PlayNation served Velex with a complaint that stated Velex was infringing on PlayNation’s trademark. The district court ruled in PlayNation’s favor. The court employed seven factors when making the determination: the strength of the plaintiff’s mark; the similarity of the marks; the similarity of the products the marks represent; the similarity of the parties’ retail outlets and customers; the similarity of advertising media; the defendant’s intent; and actual confusion.
The court ruled that the use of the trademark by PlayNation is strong, descriptive and suggestive because the mark is suggestive it enjoys greater protection. The mark is also incontestable, presumed to be at least descriptive with secondary meaning, which supports the belief of the strength of the mark. On this point, the court sided with PlayNation.
The court believes that the two marks are exceedingly similar, from the wording to the art and size of the gorilla used in the mark. Velex argued that their mark reads ‘Gorilla Gym’, while PlayNation reads ‘Gorilla Playsets’ the difference in the word was not enough for the court to find any significant difference in the marks, therefore, the courts’ decision on this point was not incorrect and found in favor for PlayNation.
Both PlayNation and Velex sell a variety of playthings geared toward children. PlayNation selling outdoor and Velex selling indoor products. Using the metric the court has employed, the public can attribute both products to a single source, as a result, it supports the district court’s findings.
There are several parallels in the retail outlets each company uses to distribute their product. Velex attempted to argue that because PlayNation sells through dealers the retail outlets between the two companies are dissimilar, however, the court still found that there is a likelihood of confusion still exists as well both companies used similar methods of advertising.
PlayNation provided evidence of consumers who purchased a PlayNation set but contacted Velex for servicing and customer support needs. Although PlayNation did not provide many instances of this the court ruled that the instances of confusion that occurred are the most significant.
Velex, in the appeal, attempted to introduce new factors one that Velex held a valid federal trademark that covered the products and secondly there was no survey evidence suggesting consumer confusion. The court declined to agree or consider either point.
Velex’s trademark was canceled and they were ordered to pay damages to PlayNation. The district court ruled that Velex willfully infringed on PlayNation’s trademark because of the continued sale of its products after the complaint was filed.
Of the two elements required to cancel the trademark, PlayNation was able to show both. Therefore, the district court did not abuse power in its ruling to cancel Velex’s trademark. There has been abundant evidence demonstrating the infringement on PlayNation’s trademark by Velex.
The damages Velex was ordered to pay was vacated and remanded. There was an abuse of discretion by the district court.
The final ruling in the appeal affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Velex was not able to regain their trademark, Velex is no longer required to pay damages to PlayNation.
The courts system in Nigeria and elsewhere has been composed to settle disputes, ensure public order, prosperity and sustain societal peace. This has been the practice of civilized states to ensure that as important as justice is, it’s not left in the hands of political and social interests.
The courts system in Nigeria as presently constituted was established by Nigerian Constitution of 1999. Though the 1999 Constitution is not the first legal framework that established the court system in Nigeria, it is the most recent legal provision for Courts. The constitution provides the institution with hierarchy and jurisdiction to try and convict citizens and institutions for various offences against both the private and public interests. The Constitution specifically provides for a Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Courts and The High Court of States and the Federal Capital Territory, The Customary Court of Appeal of States and the Federal Capital Territory, The Sharia Court of Appeal of States and the Federal Capital Territory. Others are The Magistrate Court, The Customary Court, Sharia Court, Election Tribunal and the Code of Conduct Tribunal respectively.
For courts to play the very important state function of dispensing justice for the good of all citizens, it engages employees in different capacities ranging from judges to security personnel and put them in an environment to enable them perform different tasks pursuant to the dispensation of justice. In assessing the workplace environment and employees’ performance in Nigerian courts system, the paper operationalises key terms, appreciates the nature of workplace environment in Nigerian courts and examines the negative impact of nonperformance of emmployees in Nigerian courts. The paper further highlighted various ways to improve workplace environment for better employee performance.
Operational Definition of Terms
Workplace Environment: Workplace environment refers to the location, surroundings as well as the physical and non physical conditions in which employees operates.
Employees Performance: Employee performance refers to the ability of an employee to accomplish his or her mission based on the expectations of an employer/organization.
The Court System: The court system refers to the entire processes, procedures and conditions embarked upon to achieve the interpretation and settlement of disputes among parties in line with set down laws of the state.
The Workplace Environment in Nigerian Courts system
There is evidence that before 1955, Nigeria had what was best described as a judiciary or Court system. At that time, the entire country had a single justice and under him, there were judges, magistrates, registrars and Clerical officers, many of whom were expatriates. While expatriates always occupied the exalted positions of judges and magistrates, Africans were mostly registrars and clerical officers. Under the unitary arrangement, judges and magistrates were expected to serve in any part of Nigeria (Ademola, nd).
When it became obvious that Nigeria was better as a federal state, some argued for a unitary system for the courts as they believed the system will bind the regions that were to be created better. This was however not the case as there was a major challenge in terms of distributing of staff to the regions and Lagos. The country therefore, like other organs of government, regionised the courts/judicial system.
Even under this new arrangement, as it had always been, the judges and magistrates were perceived by many as the most important personnel in the court system. While this opinion may be substantiated as these category of employees wield a lot of influence, suffice to say that because of the very many activities of the courts, other line employees are hired to perform various roles in the discharge of justice. Therefore, as Ademola (n.d) insists, the various positions held by employees, high or low is not to be taken as a conclusive index to their importance in general scheme of justice system. It is the collective efforts of all categories of employees that lead to quality justice at all levels of the courts as provided by the constitution.
Overtime however, employees’ performance in the justice system has been deteriorating and affecting the dispensation of justice to citizens. The courts have, especially in recent time been accused of miscarriage of justice or as a tool in the hands of political elites or the rich and privilege in the society (Shehu, Bin Uthman and Osman, 2017). This accusation is a direct affront on the employees of the courts as employees of any organization are seen as the determinants of such organizations.
Many reasons can be adduced for court employees’ underperformance in workplace environment:
Lack of growth opportunities: Employees goals vary- while some may just be after job stability, others may want to progress within an organizations. No matter what employees want, there must be opportunities for upward movement. Once employees perceive that there no room for growth even in the face of hard work, such employees can become frustrated and unproductive.
Lack of variety: Lack of variety leads employees to monotony of work and causes lack of inspiration in workplace.
Lack of communication: The inability of an organisation to communicate set goals, objectives and targets and other developments with employees constantly and consistently misdirect employees focus as each may be pursuing objective that may be parallel or not very crucial at a particular period.
