Category: Court

Ethical concerns are very relevant when working with these different populations: nonviolent, violent, and trauma victims. Psychologists should remain aware of the relationships they have with their clients as well as make sure to stay competent in their work. When working in the prison setting, you will face many challenges due to the prison having its own culture, language, and formalities (Kupersanin, 2001). Some ethical concerns psychologists may face when treating nonviolent offenders within the legal system restrictions would be trust and confidentiality. It would be hard for the psychologists to establish trust being that the inmates would possibly be distant and not want to express their feelings. One thing that all of the populations have in common is the loss of privacy in which they suppress their emotions. Clients may not want to disclose significant and personal information to the psychologist unless they are reassured that no one else will obtain this information (Mailloux, 2014).

There is something else psychologists should understand when working with these target populations that will affect a conflict between their duties as psychologists and the ethical obligations that they owe to each person and how to professionally find a solution to these conflicts. For example, s psychologists can be faced with a dilemma when a violent offender attempts to escape and has made a plan to do so. If the psychologist fails to report this information, he or she will be faced with legal ramifications. Ethical concerns that follow when treating trauma victims would be to focus on suicide risk as well as helpful or hurtful treatments. For example, it would be in the psychologist’s best interest to address the issues of childhood trauma which can cause suicidal behaviors, and then work to prevent those behaviors. To create a space of integrity when working with all of these populations, it is in the best interest of the psychologist to provide safeguarding so the clients will feel that they can interact without feeling scared and be able to gain insight(Mailloux, 2014).

Impact of Supreme Court Cases

There have been several Supreme Court Cases that have impacted the development and implementation of treatment programs for these three target populations. The court cases that I have chosen to assess would be Lopez v. Davis (2001), Kansas v. Crane (2002), and Maryland v. Craig (1990). Lopez v. Davis (2001) addressed whether all, or merely some, of the federal prisoners who were convicted of nonviolent offenses and who have successfully completed a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) drug treatment program are eligible for a sentence reduction, Kansas v. Craig hit on the issue of a dangerous sexual offender’s confinement as civil rather than criminal and held that the confinement criterion embodied in the statute’s words — ‘mental abnormality or personality disorder’ — satisfied substantive due process, and Maryland vs. Craig discussed the issue of stress that could have been placed on several young children who did not want to testify in the courtroom in the presence of the defendant.

Supreme Court Cases: Non-violent

The instance of Lopez v. Davis affected treatment programs for nonviolent offenders who have especially abused drugs. In 1995, the Bureau of Prisons distributed a standard to represent ‘early discharge reasons’. Just detainees who didn’t carry out an ‘act of violence’ would be qualified for the program. Christopher A. Lopez applied for the program but was denied. Lopez had been sentenced for ownership with the purpose to publicize while having a gun at the hour of his offense. The Bureau of Prisons proposed that this was a ‘wrongdoing of brutality’. Lopez appealed and BOP expressed how they had the choice to accept or deny and this incorporated the information that a detainee must meet the two statutory essentials for sentence decrease—conviction of a nonviolent offense and effective quality of medication treatment—at that point early discharge might be allowed(Lopez v Davis, 2001)This case impacts treatment since it has given nonviolent offenders the chance to locate an option in dissimilarity to remaining in jail for extensive stretches of time. The individualized treatment will likewise allow the guilty party to access new methodologies to shield them from mishandling medications and entering the system once more.

Supreme Court Cases: Violent

For those individuals who have committed sexually violent acts will likely fall under Kansas v. Crane. This case helped in deciding how sexual criminals are subjected to treatment based on their crimes. This viably makes it harder for states to commonly submit violent sexual criminals after they have served their jail terms (Kansas v Crane, 2002). This incorporates commanded aftercare treatment for people sentenced for this kind of fierce wrongdoing. This is upsetting progress as far as proceeding with treatment and implementing aftercare follow-up for guilty parties who have carried out savage sexual offenses.

Supreme Court Cases: Trauma

Treatment for trauma has been impacted due to the case of Maryland v. Craig. The children, in this case, were subjected to testify on a video so that they would not have to relive the trauma they endured. If the children would have been in the courtroom, they would have recalled every part of their traumatic experience and that could impact their treatment socially since they are working on strategies to help them cope. Trauma victims should have the option to deny any factor that may impact their treatment.

My Experience in a Courtroom

At first, when I chose to go to a courtroom proceeding I was slightly nervous and at the same time curious about what is actually done in a courtroom. It was my first time taking a visit to a courtroom; therefore, I didn’t know what to expect. Until I went to the courtroom building, my impressions of the courtroom proceedings were from movies or TV shows that I watched over the years where everything looked strict and professional, and there were a lot of smart lawyers. The scene of a court I imagined was similar to the scenes in Suits where both lawyers a very smart and going at it for their respective clients.

My expectations were that of lawyers battling it out in words for who would win the case in the end, that the battle was heated and it would be long like several hours, that the lawyers were charismatic and each statement swayed the jury the way of that lawyer or the other and then the other lawyer would do the same and sway the jury in the way of that lawyer. When I stood in front of the courtroom building, I had an impression that the building would look like a place that was very stiff, serious, and efficient. When I first entered the building, I got somewhat even more nervous. At one point I wanted to leave the courtroom building, I don’t know why, I came here to watch some cases as an observer and not as a person that is involved in any cases such as a jury, witness, lawyer, or anything of that sort. While waiting outside the courtroom to start the trial, it seemed to me that people did not notice each other really. There were a lot of people just shuffling around and moving about carrying briefcases big or small and sometimes I even saw some of the people there with a large stack of paper. All of the people in the building seemed like they were very busy with whatever they were doing or holding like they had to go to trial like they were late for it or something.

To be honest I was not really surprised with the way the people were. This met my expectations of it being very busy for the courtroom building with many people walking in the hallways. Waiting for the beginning of the trial where I found that a few other people and I were the only observers of the case, I felt a little anxiety and curiosity about what was going to happen in the court. I could have only imagined what the people who were involved in the case must have felt like. With every passing minute, the level of anxiety in me that I felt decreased, and a lot of minor thoughts that I had flowed through my head such as I would not be allowed to go into any one of the rooms or if I make a really loud noise, I would be kicked out of the room immediately. In reality, there were no problems at all and I caused no problems and I could easily attend the case inside the hearing. I looked at the people who were involved in the case and saw that the faces of people who were involved in the process of the case looked like they were probably a little surprised of the audience like they were not expecting anyone to be at that specific case. As soon as I took my seat in the back of the room and at the end of the aisle, my nervousness and anxiety went away and then there was only my curiosity. I felt that nothing I would expect could happen now that everything has begun.

