three regions of human liberty that Mill identified were recognizing political liberties or rights, establishing constitutional checks of balances, and the limited powers in most European countries. The first region was about recognizing certain immunities so it can be regarded as breaching the duties of the rulers to make sure that no one goes against the person in charge. Establishing the balance of checks so that nothing is being over ruled by one another. And finally the limitation of power coming from most European countries to maintain order in their society. Mill justifies the freedom of expression by saying that every human being should have the right to express their opinions without the fear of persecution, whether their views are popular or not. Even though freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment, however; there may be a case where freedoms of expressions are protected by the First Amendment. For instance, there is a case where it is not acceptable to yell out the word, "fire" in a crowded room or a movie theatre when there is actually nothing burning inside of the theatre. It is just used by someone who may not no any better and just wanted to pull a "harmless" prank on a lot of people. I honestly think that freedom of expression should be unlimited, as long as it does not have the intention to hurt anybody. It is one thing to say something, but it is another thing to act on those intentions. Devlin justified that laws enforce moral standards by saying that it is used to make sure that people behave in a positive manner and try not to hurt others for any reason.

Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr.

    In January 2005, Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. was seen in various photographs with a grin on his face while the prisoners in Iraq were being humiliated by the rest of the soldiers. These Iraqi prisoners had to endure degrading behaviors such as being stacked on top of each other to symbolize a human pyramid and being forced to masturbate, it was very funny to the soldiers so they decided to take pictures of the Iraqi prisoners, just to show that they were less than human beings. Graner was also accused of punching one of the in the head and knocked him out. The reasons why Charles Graner Jr. allegedly did those horrible things to those men because he was ordered by his superiors to abuse them, in order to interrogate these men so they can tell them what they wanted or needed to hear. He claimed that he thought it was right or lawful to mistreat the Iraqi prisoners and he had to follow orders, or else he would get into serious trouble. After all of these incidents occurred, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison when he court-marshaled. I agree with the sentence because he should not have treated those men in a negative way, even though he was following orders at that time. It did not seem like Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. was very remorseful when he was abusing the Iraqi prisoners and having a grin on his face. Graner should have used more common sense in the way he treated those men if he wanted to get some useful information from them.

    Graner might have thought at the time of the scandal that he was just simply following orders from his superiors, however; deep down inside he knew what he was doing was wrong and he did not question the superior officers. Maybe they thought that it would be very amusing for them as well to abuse the Iraqi prisoners. As a result of following those inhumane orders, Charles Graner Jr. had to be sentenced to 10 years in prison, being dishonorably discharged, demoted to private, and he has been ordered to to give up all of the money he earned and his military benefits. Even though Graner has to do time in prison, I do not think that it was fair for him to go to jail and the rest of the soldiers who also participated in this abusive behavior towards the Iraqi prisoners should have received the same punishment as well as the superior officers who authorized this kind of treatment. If one person has to be punished for what they did to those prisoners, then so should the rest of the people that were involved in the scandal.

Tookie Williams-In Favor of Clemency

    As you all may be very aware of the fact that Stanley a.k.a "Tookie" Williams was one of the early leaders and founders of the street gang called, the Crips. The Crips originated in a South Central neighborhood in Los Angeles, California. Tookie was convicted on three counts of murder in 1979, which he maintained his innocence during his incarceration. While he was serving his sentence he co-wrote children's books and made his best efforts to educate the youth about the dangers of being involved with gangs and did everything he could to stop them from living a very dangerous lifestyle. Thousands of people became involved by signing online petitions in their efforts to convince Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant Mr. Williams clemency based on his tireless work on being an anti-gang activist and he has been redeemed for his past wrong doings. Despite all of the efforts from celebrities, politicians, Nobel laureates, and Williams' attorney, Governor Schwarzenegger denied Tookie's clemency in early November 2005. One month later of that same year, Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed by lethal injection.

    Punishment and Responsibility means that when a person does something that is against the law such as stealing someones car or hitting someone with their own car by accident or on purpose, then leave the scene of the crime. That person would be charged with a hit and run and leaving the scene of an accident, he or she would be severely punished for what they did. Now in the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, he was convicted in 1979 on three counts of murder, in which he believed he was innocent of those crimes. Even though he was part of the Crips street gang, was there any evidence indicating that he was involved in the deaths of three people? Governor Schwarzenegger should have granted clemency for Mr. Williams based on his tireless work to prevent young people from joining gangs and writing children's books about doing something productive in their lives, instead of wasting their time and energy on something that is non-productive.