Work related stress: Lack of rest arising from very busy schedule of work eventually leads to staff underperformance.
Interference of political issues: Because of political factors within or outside of workplace environment, employees’ morale towards work is sometimes dampened. This situation leads to underperformance of staff.
Bad work environment: This may not necessarily be aesthetical. Work environment can be said to be bad when the general vibe in the office is negatively and highly disorganized to an extent that employees can hardly cope with as they perform their tasks.
Lacks of challenge: If duties are monotonous, it is very easy for employees to switch to autopilot. Sometimes, it is only when management challenges the capacity of staff that they innovate or create solutions to organizational problems.
Lack of incentives: Incentives are seen as stimulants that may result to better employees’ output. So, when organizations fail to provide reasons for employees to feel obligated to achieve more, it leads to bad attitude to work.
Lack of direction: When leadership of an organization is unable to clearly define its goals/objectives and clearly demonstrate the ability to pursue set goals/objectives, the employees lack a sense of direction.
Lack of resources: This is the inability of staff to perform their jobs owing to unavailability of materials, facilities or tools with which they combine with their manpower to produce.
The Impact of Court Employees Underperformance on Justice Administration in Nigeria
As a result of the forgoing nature of workplace environment in Nigerian court system, the quality of justice administration in Nigeria has been on a steady decline (Nwabueze, 2007). The underperformance of the Nigerian court system has specifically affected the delivery of justice in the following ways:
Unnecessary delays in justice administration. For instance, as at 2016, over 5000 cases dating as far back as 2005 were said to be pending pending at the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
Deliberate attempts to block negotiations
Corrupt practices among parties to cases
Open hostilities among parties to cases
Refusal or delay in making trial records available
Rising rate of jungle justice as a result of lack of confidence in the court system
The informal cost of prosecuting a matter before a Nigerian Court
Breach of oath of secrecy by concerned officers of the courts.
How to improve workplace environment for better employees’ performance in Nigerian Courts
Since performance of court employees determines the success or otherwise in justice delivery to citizens, attention must therefore be paid on the value that individuals add to the system in a particular period. To achieve that, employees should not only be considered as the single most important component of justice administration. In addition to manpower, they must be provided with a workplace that supports the task they perform. To do this is to ensure the following:
Provision of tools that support task: Staff who have all the tools they require to perform their task are most likely to achieve set objectives for the court and indeed for the entire system. Such tools can be computers, safes, recorders, projectors printers, paper among others.
Correct and timely communications: Sharing valuable information such as the set goals, prepares employees to timely perform their task in line with leadership direction.
Creation of opportunities for organizational growth: Staff performance is influenced immensely by availability of space and opportunities for staff growth. The believe that one has a chance to work towards a certain organizational position tend to drive individuals towards extraordinary performance and by so doing, they contribute in pushing the wheels of justice system forward.
Motivation and incentives to staff: Job motivators and incentives are very important in boosting staff performance in work place. Motivators and incentives vary from prompt payment of salary and allowances to award and recognition of employees for hard work and extraordinary performance. When employees are rest assured of their financial and health security, they dare to break new grounds to the benefit of their organisations.
Provision of social services for employees: To release work related stress and increase performance, resources like sports and gaming facilities can be provided by government for staff to take advantage of at a location not to far removed from staff residences. This strategy helps to keep staff together to enable them share resources.
Periodic employee rotation: To avoid monotony of work, employees should be periodically moved to different sectors or departments. This exercise will not only enrich their experience, it will also bring satisfaction and check possible irregularities that may have arisen if an employee is allowed to maintain a particular job position for too long a time.
Avoidance of Political Interference and Control: Nothing destroys justice administration as much as political interference and control. Once the justice system is influenced politically, there is likelihood of negligence of work environment and court clients and eventually the diversion of the course of justice in favour of those who have political power or those whose can afford “justice”.
Avoidance of corruption: Like a cancer-warm, corruption which has eaten deep in every sphere of Nigeria’s national business has infected most of the employees of the courts in Nigeria. It is common to find employees of the courts asking for or taking bribe; from the judge to the typist to perform various official roles. This state of affairs has led to the miscarriage of justice in favour of those who can afford to bribe their way through the court system.
Granting of full financial autonomy to the judiciary: Financial autonomy for the judiciary is non-negotiable if the courts are to perform their constitutional role maximally. A financially independent court system can provide for its employees better and faster than if it were to wait on its financier (the executive and the legislature) who often times uses the finances as a bases to “negotiate” justice.
Conclusion
It is no doubt that the courts system has been embraced as the most civilized method of dispute resolution in modern societies since the beginning of modern history. The system has also continually been manned by supposed seasoned employees. In discharging their legitimate duties however, these employees are challenged by several factors including their work environment which is supposed to provide them the requirement to perform.
In Nigeria, the work environment for judicial workers has been a far cry from what would trigger employees’ performance to quality justice administration. The situation has far reaching consequences on Nigerian citizens. There are delayed court judgments, politically, ethnically influenced and purchased judgments. So that even when there are a few judgments that are concluded in their merits, they are over-shadowed or adjudged in bad light. For Nigeria to pursue its agenda of development and occupy it rightful space in the comity of nations, all efforts must be made to clean the court system of corruption, ensure their financial autonomy as well as shield them from political interference. This is the only way Nigeria can fix the justice system for it to compete with its peers elsewhere.
References
Ademola, A. (n.d). Personnel problems in the administration of justice in Nigeria. Retrieved from www.schlarship.law.duke.edu on September 23, 2019.
Nwabueze, B. (2007). The judiciary as the third estate of realm. Ibadan: Gold Press Limited.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
Shehu, M.I, Bin Othman, M. F. and Osman, N.B. (2017). Nigerian justice system: The ideal, hope and reality. Journal of Management Sciences, 15 (3).
Equity is accepted as a wonderful creation of court of chancery which expects the perfection of the justice for all, surpassing the boundaries of Common law and it came to ensure the fairness in Common law system where justice delivered through rigid and inflexible series of actions. The concept of equity derived from of natural justice because it mainly encompassed unbiasedness and equal access to the tribunal and documents cited as evidence enshrining fairness, reasonableness and the very idea of justice.
The general and broad principles of equity are formulated in statements of maxims of equity. Mainly, 12 statement of maxims are revered and act in advisory capacity to deliver the justice through principles of equity and those are interrelated or incorporate each other in judicial operation.