I felt a little pleased that I was able to sit at the end of an aisle because, at the entry to each of the aisles, people were moving about and shuffling which I found to be quite annoying. My first impression of the courtroom when I first saw the courtroom was not very positive. I thought that the courtroom was kind of boring to look at, it just felt empty with not much in it. There were no real decorations in the courtroom except for a flag or two of The United States of America that were hung around the room. The color of everything in the room was just brown, from the chairs and desks to the walls. The other different colors that I saw in the courtroom were blue which was the floor and some walls had white tops and brown bottoms or the other way around. The view of such a boring place felt a little dull to me who was just entering the halls a moment ago feeling a little nervous. When the trial regarding a property dispute started, I started to not pay as much attention to the appearance and looks of the courtroom anymore, I just started to ignore the looks of the place. Now that the case was about to start, I was much more interested in the people that were going to participate in the case. A big surprise that came to me was the appearance and age of the judge that was present, which I thought was very young for the profession of a judge.

The image that I have always had in my head was that the judge or any judge really was an elderly person or middle-aged with glasses, a robe, and a wig who is never wrong and very stern with a no BS attitude and also was the most authoritative and intimidating person in the room. I was also surprised to see a clerk who was a young man, who was probably around there mid-twenties in age and appearance. I was waiting for the lawyers of both sides to come up and show or state their defense but the lawyers of both sides didn’t show up at all. I was very surprised by the fact that no lawyers were present because I thought that there must be lawyers for both sides at the trial. I see that everyone has always had a lawyer in the movies and tv shows, where the lawyer was hired or a public defender is assigned a case and was stuck with it. And there were no lawyers at this hearing.

This was probably my biggest surprise of the whole proceeding. The trial proceeded very efficiently and ended quickly after only about thirty minutes, which also surprised me because I thought that the court proceeding would last a lot longer than an hour and the people who were involved in court proceedings would fight with each other very seriously and with a passion to win as much money or compensation or whatever it was they wanted as possible for themselves. However, both sides of this proceeding did not really have any excessive or outrageous demands and it did not take long for them to state what they wanted either, it seemed to me like both sides came to an agreement of some sort or something before the hearing even began and it was only a formality for legal reasons for the case or trial or hearing to even happen in the first place. I was a bit disappointed about the case because I thought that the trial would be much, much more interesting but it was not and it was a pretty big letdown. In fact, the case turned out to be only both sides voicing their opinions on the topic at hand and what they wanted from the other person and then finishing their portion or statement. Nothing remotely spectacular, special, or interesting happened during the hearing. I now think it was one of those common types of cases that take place where nothing ended up happening and everyone’s time is wasted in the end because I have seen some of these cases in movies and tv shows but they never happened a lot in them. When I came out of the courtroom, what I felt was very disappointed and unfulfilled.

On the one hand, I was glad that I got the case out of the way and got thirty minutes done and now I have experience of what an actual case looked like, and on the other, I was kind of disappointed that the case ended in such a boring fashion and the case ended so quickly too and it was really not an interesting experience. At first, it seemed to me that being the profession of a judge could be very, extremely interesting to me because everyone likes to have authority over every other person in the room, the highest authority. After seeing the case; however, it seemed turned out that the profession of a judge is not at all as interesting as I thought it was and it was such a bummer, and I can even tell that at some points in the case the judge was bored, distracted, and not caring or so it would seem. The thought of being a judge seemed to me like the job would be so boring and dull for a judge who has to go through such similar hearings and cases several times a day and for several days a week. I thought that if I went to any following, subsequent cases of this type where there is nothing happening, I would leave the room without any new experiences or knowledge because all these cases probably look, sound, and feel very the same as each other. However, I do not regret my visit to the court case because now that I have the experience of more or less what a real case looks like I can avoid the boring cases where nothing spectacular, special, or interesting happens. I do; however have my expectations shattered and now know that cases can be boring, short, and with no real substance or meaning to them at all. The level of presentation was not very high and I would rate this case a four out of ten.

Introduction

Defining a trust can be a difficult task due to its broad and flexible concept yet one may be able to recognize one. The definition of a trust is in two ways, the general way defines a trust to be an arrangement under which one person is bound to hold or administer property on behalf of another person or for an impersonal object and not for his own benefit. The second way to define trust is in accordance with the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988, Trust means the arrangement through which the ownership in property of one person is by virtue of a trust instrument made over or bequeathed (a) to another person, the trustee, in whole or in part, to be administered or disposed of according to the provisions of the trust instrument for the benefit of the person or class of persons designated in the trust instrument or for the achievement of the object stated in the trust instrument;

b) to the beneficiaries designated in the trust instrument, which property is placed under the control of another person, the trustee, to be administered or disposed of according to the provisions of the trust instrument for the benefit of the person or class of persons designated in the trust instrument or for the achievement of the object stated in the trust instrument, But does not include the case where the property of another is to be administered by any person as executor, tutor or curator in terms of the provisions of the Administration of Estate Act 66 of 1965.

With this definition two categories of trust are created, the first one is the ownership trust which stems from paragraph (a) of the definition of a trust in accordance with the Property Control Act 57 1998. Here the ownership of property vests with the trustee however in exercising of his duties or powers must be to the benefit of the trust and beneficiary and not of personal objectives. The second type of trust is the bewind trust, beneficiaries have ownership of trust assets however control and powers of disposal of assets vest with the trustee, meaning that a trust cannot exist independently, as it has never been referred to as an entity due to the reason that its assets and liabilities vest in the trustee.

Facts

In this case, the parties had been married and divorced from each other on no less than three occasions. When the final divorce order was in 2011, the respondent’s patrimonial claim was, by an agreement that was made an order of the court, postponed ‘sine die’. The court (SCA) made a finding that the exclusion clause contained in the parties’ antenuptial contract did not exclude the assets of three trusts (the Shajo Trust, the Campmark Business Trust, and the RMF Trust) for accrual purposes. As such, the big question to be dealt with is ‘whether these assets legitimately form part of the assets of these trusts and do not form part of the appellant’s estate, for purposes of the accrual system.