Wendigo/Prosecutor

    Ladies and gentleman of the jury, as you may know that a Native American man from Northern Canada is a member of the Algonquian tribe. This man from the Algonquian tribe has been charged with manslaughter when he encountered the mythical creature known as a "Wendigo". The "Wendigo has been described as a malevolent cannibalistic spirit that can transform humans or it can possess humans to the point where they just cannot be satisfied after killing one victim. They have to search for more victims.

    The reason why the defendant has been charged with manslaughter because he believed that the mythical creature who was also being describe as an evil spirit being clothed in human form. To the defendant, it appeared to be a tall form that was running towards him and what it also appeared to be a challenge for the "Wendigo" and that was when he shot the creature. The mythical creature must have died instantly when it was shot by the Native American man. The legal definition of the word, "manslaughter" has to do with "the unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection". In order to charge someone with this crime, the individual does not have to have a reason to take another persons life. But, in this particular case the defendant took the life of a creature who had the appearance of a human being, so basically it is unclear if it was an actual human being. Therefore, it does not matter if it an actual person or a creature with the appearance of a person; his or her life was taken away by someone who may have thought that the Wendigo was about to attack the defendant. So, ladies and gentleman of the jury it would be your duty to convict this man of manslaughter because there was absolutely no reason for him to commit that type of crime and unfortunately ending someones life. Thank you for listening.

Peterman/Defense-repost of assign. part 1

     Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, the case that was brought to my attention as a Defense Attorney was about a forty-five year old man named Steven Peterman. Mr. Peterman has been charged with Attempted rape of a child and he could possibly face some serious time in prison if he is convicted of this terrible crime. As Mr. Peterman's lawyer, it is my sworn duty to defend him to the baest of my ability to prove that he has been improperly charged with Attempted rape of a child and he is innocent of this crime. When I began to defend Steven Peterman, I have read the reports of how the police had obtained information about Mr. Peterman allegedly being involved in some kind of pornography ring. According to the police reports, a female acquaintance of Mr. Peterman had enough information to prove that my client has been involved in this alleged child pornography ring for some time and she would assist the police officers in a attempt to create a ten year old girl in order to set him up and have him arrested. It is unclear of how long this female acquaintance, whose name will not be mentioned in order to protect her identity, has had this information and it is also unclear if what she has told the police officers are true or just false accusations to defame my client's character. Based on what she has told the police, they created a ten year old girl and she would pretend to know the child so she could set up a meeting with my client. While she pretends to know this made up child she would allow Mr. Peterman to go to her residence along with additional instructions in order to meet this young girl. According to the two basic concepts of actus reus and mens rea, it has something to do with a person committing the act of wrongdoing, the conduct of the persons behavior when they are committing a crime, a person having a guilty mind or criminal mind, etc. It is further said that both actus reus and mens rea have to be present when a person does something wrong, not one or the other. When a crime has occurred, the individual involved may not be in their right state of mind and may not realize what has happened until it is explained to them by their lawyer or by a medical professional. In order for the punishment to fit the crime, it has to be relevant to the actual crime that has been committed and what was going on in the persons mind when it happened. As a Defense Attorney I have to ask these type of questions such as what was the person thinking about when he or she was in that vulnerable mental state at that particular event and  was it the right thing to do at that particular moment. Even though Mr. Peterman has been charged with Attempted rape of a child, I do not believe that my client is guilty of this crime. I will do everything I can to prove his innocence. The crime that my client has been falsely accused of Attempted rape of a child. In order to charge someone with the "attempt" to commit a crime, they would have the intention to do something wrong to someone else so they can get what they want without any regard to the other person. There are various crimes that has something to do with that word, "attempt" such as attempted murder when you try to kill someone, but the person is still alive, attempted robbery when a person tries to rob another person, but that person is caught by the police and charged with that particular crime, and attempted rape occurs when a man tries to have sex with a woman against her will and manages to get away to tell the cops what has happened to her and she goes through the process of being checked out at the hospital, identifying the suspect, etc. I am not saying that I do not believe that those are serious charges and it can make the victim feel traumatized for a long time and would require them to get professional help to deal with what happened to them. But what I am saying is that my client, Steven Peterman is not guilty of Attempted rape of a child. The reasons why I do not believe that Mr. Peterman is guilty of this crime because he did not have sexual relations with someone under the legal age of consent (18) and it is unclear if what this female acquaintance said was true in the first place. If what this woman said to the police was true, where did she get this type of information from? Was this information given to her by someone she knew? The truth is that no one really knows for sure. Finally, I would like to say to the members of the jury once again that Steven Peterman is guilty of the crime of attempted rape because it has already been proven that the child did not exist when he was arrested at the woman's residence. There is also no DNA evidence indicating that the child was sexually assaulted and he was completely unaware of what was going on when his acquaintance claimed to know the child, who was created by the police officers during their investigation to trap my client at her residence. The jury should also consider if what the woman claimed to be facts and had a motive to defame my client's character. My client is innocent of this serious charge and he would like to go back as a free man and live his life in peace, thank you for listening to my arguments.