Remedies in equity
It is apparent that distinction of Common-law and equity mostly based on the fact that equity provides different remedies for various instances. Common law remedies are basically based on awards of money for losses incurred by damages. In claims such as breach of contract, negligence and fraud, Common law also provides remedies of damages, common law tracing or money had and received. On the contrary, equity provides variety of remedies for claims such as breach of trust, tracing property and property on insolvency. At discretionary of courts, the specialty of remedies provided by equity is that those are tailor-made and contextual .
Mainly, remedies in following jurisdictions are available in equity to be enjoyed by both parties involved in litigation at discretionary powers of the court. Equity plays an important role to rectify or cure defects of the Common law and there, three types of jurisdictions under which remedies are delivered can be recognized in equity. Those are namely, exclusive jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction and axillary jurisdiction.
Exclusive Jurisdiction
A property which had been conveyed by a settlor to a trustee for use of another designated beneficiary for limited time and limited purposes is not recognised in Common law.
Not being recognized this fiduciary relationship, a settlor did not have a remedy to imposed by Common law courts and trustee was recognized as absolute owner of the previously conveyed property.
Quite the opposite, court of chancery recognize equitable right of person though Common law does not. So, fiduciary obligations between both parties are recognized only in the equity and remedies are enforced for the very meaning of the justice.
For cases, such as Valliyammai Atchi v. Majeed (1944) and Muttamah v. Thiyagarajah (1960) where agreement of reconveyance are not notarially executed (as per the section 2 of the prevention of frauds) the transferor do not have the right of claim in common law but resort to equity that enable transferor to create trust in accordance with Trust Ordinance which give rise the equitable interest of the transferor. So, recognition of trust and imposition of constructive trust are remarkable exclusive remedy which is attributed as exclusive jurisdiction provided by equity
Concurrent Jurisdiction
In a case, facts might bring about both equitable and common law actions simultaneously. For instance, where contractual obligations are breached in the agreement the plaintiff can sue against defendant claiming damages in Common law and Specific performance in equity concurrently. In Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882) , Yet Jessel MR stated that there were two estates because one estate is at Common law and the other at equity. he further stated that both jurisdictions are exercised by only one court and the equity rules prevails in it. In that case, the court held that a leasehold agreement was enforceable in equity.
Auxiliary Jurisdiction
In the adjudication process, equitable actions are to support to the attainment of justice. Equity doesn’t either accept plaintiff’s claim or defendant’s claim as it is and initiate doctrine of discovery so that find and disclose relevant documents in involved parties’ possessions, power or custody. This assists the court to determine of legal rights of involved parties of the case.
Where plaintiff’s rights are infringed plaintiff can pray for an order of injunction under auxiliary jurisdiction which is to enforce legal rights of plaintiff if the damage is inadequate remedy , and refrain from apprehension or continuing infringement of rights. When exercising auxiliary jurisdiction in equity, the equitable remedy of account derived from chancery as a pecuniary remedy for profit resulted from a breach of equitable obligation in aid of common law rights.
Furthermore, equitable compensation, estoppel, rescission, rectification, imposition of resulting trust, subrogation, lien, charge and specific restitution are ordered by court according to principles of equity to protect equitable rights of people. Of those remedies, specific performance is considered as an exceptional remedy in English law
Specific performance and its application in the law
Briefly, it can be stated that specific performance is a decree made by the court to compel parties to perform their contractual obligations formulated in terms of contracts on goods, lands or services when a party on whom the contractual obligations rest on do not honour the performance. Noncompliance of the decree by the court considered as contempt of court and thus, defendant can be imprisoned upon those charges.
Specific performance is cannot be recognized as the default remedy and only be available for particular circumstance of the justice. Since, specific performance would be invoked as some sort of last resort by the court at its discretion it has been attributed to characteristics of residual and discretionary remedy. however, Specific performance used along with Common law and because facts of the case give rise to both legal and equitable actions.
If pecuniary damages can resolve the matter adequately in common law order specific performance is not granted by the court. This is the instance where the application of the statement of maximum that equity follows the law can be observed because equity is not going to circumvent Common law actions.
Generally, a decree of specific performance given by the court to enforceable contracts. Nonetheless, if agreements are of part performance principle or of promissory estoppel may be considered to award specific performance for anticipatory breach or to prevent the unfair denial of the agreement.
As equity acts in personam, hence, specific performance also acts in personam and affects defendants personally despite that fact where properties in the issue, locates. Therefore, agreement in USA and real and personal assets located in Scotland were subjected to order of specific performance in courts in England.
As per the statements of maxims “he or she who comes into equity must come with clean hands and “he or she who seeks equity must do equity” reflects the position of equity. Hence, in case of Nelson v. Nelson (1995) due to defrauding acts committed by the plaintiff she was about to lose her property. Hence, before she got her equitable relief as specific performance, she had to pay back the government. the bottom-line is that a person who does not have integrity cannot seek remedy of specific performance.
The point is in Walsh v.Lonsdale claimant sued to nullify Common law distress and damages on the ground that both parties did not have valid lease agreement. By considering, facts in the issue, court determined to award specific performance to create equitable lease agreement between them upon the maxim that equity looks to intent rather than form, and equity looks on as done that which ought to be done. By considering equitable lease, claim was rejected.
Specific performance, as an equitable remedy, awarded where appropriate remedy at law must be inadequate in other words, to provide complete remedy. In the case of Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v. Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd plaintiff leased out its unit of shop to defendant for a period of 35 years. As a contractual clause, defendant was expected to open that shop for trading during regular business hours. Due to loss incurred by the defendant they wanted to the shut down the operations at the shop in issue.
Although plaintiff sued defendant on damages and specific performance the lower court judge found in favour of damages but rejected awarding of specific performance. Later, the court of appeal also held same position because order of specific performance would be inequitable when considering the background of both parties (unfair bargaining positions of both parties i.e. uncertainty of contractual terms, financial and non-financial hardship, and other contextual hardships deemed fits etc.) and that may cause higher magnitude of injustice to the defendant and third parties.
Aforementioned judgment determined how the court should manage its discretionary power in determining award of specific performance. The House of Lords observed that plaintiff was automatically entitled to right of damages provided breach of contract is established. However, if the court goes further for specific performance there should be an assurance of rationalization that Common law was not adequate for perfect remedy.
As per the House of Lords, court is not going compel running business which runs at a loss and it needs continuous supervision because it would not be practical . Non-performance of court order causes them to be punished on contempt of court and in that manner forcing someone to carry on a business against his wish is unfair.