Legal issue

In critically analyzing REM v VM 2017 (3) SA 371 (SCA) the legal issue that arises is whether a trust and trust assets are to be considered in a marriage out of community of property with the accrual system. Part of this question is reaching a conclusion with regard to whether it is lawful for a spouse in a marriage out of the community of property with the accrual system to shield assets using a trust’s own separate legal personality in such a manner that it amounts to an unconscionable abuse of the trust form.

Rule

The Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1994 regulates marriage regimes in the Republic of South Africa. In the REM v VM the marriage out of community of property with the accrual system was opted by the married couple. In executing their marriage out of property parties signed an antenuptial contract which basically serves the purpose of parties seeking not to have a joint estate but a separate estate meaning each party remains in control of their assets and they do not form party of the marriage. However parties are married out of community with the accrual system, the accrual system is of the notion that if parties contribute to the growth of each other estate whilst married, parties will then share their estates equally amongst each other despite being a separation of estates.

What this basically does is put parties in a position of being married in a community of property in regard to sharing their estate equally despite the antenuptial contract being signed. If parties were married out of a community of property without the accrual system this would mean that their estates stay separate and there is no sharing of estate or anything amongst each other.

Part of being a trustee is having the duty of controlling trust property and in doing so the trust property must be kept separate from the trustee’s personal estate. In layman’s terms, trust has its own personality. However, hiding assets in a trust inappropriately evades the law with the utilization of the trust’s own personality which amounts to a trustee violating not only his/ her duties but committing Fraud and being dishonest/ acting in bad faith. The Badenhorst v Badenhorst case is of paramount importance when tackling this aspect of the question.

Application

In regard to the Matrimonial Property Act Principles in terms of the marriage out of community of property with an accrual system applies, it states that contribution towards estates and assets acquired during the marriage will form part of the Accrual system in cases of divorce and in matters when the estate has to be duly divided. The court applied these principles as well and we shall illustrate through its findings. The appellant’s claims are as follows;

• claim A was for the provision by the appellant of fixed property to the value of R300 000 escalated at the rate of 10 percent per annum. This was based upon a provision in the ANC that in the event of an extramarital affair of the appellant being the cause of a divorce, the respondent was to hand the asset to the appellant.
• Claims B, E, and F were ordered declaring that the assets in Shajo trust, RMF trust, and Cap Mark business trust form part of the appellant’s estate and should be part of accrual as they were not excluded in the antenuptial contract. The trust was altering egos whilst, in reality, they belonged to the appellant.
• Claim C was to set aside the transfer of 50% interest of Micellar to the Shajo trust due to it being a fraud.

Claim D’s contribution made to the RMF trust is part of the applicant’s estate therefore it should be deemed as accrual

The respondent’s responses to the appellant’s claims are as follows;

• Claim A, the appellant failed to prove that extramarital affair was the reason for divorce among parties
• claims B, E, F, the respondent is of the view that these assets should be excluded from the accrual due to clause 6 in the estate, also a matter to consider is that the appellant did not allege that these trusts are shams, therefore, the allegations of fraudulent claims without evidence cannot carry any weight in law as a result the assets are not of the respondent’s estate but trust.
• in respect to claims of fraudulent behavior, the transfer of 50% of micellar interest into Shajo trust was to defeat the accrual system the respondent denied allegations
• claim d, the appellant alleged that when properly interpreted the contribution in the Antenuptial contract, implied a positive act that benefits the contributor without there being an obligation to do so, therefore assets should not be accrued in accordance with the interpretation.

The Court’s findings are as follows;

The court in regards to claim A found that the extramarital affair led to the breakdown of the marriage and given the clause and obligations in place respondent would receive R1 144 004

The Court found that Claims B and F were to be included in the accrual in terms of them not being excluded in the Antenuptial contract. Therefore, the Shajo trust and Cape Mark test were altering egos because the appellant hand-managed the trust improperly, and assets were taken into account when determining the estate of the appellant.

Claims E in respect of RMF trust the court held that the appellant’s beneficial interest in this trust was to be excluded from the accrual due to the Antenuptial contract.

Claim C fraud judgment was passed due to inadequate evidence plus the conclusion reached on claim B

Claim d It held that the use of the word „contribution‟ in the ANC meant any asset that accumulated in the RMF Trust after the marriage, irrespective of how it was accumulated. It found that the total value of contributions made to the RMF Trust was R4 087 335.40. The respondent was entitled to 75 percent of this amount R3 065 501.58.

Conclusion

Thus in essence, the court was duly and rightfully correct in the decision that it reached as well as the manner in which the principles were applied in regard to both the Shajo trust and the Cape Mark trust in terms of which, they could be calculated due to them being part of the appellant’s estate, as he had them during the course of the marriage. The REM case should be highly admired for creating certainty in regard to trust assets and marriages involving the accrual system as well as for addressing any wrongful approach in regard to legal standing. The judgment of this case makes a distinct clarification that the asset values of an ‘alter ego’ trust may now be taken into account in marriages that are subject to the accrual system.

The United States of America has gone through a long history before it finally reached the first age of democracy in the 19th century. Democracy means a system of running organizations, businesses, and groups where their members are enabled to cast their votes and be part of the decisions. In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Court overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) McCain-Feingold campaign-financial law. Thus, corporations and other wealthy organized groups are now able to fund a campaigning candidate unlimitedly. Throughout this paper, I will argue that money is not a threat to democracy because corporations are humans in a sense, of fairness, and respect for democracy.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

In the Citizens United v. FEC (2010) case, the Supreme Court came up with two main conclusions that in favor of Citizens United. The first conclusion was that the inquiry whether the US Code Title 2 Section 441b (2 U. S. C. §441b) applied to “Hillary: The Movie,” (Hillary) could not be resolved on other, smaller grounds without chilling political speech. Hence, the Court had to think about the effect of Austin v. MCC’s (1990) speech suppression. Since Hillary was not an electioneering communication and publicized as stated in 2 U. S. C. §441b, Citizens United demanded the Court to invalidate that section and lift the ban on nonprofit corporate political speech being unable to receive funds from individuals. This case could not be solved without referring to the First Amendment, which recognizes freedom of speech. Citizens United also wanted to ban the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was the law that forbade corporations to run television advertisements about the candidate 30 days before the primaries (558 U.S. 310, at 1-2).

