Cheshire Murder Documentary #3

There were parts of the story of this horrific incident that didn't make sense to me. Right when the police and investigators got to the house, they should have gone in and arrested the men. Getting to the house and "setting up" the perimeter before doing anything else gave the men extra time to kill the victims and distribute the gas to light the house on fire. In my opinion, the burning down of the house could have been prevented if the police were more aggressive when at the house. I think the process and precedure for investiagting crimes like these should involve paying close attention to detail and finding any possible evidence to use against the suspects. In regards to what information to give to the public, it is hard to draw the line of releasing too much and not enough. I would think the family of the victims would want some privacy, but that is hard when its a story as big as this one. I think the police could have released more informtation to the public than they did but not too much. As outsiders, its also hard to account for the lack of continuity between those in charge of the investigation. I know I was confused as to why it took them so long to take action and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I guess we just have to live with the way they handled the situation and hope they learned to do more next time.

1. Do you think the police did enough when they got to the home?
2. If you were the victim's family would you have wanted more information to be given to the public?
3. Do you approve of the men getting the death penalty?

International Borders/Ukraine #5

There is a lot of talk in the news right now about Ukraine and whether or not it is justified for Russia, or any country, to intervene and try to help. There are laws put in place that limit international involvement so countries don't invade each other. International law include basic law and also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies. One example of an international law is that "a country cannot treat an alien in a manner which does not satisfy the international standard of justice." This promotes equality all around the world and is an effort to keep the peace because it is only fair. Obama also said that, "The proposed referendum on the future of Chrimea would violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law." Regarding whether or not a country can redraw its borders, Obama states, "...the international community believes that borders cannot be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders." I think a country should be able to redraw its borders when the people of the country are in danger. Innocent civilians shouldn't have to suffer and get hurt if their country is failing. 

1. What are your thoughts on Russia invading Chrimea?
2. Do you think it is right for a country to redraw its borders in this situation?
3. What would you do if you were President Obama in this situation with Ukraine? 

Cheshire Murders #4

1. The mitigating circumstances of the crimes committed were that both men involved were not mentally stable at any point in their lives. The fact that they raped these girls and lit them on fire while they were still alive makes this crime heinous and absolutely abominable. The mitigating circumstances do not help defray the heinous nature of the crimes committed at all. These crimes were too nasty and disturbing and completely unthinkable for these circumstances to make them any less. 

2. The prosecutors wanted to bring the defendants to trial because they wanted the criminals to get the death penalty, and that couldn't happen without a trial. The prosecutors and other people who wanted them dead couldn't bare to pass up the chance to execute these two men. The benefits of accepting the guilty peas included life in prison without parole. A negative effect of going to trial and seeking the death penalty is that is the prosecution doesn't win and the judge does not give them the death penalty, then the two men could walk free. 

3. In cases like these, mental health issues play a big role. Both men in this case had previous mental problems and were never mentally stable. Some think that it was their mental health that allowed them to commit such a terrible crime. Society has a hard task at hand with balancing punitive justice and our supporting mental health system. At what point do we stop letting criminals go just because they have a mental illness to "justify" their actions? I think it depends on the crime at hand and sometimes if it is bad enough, then the law should override our "supportive mental health system" and punish the criminals who are a threat to society and could put people in danger. 

Ballot Initiatives #2

http://votesmart.org/bill/4152/12896/emergency-contraception-for-rape-victims#.Uv15cfldWYk

The purpose of this initiative is to give women who have been sexual assaulted (raped) the proper information about emergency contraception from any licensed health care facility. This is occurring in Connecticut. To get an initiative on the ballot in the state of Connecticut, you have to get enough signatures on your petition.

1. Would this "emergency contraception" be considered abortion?

2. Should women who have been sexual assaulted have the right to an abortion because of the circumstance?

3. Do you think it would be fair for a woman who got raped to be forced to keep the baby?

History of Law #1

http://www.historyoflaw.info/

The history of man would not be what it is without the law. There never has been, and never will be, any group of people not controlled by some form of law. As long as man lives in society and wants to get anything done, there will be organization to do so by the law. Not everyone agrees with the law, though. Sometimes laws provoke rebellion, which defeats the purpose of the law in the first place because they were made to keep order. Laws will always be made by superior powers and man will have to abide by them, therefore mankind is dependent on the law. If two men were stranded on a desert island and one killed the other, it would be hard to declare it a crime and punish them because there were never laws enforced on them because it was only them two.

1) What would happen to mankind if all laws were abolished?
2) Could the man who killed the other man still be punished because murder is illegal all around the world?
3) Where did the thought of "laws" originate?

Mock Trial Reflection

The process of preparing for the mock trial and going through it step by step was extremely interesting to me. I liked how we had class time to create our arguments and make sure we had what we needed to hopefully win the case because I felt very prepared. I liked seeing the case unfold as people made their arguments and defensively took their stance. I was a crossexaminer and I really enjoyed it. I liked coming up with my own questions to make Officer Stevens look bad. I thought everybody who had a role in the trial and was prepared did a great job. I want to go to college to become a lawyer so doing this trial was eye opening to me because it made me realize that this is what I want to do. I hope we do more mock trials like this one soon. 

Eminent Domain

Eminent domain is when someone's private property is taken by the government for public use. I don't think this is fair at all because everyone has the right to property and eminent domain is taking that away. If someone is paying for private property and is living there, nobody should be able to take it away from them, especially when it is going to be used for the public. I know I wouldn't like it if someone took my property so I wouldn't want it to happen to anyone else because it's not fair. State and national government do have more power over people but eminent domain is taking away the people's right to have property.