In breach of contractual obligation in sales of lands or chattels, commonly claimant would be granted damages in Common law. Therefore, to obtain specific performance, plaintiffs have to prove that either sales of parcel of land or chattels should be unique, come up intrinsic value, irreplaceable and not substitutes. In addition, if the plaintiff has either difficulty of having those things due to unitability at the market or higher prices .
In De Francesco v. Barnum (1890), inability of application of specific performance can be observed in agreement of services such as agreement of providing innovative creations, art works etc. it is deemed that someone to be compelled in performing something cannot be done under a threat of punishments of court and only pecuniary damages are awarded under common law .Otherwise, court only provide damages in Common law.
Conclusions
The established practice of awarding specific performance is based on sound reasoning and it may have dramatic impact on parties. Based on principles of equity and precedents cases outline those practices. Awarding damages is not a rule of thumb for every breach of enforceable agreement. However, specific performance is not primary remedy in law but together those help to make justice more perfect and adjust according to context forging inflexibilities of common law. by considering above arguments specific performance is an exceptional in Common law.
References
CILEx Law School Limited, 2018. Chapter 2: Equitable Remedies: Specific Performance. In: Bedforsd: CILEx Law School Limited, pp. 19-22.
Dagan, H. & Heller, M. A., 2020. Specific Performance. Columbia Public Law Research Paper No 14-674.
Hepburn, S., 2001. Principles of Equity and Trusts Law. 2nd ed. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Jayaratnam, N., 1988. Principles of Equity (Block I & II). Colombo: The Open University of Sri Lanka.
Shavell, S., 2005. Specific Performance versus Damages for Breach of Contract. In: The Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper. Cambridge: Harvard Law School, pp. 1-37.
Roper v. Simmons is a court case that managed to progress all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. This case dealt with the issue of whether or not it is constitutional for someone to be given the death penalty when they committed a crime under the age of eighteen. Christopher Simmons brought this dilemma to light when he planned and committed a capital murder at age seventeen. In 1993 Missouri, Simmons, along with two other friends – fifteen-year-old Charles Benjamin and sixteen-year-old John Tessmer – plotted to kill Shirley Crook by breaking and entering her home. This sudden desire to murder her began when Simmons and Crook became involved in a car accident. Simmons convinced his friends to go along with his plan and assured them that they would be able to get away with the crime since they were under eighteen. Their plan was to tie her up and throw her off a bridge and eventually rob her. However, when the three met up at around 2 a.m., Tessmer decided not to follow through with it, leaving just Simmons and Benjamin left to commit the offense. The remaining two broke into the victim’s house by reaching through “an open window and unlocking the back door” (Kennedy), where they proceeded to achieve their murderous intention.
There wasn’t any indication or knowledge of what happened to Shirley Crook until the afternoon of September 9, when her husband Steven Crook returned from an overnight trip and found his house in disarray and his wife gone. Steven called the police immediately and reported that his wife was missing. Later that afternoon, fishermen were able to recover her body from a river. The police had no suspects at the time until word got around that Christopher Simmons had some involvement. Simmons was bragging to his friends about killing a woman, and when the police were informed of this, he was arrested and brought to the police station. Simmons confessed to the police that he killed Shirley Crook and agreed to perform a reenactment of the crime on video.
Steps Before Reaching the Supreme Court
Before making it to the U.S. Supreme Court, Simmons’s case went to trial. He was charged with burglary, kidnapping, stealing, and murder in the first degree by the State. Since Simmons was seventeen at the time of the offense, he was “outside the criminal jurisdiction of the Missouri juvenile court system” (Kennedy) and thus tried as an adult. The State wanted Simmons to receive the death penalty and brought along everything that could incriminate him to the trial. The State took the victim’s family members to the stand to show the jury how much they have been affected by Crook’s death. Simmons’s attorneys, on the other hand, brought an officer from the Missouri juvenile justice system and Simmons’s family to show how Simmons had no prior convictions and also how compassionate he is with his family.
The jury’s final decision was in favor of the State and believed Simmons should receive the death penalty, and the judge agreed. After the ruling, Simmons acquired new counsel who went to the trial court to “set aside the conviction and sentence” (Kennedy). The trial court, however, denied the counsel and agreed with the judgment of the previous ruling. Simmons tried again and again for an appeal but was denied every time. It wasn’t until 2002 when the Missouri Supreme Court decided to delay Simmons’s execution as the U.S. Supreme Court was deciding a similar case of whether or not to give a mentally disabled person the death penalty – Atkins v. Virginia.
The Missouri Supreme Court reconsidered Simmons’s case after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for a mentally disabled person to be executed was in violation of cruel and unusual punishment. After recognizing the change in America’s societal views on minor executions, the Missouri Supreme Court denied the ruling of giving Simmons the death penalty and instead gave him life in prison without parole. The State of Missouri, not liking the court’s ruling, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they agreed to hear it.
Arguments
The Roper v. Simmons case was argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on October 13, 2004. The petitioner was Donald P. Roper who was represented by James R. Layton, and the respondent was Christopher Simmons who was represented by Seth P. Waxman. Layton begins his argument by stating how the Missouri Supreme Court disregarded a previous ruling that occurred during another U.S. Supreme Court case similar to Simmons’s, Stanford v. Kentucky, a case that approved the enforcement of executing minors who were at least sixteen or seventeen years old when they committed the crime. Layton goes on to say how the Missouri Supreme Court compared their ruling with that of the Atkins v. Virginia one when they were of completely different circumstances. The Atkins case dealt with the issue of being mentally disabled when committing a capital offense, and the Missouri Supreme Court took this into consideration but went beyond the borders of the level of maturity that was being questioned. Layton argues that some people at age seventeen already have the maturity that can be found in others who are older. If a seventeen-year-old is able to do most things on their own, then he is aware of his actions and what is acceptable or not.
Waxman, on the other hand, begins his argument by asking what the minimum age is for someone to be given the death penalty – should they commit a capital offense – if our society’s standards keep evolving. He goes on to say how our society has agreed that eighteen is the age at which childhood and adulthood are drawn. If someone is eighteen or younger, then they are still immature. However, when executions are being questioned for them, it is a very heavy topic and needs careful deliberation. Waxman also talks about how science plays a role in minors and their actions. There is scientific evidence that proves people below the age of seventeen do not have the level of maturity older ones do, so juveniles should not receive the same kind of punishment as someone who is older would get themselves.