The second conclusion revoked Austin v. MCC (1990). Therefore, the FEC did not supply a basis for letting the government limit corporate independent spending, and §441b could be relevant to Hillary. The Buckley Court banished the US Code Title 18 Section 608 (18 U.S. C. §608)’s expenditures restriction since it did not show any essential governmental interest in the appearance of corruption in the electoral process. The First Amendment impeded Congress from arresting both citizens and their associations based on political speech, but Austin v. MCC (1990) ruled out the protection of corporations’ political speech, therefore, allowing the U.S. government to hold them legally accountable. The Court also found that under §441b of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the government could not provide a cohesive understanding of corporations’ funding powers. It is under-inclusive in the sense that the statute or §203 of BCRA only protects opposite shareholders’ interests for 30 to 60 days before an election. But, at the same time, it is over-inclusive as it includes all corporations (558 U.S. 310, at 3-4).

Majority Opinion

Justice Anthony Kennedy provided the majority opinion. Kennedy argued that speech was an important mechanism of democracy in the U.S. Kennedy thought that the government should allow companies to express their freedom of speech as stated in the First Amendment by not limiting their rights to fund and support the candidates. To Kennedy, the issue of corporations not being able to fund the candidates was merely censorship because by taking away the speaker’s right, the government denied the less advantaged people to use of their rights in a speech to establish support for the candidates. The government might not deprive the public of determining what kind of speech the public wants to choose because the First Amendment protects it. Furthermore, Kennedy pointed out that the Court has protected corporations’ rights in speech since 1886. Kennedy further argued that the First Amendment could veto the government from targeting corporations if the First Amendment had a force. Hence, McCain-Feingold and Austin v. MCC must be repealed (Toobin 2012: 12-13).

Minority Opinion

Throughout the whole process in the Court, the Court stated that BCRA‘s §§201 and 311 were legitimate for Hilary. The Court deemed the disclaimer and disclosure requirements had no limitation on campaign-oriented activities. They put Hilary into BCRA’s category of electioneering communication. The Court rejected Citizen United’s discontent with §201 and §311. In addition to this, John Paul Stevens had a dissent to the Court’s decision. Stevens thought that the law should not develop too fast, and he proposed that each case must rationally follow its predecessors. He was unhappy with the judges and with Kennedy’s declaration on corporations and humans having equal rights under the First Amendment. Steven showed his dissent in Kennedy’s arguments. Steven argued the views of corporations and humans were the same. Steven argued that when people talked about the First Amendment, it only applied to the Americans and it has been like that for decades. In addition to this, Steven further argued that Kennedy’s arguments would have agreed on the propaganda broadcasts to the American soldiers by ‘Tokyo Rose’ the same protection as spoken by the commanders (Toobin 2012: 13-15).

Money in Politics and My Argument

In the past decade, campaigns allowed the parties that gained support from the socioeconomically challenged to battle against the wealthy opponents. However, in the 21st century, money-based campaigns have received significant boosts to the candidates. Candidates with more money in their campaigns were more likely to win the election. In the U.S., democracy allows the candidates to acquire funds to spend on their campaigns with no time limitation on when funds can be used. Some people were concerned about the possibility of corruption in the unlimited funding. The government at the federal level imposed laws to address this issue. Yet the Supreme Court demolished the restrictions on money in politics through two 2 cases. The first one was Buckley v. Valeo (1976). In this case, the Supreme Court tore down the limitation on candidates’ expenditures. The second one was in Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. In this case, the Court regulated that the government had no authority to limit the funds from companies to the candidates.

Some people disagreed with the Court’s final decision and thought that the role of money in politics could harm democracy in the U.S. They might view the huge involvement of money in politics could increasing the practice of corruption. However, the BCRA’s §441b did not apply to the video on demand within 30 days before the election. It did not violate the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which prohibited corporations from running candidate-supporting or candidate-opposing television commercials. The Court has also decided that corporations were parts of the speech according to the First Amendment. In the reading, when people talked about corporations, they would relate them to money’s involvement in U.S. politics. Due to the controversy of money’s involvement in politics, I will further argue why people should involve money in politics.

First of all, in the U.S., all policies or rules have to refer to the Amendment, and the First Amendment covers freedom of speech. BCRA’s §203 prohibits corporations from spending their money to support the campaigning candidates. However, in a corporation, numerous people share the same visions, missions, and values, including political values. In other words, corporations are people. Since §203 prohibits corporations from funding campaigning candidates, it indirectly violates freedom of speech as mentioned in the First Amendment. Secondly, the concept of ‘fairness’ itself is not fair to the groups that gain corporate support. The anti-corporation groups might say that it is unfair for the candidate who receives funds from corporations to fight against the candidate who does not get funds from corporations. However, to know what fairness is, the government should not restrict money spent from corporations to a candidate. Pro-corporation groups put more effort into convincing corporations to support them. The anti-corporations can do the same by fund-raising and asking for corporations’ support. This way, people will have a fairground to fight. Lastly, the Court’s decision is valid and sound because it has to go through the process of democracy in the Court. To promote democracy in America, therefore people should respect the Court’s decision.

In summary, the Citizens United v. FEC case rescinded BCRA’s laws that prohibit corporations from participating in funding the campaigning candidate. Some people might find this decision harmful to the democracy in the U.S. As the minority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, John Paul Stevens wrote his dissent in Kennedy’s arguments in the Court. However, Kennedy’s arguments proposed better reasons for why the government should allow corporations to fund the campaigning candidates. Supported by Kennedy’s arguments, therefore, I further argue that corporations being people as stated in the First Amendment, fairness, and respect for democracy are the reasons why money is not dangerous to U.S. democracy. 

Your Honor:

My name is Tansylu and I am a prosecution attorney. The case being discussed includes the murder of a police officer, Patrick Maloney committed by his wife, Mary Maloney. The prosecution believes that Ms. Maloney has killed her husband and should be charged with manslaughter. By examining the evidence, including the murder weapon, motive, and the emotion she showed during her interrogation, we can determine that Mary Maloney is guilty of this crime.