Peterman/Defense

    The case that was brought to my attention as a Defense Attorney was about a forty-five year old man named Steven Peterman. Mr. Peterman has been charged with attempted rape of a child and could possibly face some serious time in prison if he is convicted of this horrible crime. As Mr. Peterman's lawyer, it is my sworn duty to fend him to the best of my ability to prove that he has been improperly charged with attempted rape of a child and he is innocent of this crime. When I began to defend Steven Peterman, I have read the reports of how the police had obtained information about Mr. Peterman allegedly being involved in some kind of child pornography ring. According to the police reports, a female acquaintance of Mr. Peterman had enough information to prove that my client has been involved in this alleged pornography ring for some time and she would assist the police officers in a attempt to create a ten year old girl in order to set him up and have him arrested. It is unclear of how long this female acquaintance, whose name will not be mentioned in order to protect her identity, has had this information and it is also unclear if what she has told the police officers are true or just false accusations to defame my client's character. Based on what she has told the police, they created a ten year old girl and she would pretend to know the child so she could set up a meeting with my client. While she pretends to know this made up child she would allow Mr. Peterman to go to her residence, along with additional intructions in order to meet this young girl. According to the two concepts of actus reus and mens rea, it has something to do with a person committing the act of wrongdoing, the conduct of someones behavior when they are committing a crime, a person having a guilty mind or criminal mind, etc. It is further said that both actus reus and mens rea have to be present when a person does something wrong, not one or the other. When a crime has occurred, the individual involved may not be in their right state of mind and may not realize what has happened until it is explained to them by their lawyer or by a medical professional. In order for the punishment to fit the crime, it has to be relevant to the actual crime that has been committed and what was going on in the persons mind when it happened. As a Defense Attorney I have to ask questions such as what was the person thinking about when he or she was in that vulnerable mental state at that particular event and was it the right thing to do at that particular moment. Even though Mr. Peterman has been charged with attempted rape of a child, I do not believe that my client is guilty of this crime. I will do everything I can to prove his innocence. The crime that my client has been falsely accused of is attempted rape of a child. In order to charge someone with the "attempt" to commit a crime, they would have the intention to do something wrong to someone else so that they can get what without any regard to the other person. There are various crimes that has something to do with that word, "attempt" such as attempted murder, attempted robbery, and attempted rape. I am not saying that I do not believe that these are serious charges and it can make the victim feel traumatized for a long time, but what I am saying is that my client, Steven Peterman is not guilty of attempted rape of a child. The reasons why I do not believe that Mr. Peterman is guilty of this crime because he did not have sexual relations with someone under the age of consent (18) and it is unclear if what this female acquaintance said was true in the first place. If what this woman said to the police was true, where did she get this type of information from? Was this information given to her by someone she knew? The truth is that no one really knows for sure. Finally, I would like to say to the jury once again that Steven Peterman is not guilty of the crime of attempted rape because it has already been proven that the child did not exist when he was arrested at the woman's residence. There is also no DNA evidence to indicating that the child was sexually assualted and he was completely unaware of what was going on when his acquaintance claimed to know the child, who was created by the police officers during their investigation to trap my client at her residence. The jury should also consider if what the woman claimed to be facts and had a motive to defame my client's character. My client is innocent of this serious charge and he would like to go back home as a free man and live his life in peace, thank you for listening to my arguments.