Decisions
Majority
After hearing each side of the petitioner and respondent’s case, the U.S. Supreme Court evidently came to a decision on March 1, 2005. It was a 5-4 decision in favor of Waxman and Simmons. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of offenders who were younger than eighteen when the crime occurred. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority which included himself, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens, JJ. Kennedy stated that when minors commit a horrific offense, the State is allowed to relinquish some of the offender’s basic liberties but cannot decide whether or not to execute him. The Court made its decisions based on the evolving standards of our nation and the rejection of juvenile death penalties in thirty states is proof that there is a national agreement against the old view of killing minors.
Minority
The minority opinion was expressed by Justice O’Connor and Justice Scalia, along with Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist. O’Connor believed that there was not a significant maturity difference between adults and juveniles that would justify excluding juveniles from the death penalty. He also believed that since eight states had considered executing sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, juvenile execution should be considered everywhere. Scalia, on the other hand, thought the majority opinion substituted their own beliefs with that of the people, and criticized them for counting non-death penalty states toward an overall agreement against juvenile executions. Both agree, however, that in the end, the Missouri Supreme Court should have followed the ruling of the Atkins v. Kentucky case.
Concurring
There was also a concurring opinion from Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg. Stevens explained that their ruling today reaffirms the Court’s interpretation of the Eight Amendment. However, he believes that if the Eighth Amendment had been ‘frozen’ when it was originally drafted, it would impose no restriction to executing seventeen-year-olds today.
Effects on American Society
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision has somewhat affected American society today. Before this ruling, there were only eight states – out of fifty – that executed juveniles after they committed a capital offense. These juveniles, additionally, were only between the ages of sixteen and seventeen. This case and decision only affected a small number of convicted offenders, however, this was still an impactful thing for many people. So far, there have been seventy-two juvenile offenders in twelve states that have been affected by the Court’s Roper v. Simmons ruling. Although this seems like a meager number, it is still seventy-two kids that won’t be getting killed because of what they did. Whether it was intentional or not, the government and states will now not have to make life-or-death decisions for kids who did such a heinous crime. All they would need to do is give them whatever punishment is fit and keep them away from society for a while.
My Opinion
My opinion on this court case is very similar to that of the majority opinions. I do believe that people under the age of eighteen should not be given the death penalty, even if they committed a horrific crime like murdering someone. They are still kids who need to be rehabilitated instead of being thrown away by society, not worthy of any help. Especially if they have never committed any type of capital offense before. We, as a society, should not just look into what they have done, but also what led them to do that. We should know what their home environment was like, their mental health history, and any tragic events they’ve witnessed or gone through themselves so we can help them. Although people at the age of sixteen and seventeen should be aware of their actions and any consequences that come with them by now, they still should be given a second chance. We should not murder people who have murdered others, because that fixes nothing, and in the end, we are only contradicting ourselves.
The purpose of this essay is to examine the credibility and validity of forensic hair morphology. This study examines the morphological physical characteristics of human hair. Microscopical hair analysis only compares class characteristics and does not obtain any genetic information linked to an individual. In recent years there has been increasing controversy over the admissibility and reliability of hair comparison evidence used in courtrooms. Specifically, microscopic human hair analysis before the use of DNA profiling. Since the introduction of DNA analysis, forensic investigators focus their attention on evidence that can be narrowed to one individual using nuclear or mitochondrial DNA. Due to the flawed methodology many people were wrongfully convicted for crimes they did not commit, since the discovery of this flaw many rules were put in place to make sure wrongful convictions were not committed in the criminal justice system.
Hair morphology is not currently used as evidence alone in court, although it can be utilized alongside DNA testing to solidify the evidence. Forensic hair examination is a comparative discipline that works with microscopy, biology, anatomy, and histology. The characteristics of human hair are assessed by observing the anatomy of the hair, which then reveals categories like race and disease. Other factors, such as the forced removal of hair at a crime scene, can be a useful tool for the investigation to prove that a crime has been committed. To be foundationally valid, a field must utilize a method that’s been tested countless times by multiple people and prove to be repeatable and reproducible. Scientists must compare their findings of the morphological features found in hair, which include length, scales, color, and medullar patterns. Scientists compare the results numerous times to solidify conclusions. This is particularly important when it comes to hair comparisons because of the bias that a person can portray knowing the evidence and details of a crime scene. There have been many debates that discuss the validity of hair comparison in crimes, particularly the discrimination between the suspect and a hair found at the scene. Many hairs share similar alleles and characteristics, which may result in bias by the examiner. For years the courts accepted that hair comparisons as reliable and valid in court. However, the Daubert ruling was later introduced to the courtroom to consider if the methodology used is scientifically acceptable and valid, an expert could not testify about the certainty of the technique used unless it proved to be accurate and the rate error is unknown, which applies to hair morphology and the bias judgments that follow. The concept of error rates is essential to court cases due to human errors like mishandling samples or contaminations that contribute to wrongful convictions. Wrongful convictions obligated judges to thoroughly look over the evidence and base their case only on scientifically valid reasoning, not opinions. Hair morphology is not valid in the forensic and scientific community and is becoming less appropriate in courtrooms due to newer forensic tests. Moreover, forensic science can fail in a few ways, such as the fact that it lacks reliability and the inability to reproduce valid results, and incompetence.
The relevance of hair morphology is declining in popularity, essentially becoming a dying art due to its lack of DNA. The Innocence Project, which exonerates the wrongfully convicted, has freed hundreds of innocent people due to the error in microscopical hair comparisons. Due to the fact that the hair comparisons were deemed reliable in innocent people’s cases, the forensic investigators were affected by tunnel vision. Tunnel vision is a great flaw in the criminal justice system, where they focus on a suspect and select and filter the evidence that will build a case for conviction while tuning out and ignoring evidence that points away from the guilt. There has been a devaluation of microscopic human hair analysis since DNA profiling, which matches the genetic makeup of one particular individual from the root of the hair. There is a decline in this practice and is rarely used as incriminating evidence on its own. Hair microscopy was the second most popular type of testimony used in court, yet half of the cases involved improper statistics because the testimony was comparing common characteristics with reference hairs collected from a defendant or victim. In a recent FBI article, there were comparisons made between microscopic and mitochondrial DNA hair comparisons and found that 1 in 11% of the cases revealed that the hairs that were deemed ‘similar’ but were not a match through DNA. 158 people were exonerated in the United States using post-conviction DNA evidence that proved their innocence after years of wrongful conviction. There are a lot of limitations when it comes to hair comparisons because hair cannot be uniquely identified by one person.