To objectively assess the situation, the circumstances of the crime scene should be considered. The victim – Patrick Maloney, a hard-working police officer, was always doing good for his community. He protected the town and made the citizens feel safe. The murderer – Mary Maloney was an ordinary housewife in 1950s England. Like most women of that time, she was completely devoted to her husband she depended on him. However, she betrayed her feelings and killed her lover.

It is true that, recently, they had been having troubles and were fighting, but that is to be expected from any normal relationship. They were usually able to overcome their differences but Patrick’s words about him “going out” (which meant he was leaving Mary), worked as a provocation. She was hurt, upset, and scared about losing Patrick, her true love and the father of her child. Under the influence of intense, emotions Mrs. Maloney decided to hit Patrick as hard as it was possible with a frozen leg of lamb which she happened to have in her hands.

Some may argue that Mary is insane and should be placed in a mental health facility. But the point is that most of us are capable of doing something comparable in extraordinary circumstances. And most of us, presumably, are not mentally sick. Otherwise, Mary Maloney seems completely sane. She is a good homemaker and loves her husband. She is looking forward to having a baby. After she has done the deed and her husband is dead, she shows perfect rationality in looking out for herself and her unborn kid.

The investigator who worked with Mary claims: “It was extraordinary, how clear her mind became all of a sudden. She began thinking very fast.” By asking her questions detective was able to understand what was going on in her mind and he had never reported any evidence of insanity. Mary establishes an alibi and gets rid of the murder weapon by making the police eat it. All of Patrick Maloney’s colleagues, who have known his wife for a long time, regard her as a perfectly normal woman and a law-abiding citizen.

Based on the evidence we believe that murder itself was a product of hot emotion and can be defined as a “crime of passion”, however, her following actions, such as lying to the police and creating a fake alibi, were a product of cool, calm rationalization and prove that Mary Maloney is sane. Therefore defendant should be charged with voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment for a period determined by law. 

Profile

• Who – Name the Figure/Persons involved

Emmet Till

• When – Identify the dates of the key events that this person/Group was involved in.

Born: 25th July 1941 in Chicago

20th of August 1955, he saw his mother for the last time. He went to live with his uncle,

August 28th – Roy Bryant and half-brother J.W Milam killed Emmet Till.

• What – Provide 1-2 paragraphs on the person/incident and what happened

The reason Emmet Till is so famous for making a change In civil rights is because of his murder. Emmet Till was accused of fox-whistling at a white lady in the grocery store. The lady had told people about him accusing her, 72hrs after he accused the lady he was brutally murdered by Roy Bryant and her half-brother J.W Milam. His body was put on display for the public for 5 days. Later the lady admitted that Emmet Till did not do anything in the store to harm her.

12 months later the 2 men admitted to the murder. The men could not be trialed for the same crime twice. This means the men were ‘not guilty’ and got away with it.

• Why – Identify why this person/incident is a key moment in time for civil rights advancement in the USA

The reason why this key event is such a key moment in history is that the only reason Emmet got murdered was that he was black and a white lady accused him of abusing her by apparently-whistlingly in a grocery store. Later on, Roy Bryant and J.W Milam murdered Emmet. This is such a big moment in history because the 2 men that murdered Emmet faced court but pleaded ‘not guilty” this is because the judge was white.

The proceeding I observed was a continuation of a trial. It was on November 1st, the courthouse was Robert S.K. Welch Court House and the trial was for the case R. v R.C., which occurred in room number 5. The judge in charge of the trial was Justice Huge K. Atwood. The trial was about a youth who was charged with assault for punching and throwing street signs at his father because he was trying to protect his younger brother from his father who had a history of abusing them. The individual was 19 years old, but he was still being tried in youth court. The case went to trial because the youth tried pleading guilty since he thought his action was defensive instead of criminal, he only engaged in violence to protect his younger brother who was defenseless towards the father’s abuse. In the end, the youth was sentenced to an absolute discharge and the judge strongly recommended community service.

While analyzing the trial continuation, I was able to see many different ways in which the Youth Criminal Justice Act was incorporated into the trial such as certain laws, structures, and procedures being followed in court. I was able to notice how some of these factors influenced the judge’s decision regarding the sentence the youth was given. Next, I focused on section three of the YCJA and I was able to identify three principles that were involved in the proceeding, why they are important, and how they were used. The three principles that I identified were; diminished responsibility compared to adults, proportionality, and meaningful consequences.

I was able to see the factors of fairness being used when the young person was being tried. For example, the young person was not simply looked upon as an offender, but as an individual with rights who had certain circumstances that impacted the decisions he made (Bell, 2015). As the textbook states, fairness is a big part of the YCJA. This was shown by making sure that the youth was being represented by a lawyer who was fairly representing him, and that the youth was aware that he was being charged with assault for attacking his father, based on video evidence of the event (Bell, 2015). When I relate the trial to the YCJA more specifically, I was able to see elements from the preamble being used. For example, the preamble talks about the youth as someone who is the responsibility of the community and needs guidance in becoming a fully function adult in society (Bell, 2015). I saw this while the was judge sentencing the youth and talking about his father. The judge talked about how putting the youth in custody would not be in the best interest of the youth or community, as going to jail can reinforce criminal behaviors, and since his father was the one who dragged him into committing the offense, the community should step in and help guide him to make better decisions (Bell, 2015). The judge believed that the purpose of the sentence should be to deter him from the court system and influence him to act differently in the future to avoid getting involved again. I noticed how this was one of the cases where the police or judge did not think extrajudicial measures or sanctions were not appropriate because it was a violent crime (Bell, 2015), which the textbook describes as a crime where bodily harm is caused, and in the youth’s case, he did harm his father by attacking him.