DNA has revolutionized criminal investigations by becoming faster and easier to obtain. Hair is one of the most frequent types of evidence found at a crime scene, which is easy to obtain, especially where a violent struggle has occurred. Forensic scientists then focus their attention on the DNA of the root of the hair that can be extracted and linked to the perpetrator. The reason hair comparison methods are outdated is because of the birth of DNA. There are three types of DNA. The first type is male-linked Y-chromosomes that are directly passed from father to son. Autosomal DNA tests all the chromosomes, and the third type is mitochondrial DNA, where a mother passes her genes to her daughter. Nuclear DNA cannot be isolated from a hair shaft, making it impossible to search for DNA, but if a hair is still attached to the root, then it can be extracted and examined by keratinocyte cells, which can provide genetic information about an individual. DNA is short sequences that are repeated numerous times and vary from each individual. DNA is found in most cells of the body, such as a person’s saliva perspiration or epithelial cells, to extract the DNA chemicals are added to break open the cells and isolate the DNA from other components. Genetic identification and profiling are only possible through DNA analysis. Another efficient scientific technique is mitochondrial DNA, which is mentioned earlier and is more abundant than nuclear DNA. A typical human cell has thousands of copies of mitochondrial DNA as opposed to one single copy of nuclear DNA. Each individual is very unique, but genetically humans share a lot of similarities. The region that differs people is a region of DNA strands called polymorphisms. Each human inherits a unique combination from their blood parents. This technique has a very high success rate because individuals sharing a common maternal bloodline share the exact same mitochondrial DNA. The early life of DNA analysis did not work unless physically given the suspect and their blood, which is extremely unlikely to happen. The criminal justice system should ensure that its DNA sample is valid, reliable, and tested multiple times, and always supports the final conclusion. The introduction of this new technology impacted society and the forensic field for the better. Another amazing factor of DNA is that there is a global database that holds information on known offenders that can be transferred from one team to another. INTERPOL holds fingerprints, facial images, and DNA that is easily accessible.
Hair comparison was used as early as 1934 when microscopic hair comparison was used in a murder trial. The forensic team visually compared a hair at the scene to the accused. This was then commonly used by laboratory personnel as part of their investigations. Since the birth of DNA, hair analysis is no longer available in courtrooms. As mentioned earlier, hair comparison can only be used in court if it is present with DNA analysis.
Microscopic hair comparison analysis is a flawed forensic technique that does not pass the Daubert ruling and cannot be presented in a courtroom. In contrast to hair morphology, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA testing is the most effective way of identifying individuals based on trace evidence left at a crime scene. Unlike hair analysis, DNA is individually fixed and unique. DNA is replicable, valid, relevant, and has international large databases. The Innocence Project proves that this flawed system has convicted innocent people of heinous crimes due to hair comparisons. These people were later exonerated by DNA analysis, a new recent reliable source. Forensic hair morphology proved to be seriously outdated by newer forensic technologies that are more sophisticated as well as not containing a concept of error rates due to inefficient results that can be replicated and reproduced. There is a decline in this practice and is rarely used as incriminating evidence on its own. The way to see hair microscopy used is when presented with DNA. Hair microscopy was the second most popular type of testimony used in court, yet half of the cases involved improper statistics due to the fact that the testimony was comparing common characteristics with reference hairs collected from a defendant or victim. There are a lot of limitations when it comes to hair comparisons because hair cannot be uniquely identified by one person just by the hair shaft alone. Thanks to this discovery online databases have been created to quickly and efficiently shift through millions of samples to match the DNA to the perpetrator and give the victim the justice they deserve.
References
Friedman, J., Brand, J. It Is Now Up to the Courts: Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Santa Clara Law Review, 57, no. 2 (2017): 367-384
Hampikian, G., West, E., and Akselrod, O. (2011). The Genetics of Innocence: Analysis of 194 U.S. DNA Exonerations. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 12: 97-120.
Houck, M., and Budowle, B. Correlation of Microscopic and Mitochondrial DNA Hair Comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47, no. 5 (2002): 1-4.
Saks, M. J., Risinger, D. M., Rosenthal, H., Thompson, W. C. Context Effects in Forensic Science: A Review and Application of the Science of Science to Crime Laboratory Practices in the United States. Science & Justice, 77-90 (2003).
Smith, S. L., Linch, C. A. A Review of Major Factors Contributing to Errors in Human Hair Association by Microscopy. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 1999; 20(3): 269-273.
Taupin, J. M. Forensic Hair Morphology Comparison – a Dying Art or Junk Science? Science and Justice 2004; 44(2): 95-100.
This is a court case of a subcontractor on a building site where personal injuries were sustained by a lorry driver. The driver sustained serious injuries when he fell on the site. This accident was due to a poor system which was put in place to make sure the area was clear of mud. The contractor of the company was to blame for failing to setup a system that would take care of the situation. The lorry driver was 25 per cent to blame since he had negligent on his side as well. He should have taken more caution while walking on the muddy surface. The court was to resolve whether the defendant (contractor) and the second defendant (the subcontractor) were liable for personal injuries sustained by the lorry driver (claimant) in the accident.
This dispute was determined at the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division before Mr. Justice Foskett. The injury was sustained on the 16th December, 2004. The main issue is about the negligence of responsibilities from both the claimant and the defenders who both had representatives in the court.
Facts of the Case
Bailii (2010) has details that the accident occurred outside a site that was under clearance for a building. The claimant was an HGV driver; an employee of A & A transport. On the day of the accident, the driver had driven to the site to collect a load of shuttering. Through the maneuvering of the lorry, the claimant got out of the lorry and injured himself. The case ended up with a judgment conclusion of 75% of the damages to the claimant. The other issues would be dealt with by writing submissions or further oral hearing if needed.
Negligence Aspects
Currie and Cameron (2000) explains that the laws governing issues of negligence requires persons to conduct in a manner that is acceptable by certain standards. In any case the rules are violated; compensation must be given to the injured person depending on the nature of injury caused. It is evident that the site was developed as a housing estate comprising two areas; one of which was the main area. The site had a controversial history due to its use as a sewerage farm. Its drainage system was poor and fully contaminated. This was even a health concern to the local residents. Proper planning was neglected as the site was being managed.
There was also negligence in the establishment of the boundaries of the site. Though the boundaries were well defined, the mud could still spill over into the adjacent environment. This was one of the circumstances that contributed to the accident. The construction of the entrance was not well planned since the space for negotiating a corner was so tight. There was also the presence of bollards at the road centre near the entrance to the site and some cones in the entrance. This is negligence since it is this that led to the accident.
Leaving the deposits on the site and the pavement on the opposite side was negligence. Those deposits were hazardous since they were covered by mud and water. After the accident, it is not clear whether it is true that the constructor’s did not see the driver lying on the ground. This is because the farm had no health measures to deal with such emergencies and accidents. It is difficult to believe that no one witnessed the driver lying on the ground. Due to unplanned nature of such accidents and emergencies, there should be immediate attention to life threatening heath related issues for stabilization in the firm.
Failure to replace the wheel-washer was negligence since measures should have been put in place to ensure site materials were not deposited on the highway and footway. A good system would have hosed the wheels before it left the site. Deakin, Johnston and Markesinis (2008) points out that a system in an industry should be efficient to avoid accidents. A contribution of negligence was evident in the second defendant since he was responsible for the day to day responsibility of all the site activities. However, Van Gerven et al. (2001) points out that one cannot receive full compensation if he or she also contributes to the negligence.
Facts: In March 2005, Jeanson James Ancheta was indicted on charges of reaping profits from the utilization of “botnets” to destructively attack and send high numbers of spam to vulnerable computers through the internet. The defendant, aged 21, at the time, was a member of the “botmaster underground” which was a network of persons carrying out such malicious cyber crimes. The indictment charges included two counts of conspiracies, attempts to cause havoc to secured computers, actual damage to unprotected computers used by the federal government in the defense department and gaining unauthorized access to secure computers to facilitate fraud and money laundering. In total, the defendant was indicted on seventeen counts of cyber-related crimes.
Issues: The issue raised is whether or not the defendant would be convicted of all the seventeen counts of charges made against him during the indictment.
Holding: It was held that the allegations made against the defendant were indeed true. The defendant was thus convicted of all the charges made against him by the Supreme Court. Following his convictions, Ancheta was imprisoned for 57 months, the longest prison term for an individual found guilty of spreading computer viruses. In addition to the imprisonment, the defendant was forced to hand over the proceeds from his illicit activities – $60,000 cash, BMW, and computer paraphernalia. In addition, Ancheta was forced to disburse close to $15,000 to the Weapons Branch of the United States Naval Air Warfare Center located in China Lake as well as the Defense Information Systems Agency because their networks were deliberately destroyed by Ancheta’s illegal activities. It was held that if the defendant avoided disbursing these payments, his personal properties worth the amount specified above would be forfeited to the federal government.
Reasoning: The jury argued that the defendant conspired to violate the Computer Fraud Abuse Act as well as the CAN-SPAM Act, caused havoc to computer networks of the national defense department of the federal government, and gained access to protected computers without the permission of the owners. It was reasoned that the defendant made approximately thirty distinct transactions which earned him more than $3,000. The transactions involved the sale of his botnets to other users of computers who would then utilize the botnets to carry out distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks and to launch spam and unsolicited emails on other computers. Besides selling the botnets to the computer users, Ancheta also advised them on how to carry out the illegal activities effectively.
Relating to the computer fraud scheme, the defendant generated for himself and his co-conspirators an income of more than $107,000 through advertising affiliates. This they did by downloading adware to approximately 400,000 vulnerable computers controlled by Ancheta. He avoided being detected by the advertising affiliate companies by changing the times of download and the rates of installation of the adware. From the proceeds made, Ancheta purchased additional servers which he used to carry out his unlawful activities.
Rule: The reasoning and holding were based on the Computer Fraud Abuse Act as well as the CAN-SPAM Act whprohibitsibit persons from carrying out computer and internet-related activities that would cause damage or violate privacy and property rights of other people.
Concurring judges: Judge Gary Klausner, who also delivered the opinion of the court
Dissenting justices: There were no dissenting justices.
References
Findlaw.com. State v. v. Ancheta, 05-1060 (C.D. CAL. 2006).
In 2003, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favour of gays and lesbians, a decision which has stirred mixed reactions from different people worldwide. The practice is spreading fast, and becoming accepted by different countries and states, among them New Hampshire, Columbia, Connecticut, Vermont, California, New York, and Oregon. Other countries though, have strongly opposed the practice, with others passing legislation against it.
Among those who have written articles on this contentious topic are Poet Katha Pollitt, who supports it and lawyer Charles Colson who strongly opposes this kind of marriage, asserting that it does not only affect those who embrace it but all. The future though, is uncertain about the legality of this issue, which could change at any given time.
Katha Pollitt
Pollitt supports the institution of gay unions and does not think it threatens the marriage institutions in any way. She analyzes the various reasons why people get married which she lists as procreation, men domestication, and the historical justification. According to her, there are couples who only get married when pregnancy occurs, and this alone cannot pass as a justification to marriage.
What of the infertile, the impotent, the elderly, or those who indulge in family planning? What of those who get married for purposes of intimacy? Are their marriages illegitimate? These scenarios negate David’s and Jean’s lines of reason, because these marriages are as well valid as are those who are in it principally for procreation (571). Pollitt argues that this is one of the dictatorial and insolent reasons of marriage the writers could give.
Supported by statistical evidence, Gilder argues that women literally domesticate men, affirming that most married men exempt themselves from wrong doings such as drug abuse, crashing cars, and committing suicide (571). On the contrary, he still affirms that husbandly failures such as disloyalty, betrayal, domestic violence, and abandonment, still exist in marriages.
Pollitt on the other hand views these marriages as a “barbarian adoption,” and doesn’t feel that women should undertake it, because they haven’t been thriving in it nevertheless. Either, from the same point of view, she doesn’t believe that marriage should be limited to heterosexuals; because same sex marriages do not impose on the male enhancement project in any way.
From historical point of view, Pollitt points out that the institution of marriage has revolutionalized with adoption of love, legality, monogamous and voluntary based marriages, as opposed to the old times , where marriages constituted of polyandry, arranged marriages, forced marriages, and child marriages. Gay marriages stand out like a fairy tale in both scenarios.
Critics of gay marriage according to Pollitt, have little consideration for many other factors that have weakened the bond of heterosexual marriages including wobbliness, individualization, the easy of dissolution, and flexibility, among others. She argues that basically, people get married despite their difference in age, cultures, health status, and even against the doctrines of their religious beliefs; so why not give a chance to gay marriages, who accordingly can procreate- as in the case of lesbians or adopt children where gays are involved.
She goes further to say that in today’s contemporary society, marriage is not based on some baseless beliefs in social and biological theories, nor is it a societal dispensation, it is, and should be based on love, commitment and stability. According to her, for as long as marriage exists, it should not be restricted to anyone who wants it.