This trial allowed me to see the structure of the YCJA. The textbook talks about how when a youth is charged with a violent offense, they are sent to court. According to the seriousness of the case, the youth can be detained for crimes (Marinos, 2019), and in this case, he, was not held, as I did see the accused waiting outside with everyone, which exemplified how resources are kept for more seriously. In court, there was video evidence being used to prove the youth guilty of the offense, but factors surrounding his life were also heavily taken into consideration, such as that he grew up in a home with domestic violence, his father had a history of abusing him and his brother, the young person had a job since she was 10, he was a good student, had no previous encounter with the legal system and was able to maintain good relationships with his peers, significant other and family (as aside from his father). The judge also noted how the young person only got involved to protect his younger brother, his father was the one dragging him into getting involved, and that no members of the public were harmed or put in danger. This showed how the judge looked at factors such as the degree of participation, the mitigating circumstances in his life, and his previous involvement (Bell, 2015). After considering everything, the judge gave his opinion and consulted the other professionals in the room about an appropriate punishment. In the end, the judge looked into the best interest of the youth because no members of the public were harmed, and he was given an absolute discharge which would help him reintegrate into society and have minimal impact on his future. This was also an example of how responses to each case are tailored to the individual (Bell, 2015).

The first principle that I saw during the proceeding was the diminished responsibility of the youth compared to adults who have committed the same crime. This principle is important to the YJCA because it refers to when youth are being sentenced and held accountable for the actions they committed, it needs to be consistent with their level of maturity, and development (Bell, 2015). Youths should be given less severe punishments for the offense compared to adults because the youth is still developing crimes (Marinos, 2019). Because they are still developing, their expected responses to situations are different than adults, they are more impulsive, more likely to act on emotions instead of thinking things through, they may not fully understand the consequences of their actions and may focus on the immediate gratification instead of thinking about how their life will be impacted in the future (Bell, 2015). This would make it unreasonable to give them the same consequences compared to adults who have learned to control their emotions and impulses and can think long-term. The YCJA focuses on keeping adults and youth separate in terms of their responsibility and takes into consideration what a big factor age plays in why the youth may offend (Bell, 2015). However, it’s still important that the youth is held responsible for their actions, but they should be punished in a way that is more appropriate to them. This relates to the trial that I witnessed because when the judge was talking about the youth’s sentence, he brought up that he would be punished less severely than his father, even though they were both charged with assaulting each other. The judge talked about how because the father was a fully grown adult, he could think about his actions and act more responsibly than assaulting a youth. The father should have stepped up in his role as the father of the two boys to help keep them away from the justice system instead of getting them involved. The judge strongly believed that the only reason why the youth was in court was because of his father. The judge did talk about how the youth should have thought more about his actions and how they could have impacted him negatively. But the judge was also aware that the youth got aggravated after seeing his younger brother being assaulted by his father, so he impulsively acted on his anger and attacked his father. However, even after considering age, the judge did emphasize that his actions were not okay and that assaulting someone in a fit of anger would never be okay. In the end, the judge did state that the youth was given an absolute discharge whereas his father was given 2 years on parole and a community service sentence.

The second principle I witnessed during the trial was proportionality. According to the YCJA, the way that the system responds to the youth must be proportional to the crime committed while respecting the circumstances around the youth’s life (Bell, 2015). The consequences need to be equivalent to the crime, after looking at all the factors that motivated the youth to offend. The consequence mustn’t be too lenient, harsh, or too disruptive of the youth’s life, as this can cause the consequence to become ineffective in helping prevent the youth offend in the future (Bell, 2015). This principle is important to the YCJA because it helps eliminate the factor of youth being treated too harshly and getting intensive sentences as they were under the YOA crimes (Marinos, 2019). Adding this principle was one of the modifications made to the YCJA because of the high number of youth incarcerations (Bell, 2015). It ensures that youth aren’t being treated worse or sentenced longer than adults, and the length of their sentence needs to be proportionate to the crime they commit. This helps maintain the balance between the offense and what punishment the youth faces for it. A proportionate response is more likely to help deter youth from re-entering the criminal system and result in better long-term public protection. This principle relates to the proceeding because it reflects how the youth got a proportionate sentence for the crime he committed. The youth got an absolute discharge because he didn’t harm any members of the public and he only acted violently to protect his brother. The youth didn’t start the violence but only became a part of it because he thought it was necessary, and because of his emotions he got carried away and started throwing street signs at his father. The court did a very good job considering all these factors while sentencing the youth. He wasn’t unproportionally blamed and the reason for his involvement and the factors that motivated him to assault his father were understood.

The final principle I saw during the trial was meaningful consequence. The YCJA refers to the principle of meaningful consequences as giving youth consequences that make them accountable for their actions while helping them understand why they were wrong, so they don’t do it again (Bell, 2015). It gives the youth a chance to understand what they did, what their actions meant, and how they impacted someone else negatively, as most youth who commit petty crimes often just think about the immediate rewards, they get from the crime, rather than how they are impacting someone else negatively. When consequences are meaningful it teaches the youth why it’s wrong to act that way, instead of just knowing they shouldn’t be doing that. When there is an understanding of why something is wrong, the youth is more likely to avoid acting that way in future crimes (Marinos, 2019). This principle reflects the restorative model of justice as it addresses the harm a youth commits with their actions, while holding them accountable but also teaches them ways why they shouldn’t act that way in the future and how they can make amends to those affected (Bell, 2015). This relates to the trial because it shows me how the consequences the youth faced held him accountable, made him understand why his actions were inappropriate and motivated him to stay away from the justice system. The youth only assaulted his father because he was defending his brother; he was protecting his family. The judge stated the only reason why wasn’t being sentenced to community service was because no members of the public were harmed. He was held accountable for his actions and punished by going through the justice system and having a temporary record. This meant that he wasn’t punished for protecting his brother, but only for attacking his father. The procedure allowed him to think about the consequences his actions could have had. It was made clear that acting violently wasn’t okay, but protecting his brother was and he needs to focus on removing someone from the situation instead of attacking. The judge strongly recommended community service for community reparation for causing potential harm. The sentence the youth got helped him understand that acting violently isn’t okay and his record will help him stay away from the justice system.

References

1. Bell, S. J. (2015). Young offenders and youth justice: A century after the fact. (Bell, 2015)
2. Marinos, personal communication, September 18th, 2019
3. Marinos, personal communication, September 25th, 2019
4. Marinos, personal communication, October 2nd, 2019
5. Bell, Sandra J. 2015. Youth Offenders and Youth Justice: A Century After The Fact. 5th edition. Toronto: Nelson Educational.

Mary Maloney is Guilty of Second Degree Murder.

Mary Maloney is guilty, but not of first-degree murder, instead, I believe she is guilty of second-degree murder. I think this because she hadn’t already planned it out, but I do believe that it was deliberate. She knew the consequences of hitting her husband in the head with a frozen leg of lamb. She had already been upset with the topic he had brought up earlier. When she heard her husband say “I’ve already told you, don’t make supper for me. I’m going out.” (Dahl, p2) That is the point where she decides to swing the piece of meat at his head, without much thought. She knew it would hurt him and possibly murder him. I don’t think she cared as she was mad at him for whatever was happening between her and her husband. Even though this was not a planned murder, it was still intentional making it second-degree murder.

After Mary was told something by her husband, whatever that may have been she was in disbelief that it had happened and was going to ignore it. “Her first instinct was not to believe any of it. She thought that perhaps she’d imagined the whole thing. Perhaps, if she acted as though she had not heard him, she would find out that none of it had ever happened” (Dahl, p2) This proves that she had no intention of murder at that point and was only going to carry on with her day as if nothing had happened.

The conversation that Patrick had with Mary upset her a lot, she planned to believe that it was a dream, which would mean that it was not a planned murder but had later occurred when she hit him causing her to be guilty of second-degree murder. My two points behind her not being guilty of first-degree murder but being guilty of second-degree murder, both explain how she hadn’t planned it out, and if she had it would be first-degree murder.

Mary put no thought into planning to murder Patrick but had just done it after he said he was leaving that made her mad and without much thought, she hit him causing his murder. My final point is that she was going to carry out her day as planned by giving Patrick his dinner and ignoring what he had said which would tell us that her objective was not to kill him then, which shows that she had not planned out how she would murder him. These two points make it clear that she had not put any thought into killing him. Which makes her guilty of second-degree murder and not first-degree murder 

Mary Maloney is Guilty of Second Degree Murder.

Mary Maloney is guilty, but not of first-degree murder, instead, I believe she is guilty of second-degree murder. I think this because she hadn’t already planned it out, but I do believe that it was deliberate. She knew the consequences of hitting her husband in the head with a frozen leg of lamb. She had already been upset with the topic he had brought up earlier. When she heard her husband say “I’ve already told you, don’t make supper for me. I’m going out.” (Dahl, p2) That is the point where she decides to swing the piece of meat at his head, without much thought. She knew it would hurt him and possibly murder him. I don’t think she cared as she was mad at him for whatever was happening between her and her husband. Even though this was not a planned murder, it was still intentional making it second-degree murder.

After Mary was told something by her husband, whatever that may have been she was in disbelief that it had happened and was going to ignore it. “Her first instinct was not to believe any of it. She thought that perhaps she’d imagined the whole thing. Perhaps, if she acted as though she had not heard him, she would find out that none of it had ever happened” (Dahl, p2) This proves that she had no intention of murder at that point and was only going to carry on with her day as if nothing had happened.

The conversation that Patrick had with Mary upset her a lot, she planned to believe that it was a dream, which would mean that it was not a planned murder but had later occurred when she hit him causing her to be guilty of second-degree murder. My two points behind her not being guilty of first-degree murder but being guilty of second-degree murder, both explain how she hadn’t planned it out, and if she had it would be first-degree murder.

Mary put no thought into planning to murder Patrick but had just done it after he said he was leaving that made her mad and without much thought, she hit him causing his murder. My final point is that she was going to carry out her day as planned by giving Patrick his dinner and ignoring what he had said which would tell us that her objective was not to kill him then, which shows that she had not planned out how she would murder him. These two points make it clear that she had not put any thought into killing him. Which makes her guilty of second-degree murder and not first-degree murder 

In the article written by Patrick Keefe, ‘Can a Brain Scan Tell if You’re Lying?’, Keefe writes about experts that side with fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) and their ability to be used as a lie detector test. The lie detector test would be used in court cases to determine if the offender is guilty or innocent in the crime that was committed. With fMRI still being a work in progress with many more studies needed to be done to be able to effectively and safely use this tool in the court room, I deem this technique inadmissible. FMRI brain scanning is a relatively new tool in forensic science that still needs many questions resolved, and the overall scan itself is a very tedious process for the person receiving the scan. More about fMRI and what it entitles will be covered in the following paragraphs as well as the upside to using fMRI as evidence in the criminal court system.

As previously said before, fMRI is a new technique that is being introduced into the court room and with little to no real-world testing or studies that have been performed, there is no certainty that fMRI will work in a real-world application. So far, they have tested fMRI to see if it is reliable on participants that are instructed to lie but this raises some concern. The question which arises when this is brought up is: is this indeed reliable? This can produce a similar outcome to the Hawthorne effect because the participants are aware that they are indeed participants, and they are being told to lie to the experimenters when asked questions while undergoing the fMRI lie detection test. The real-world people that would actually undergo a test like this one are not lying because they are being directed to lie by an experimenter, but moreover as a result of an action that led them to go to prison or jail and as result have to attend a court trial where they are being convicted. The difference between the two is that one is being forced to lie knowingly which can have an outcome of illegitimate results and the other one is doing so willingly without someone impacting their actions. The person that is being instructed to lie is processing what they are being told and one of the tasks is to lie. This could produce results that are not accurate because they already know that they will have to lie and this could have a potential effect on the brain psychologically. This is where a similar effect of the Hawthorne effect arises, there could be an alteration of behavior between the person who would be undergoing this test in a real-world event versus a person who is doing so for the sake of an experiment and its outcome. This could possibly result in psychological changes between the two candidates that would both be taking the fMRI test. So how exactly would obtaining evidence work to be able to use fMRI one day in the future? As professor Greely stated in the article, it is not possible to detain people just to experiment on them to see whether or not the fMRI truly works. It is impractical to gather real-world data without breaking ethical codes or having strict experimental studies. Nonetheless, these studies would still yield questioning results as every mind is truly unique in its own way. Meaning, these distinctive results may vary from person to person depending if they had or currently have a mental illness or any mental differences from other participants, but we will talk about this a bit later on.

On another hand, another tool that is used as a lie detector would be the polygraph test. This test measures a person’s heart rate, breathing, and electrical skin conductivity while the person administering the polygraph test asks the participant questions. Because the participant is hooked up to a machine that translates the physiological results into a graph, the person administering the polygraph would be able to note the differences between a lie and the truth solely based on the graphical differences. This technique was used in the court room to deem whether a person was guilty or not guilty of crimes that he/she were prosecuted for. In most states, this lie detection test is now unused and inadmissible in court because of its lack of validity. Although it is no longer used in court cases it still remains commonly used throughout jobs and as stated in the article, it also is used in background checks that are ran by the government. Even though they are used in areas of employment and used by the government in various ways, polygraph tests could be outsmarted, and someone could learn to control their physiological responses while lying. The polygraph test would not capture the responses because the heart beat would not alter, perspiring would be absent, and so on. Something similar as seen in the polygraph test could happen to the fMRI lie detection test. If we do not conduct enough research into this tool that we could possibly access in the court room, then the chance of convicting someone incorrectly arises. Although, convicting someone incorrectly does happen due to evidence being incorrect or mishandled, or for any other reason, it is imperative that accuracy for the fMRI lie detection test be very low. An important factor to take into consideration with fMRI are mental illnesses among people.

Going back to the topic of mental illnesses, how exactly would fMRI play out with people that suffer from mental illnesses? There are a wide range of mental illnesses and they are all different in their own way and each of them affect individuals more or less differently than other illnesses. This is a very important topic that must be discussed before or if fMRI would even be used in the court room. Among mental illnesses, how would the people that have had a mental illness in the past but no longer suffer from that illness fit into this fMRI lie detection test, compared to someone psychologically healthy? As talked about in the article, another implication for fMRI would be the people that have had previous head injuries or people suffering from strokes. The people that have suffered head injuries, mental illness(es), or people that have suffered strokes would not be able to receive this same brain scan and expect the same outcome. Certain parts of their brain work differently and that could have an impact on the fMRI while conducting the lie detecting test. A multitude of studies need to be performed for fMRI lie detection tests to be legitimate because it is illogical to think that a psychologically healthy person will yield the same results as a person that suffers from a mental illness. Switching shifts, another important factor that the article brings up is movement during the scan. The slightest of head movement can throw the data off resulting in poor results. This is not convenient for the person taking the brain scan because not only is the scan already being performed in a closed enclosure which could cause the person to feel uncomfortable in the confined space, but they cannot move their head even the slightest bit. This could be rather uncomfortable for many people as this is not customary to the majority of people. If the person did move their head, this can result in swayed results which could lead to a bigger problem such as false data. This data, if used, can result in a more serious issue because it is being utilized in a trial to prove innocence or guilt. Another implication that could arise with head movement ties with mental illness. If the person receiving the scan suffers from a mental illness that causes involuntary movements such as an essential tremor which is an involuntary movement of (usually) the head, then what would be the options for this person involving the fMRI? They would most likely not be able to participate in the brain scan and be ruled out as a participant. Along this issue, the article states that fMRI dealing with the court system currently has no protocols. Protocols are a very important part of the procedures and rules that would entitle functional MRI are critical. Although fMRI is not completely and thoroughly put together, protocols are nonetheless necessary and should be used. Protocols should be established to not only make things easier for the person undergoing the scan but also the person conducting the scan. It would be much easier to abide by a certain protocol that everyone has to follow rather than figuring everything out case by case. This also reduces the chance of errors in scans and procedures as well. It reduces errors because if one is following a protocol or guideline, there is little room to make errors. The person performing the scan must follow the protocol and not do whatever comes to mind. Dr. Daniel Langleben, a researcher for lie detection, mentioned in the article that something very controversial about functional MRI was that the people conducting the scans are literally looking into the someone’s brain. People might find this unpleasant because the people conducting the scans, and the people that would attend the court trial would be able to see inside the person’s brain and what their brain activity looks like. This might come off as intruding in the defendant’s life and as an invasion of privacy, the defendant may not want to participate in this type of lie detection test and instead turn away from a test like this one. On another note, according to the article, a researcher claims that the simple fact that the defendant wants to take the functional MRI test holds some weight in terms of being innocent. I do not agree with his thought process as I do not believe that the simple fact that a person wants to take the fMRI test to prove their innocence means that they are more than likely innocent. If anything, I feel as if this thought process would lead to errors. If one is thinking that the defendant is more than likely innocent, you may involuntarily change minor things in the experiment or unknowingly rephrase questions because you strongly believe they are innocent.

There are some positive attributes to the functional MRI tool, and the brain scan as a whole would be a big step in science and a great accomplishment not only for science and technology, but for law as well. To be able to use a tool that measures brain activity and blood flow and use this to help the court system determine if a defendant is guilty or innocent is remarkable. A great feature that was mentioned in the article that functional MRI has is that you cannot learn or fake brain activity. You cannot teach your brain to have more blood flow in a certain area of your brain. This is a great feature because it ensures that one cannot manipulate or alter the results unlike the polygraph test. As mentioned above, with the polygraph test it measures physiological changes such as heart rate, perspiration, blood pressure, skin conductivity, etc and one can control these factors if learned. But something one cannot do is control where your blood flow in the brain is directed to. Although functional MRI has many great features, there is still a lot of research to be done in various areas such as mental illness. There are also a lot of complications with using functional MRI’s that do not all have answers to them.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that fMRI should not be used in the future because there are too many implications that get in the middle of fMRI working properly in the court room. There is little to no real-world research that could be used or applied to this relatively new tool that looks promising. Although, using fMRI as evidence for a court case sounds propitious, there are more losses than gains in my perspective. According to the article, the current experiments that have been conducted were by people that were instructed to lie which could have impacted their train of thought and thus, possibly causing psychological changes in the way they think or perceive a certain statement or thought. It is also a very complicated matter when it comes to people with mental illnesses taking this fMRI scan as a lie detector because their brains can be structurally and constituently different compared to a healthy person’s brain. There is also the concern of not moving one’s head while the scan is being performed because it can cause poor results which can lead to swayed results. Another issue that arises are ethical concerns. The question of whether it is morally and ethically okay to look into someone’s brain and see their brain activity comes up. Not everyone would agree to undergo this brain scan, but that does not imply that they are necessarily guilty. Likewise, a defendant going through with the scan does not imply that they are more than likely innocent. In conclusion, the article did state functional MRI can have a hopeful future with a lot more research, but even though there are some upsides to this tool, I do not believe the cons outweigh the pros and I believe that functional MRI will not provide a reliable means of lie detection.