In conclusion, the bottom line of opposition to gay marriages according to Pollitt, lies with religious chauvinism, which strongly opposes gay culture; in fact there exist a an arresting connection of religion with opposition to gay relations. This explains why so many people can put up with civil unions as opposed to religious unions. The religious faithfuls believe that gays and lesbians cannot serve God as diligently, as they have already gone against the doctrines that dictate marriage.
But Pollitt argues that marriage doesn’t necessarily have to be blessed by God but rather, what a government permits; according to her, it is entirely owned by the state. Despite that people undertake big church weddings, they still have to seek marriage licences from the state. According to her, gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married despite religious opposition. She concludes by saying that “gay marriage-it’s not about sex, it’s about separation of church and state” (Pollitt 572).
Charles Colson
Charles Colson, in his book “gay marriage: societal suicide” counters Katha’s viewpoint to gay marriages. According to Colson “marriage is the traditional block of human society” (577). He states that one the main reasons for marriage is uniting couples and procreation, principles which gay marriage negates, the result; crime, births out of wedlock, increased family breakups, among others. To reinforce his argument, Colson says he has witnessed the shortcomings of family breakages during his thirty-year ministry in prisons.
Supported by figures, Colson argues that children brought up in family knit relations, are much more likely to be involved in felonies and disastrous life, than those brought up in split families. Further, children brought up in broken homes undergo more behavioural and academic predicaments, a vice which Colson argues that it’s largely contributed to by consenting gay marriages.
Contrary to critics who don’t believe that heterosexual marriage are weakened by gay marriages, Kurtz argues that they indeed change the culture of marriage and parenthood, a fact that Norwegians have been experienced , through shooting up out of wedlock births and increased cohabiting after their courts imposed gay marriage in 1993.
Supported by tradition and history, Colson argues that the best environment to bring up children is within a family with both parents and that’s why according to him, same sex marriages should never be legalized. He finalizes by saying that “marriage is not a private institution designed solely for the individual gratification of its participants” (578). He is in full support of the “Federal Marriage Amendment,” which he says will help abate chaos and crimes (Colson 578).
Conclusion
Comparing the two writers Pollitt and Colson, their arguments stand valid to any reader of their work. Pollitt arguably supports same sex marriages, basing on state legislation, modernity, and freedom of humanity. Colson on the other hand, opposes the practice and devalues it in line of history, societal morals, and religion, which he is a strong believer. He insinuates that the acts of crime and chaotic life experienced in today’s world, are a result of broken homes which are largely contributed to by same sex marriages.
Despite that both arguments pass, we have to agree that same sex marriage is rapidly gaining recognition in most parts of the world despite whether there is legislation in support or not. Its one of the things the world has to adapt to, because it will continue to exist. Some people even argue that, gay and lesbians are not made, they are born. So what would legislation achieve in that case? Much as Colson asserts that most crimes result from broken homes, it’s not entirely true; there are other causes as well.
In conclusion, same sex marriages will happen, either, its one of the disorders the world is experiencing, largely contributed to by individual beliefs and the modern lifestyle. Thus, the choice of what to believe in is a personal choice, which more often than not, is defined by religion and the rule of law.
Works Cited
X. J. Kennedy, Dorothy M. Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron. The bedford reader. 10 Edn. Thornwood: Bedford Books, 2008. Print.
Currently, the American judicial system happens to be the most complicated and intricate in the whole world. Primarily, the American people designed this system to guarantee justice to all Americans regardless of their age, sex, race, or religious belief. Additionally, the American legal system has been an imperative tool that provides a serene substitute to sadism and ensures an equal and just society. In most cases, the United States legal system has been a significant figure in preserving the steadiness of American society. Nevertheless, like in other countries, the American court system has never experienced true equality. In fact, since the time America became sovereign up to the present time, American attorneys have botched to institute a free and fair legal system. Several literature materials provide examples of legal discrimination and bigotry based on gender disparities, race, and affluence in U.S courtrooms. This has resulted in a discriminatory judicial system characterized mostly by gender biases. Although some progress has occurred aimed at addressing gender bias in the United States court system, stakeholders still have a long way to go to address gender bias and fairness in the United States court system fully (Bill Daniels Law Offices 1).
Main body
In the contemporary world, the malefactor still dominates many workplaces. From teaching to law to medicine, men hold senior positions leaving the junior ones to women. Sadly, men have used their positions and autonomous power to harass their fellow female colleagues at the workplace. Moreover, men do not want female colleagues to achieve much as they think women may become cold and hostile. These and many more stereotypes have greatly affected the output of many women working in different workplaces. One main factor that widens the gap between men and women is the miscellany in communication styles. Research shows that in assorted gender settings, men are talkative as compared to women. Interestingly, the research further explains that men tend to barge in the speaker whether a man or a woman. On the other hand, in rare cases do women butt in somebody, and research shows they will only do it to a fellow woman, not a man. Interestingly, women also welcome more interruptions as compared to men. In most cases, gender prejudice in the law profession commences inside the courtroom (Vanfossen 1).
The truth of the matter is there is gender bias in the United States court system. For instance, within the United States courtrooms, male attorneys address female attorneys with demeaning speeches. Male attorneys also have the notion that women attorneys and litigants do not know how to testify before a court of law hence, bound to fail. In another instance that exhibits gender biases in the U.S court system, judges tend to rule in favor of male attorneys. For instance, the most common case that exhibits gender bias in courtrooms is divorce. It is very unlikely a male judge to rule in favor of the female under divorce, a clear indication that gender biases exist in courtrooms not only in the United States but also in other countries. Many rulings from the United States family court portray how gender bias dominates in the court system amid social conditioning. It is quite worrying to see how this stereotype has affected the operation of courts up to the point where it decides the nature of the jury desired. Most feminist literature materials support the idea of gender bias in United States courtrooms with figures for example; females who murder their mates spend 15 to 20 years in jail as compared to six years of men. This is mainly because of gender bias in courtrooms that end up affecting the jury’s desire.
Gender bias in United States courtroom portrays how stereotypes affect the outcome of different types of cases. Male attorneys always have a negative view of female attorneys and end up harassing or intimidating them in one way or another. Some law firms award harder cases to males leaving the easy one to female attorneys. Perhaps this is the reason why many attorney offices clutter male attorneys as hard-working individuals and label female attorneys as disorganized scatterbrains (Sober 41).
In most cases, most promotions done in the law profession involve more men than women. This is gender bias in the courtroom where men assume high positions labeled glass ceiling, leaving female attorneys stagnant in their initial positions for a long time. It is important to note that such positions have a greater impact in the field of law. Moreover, it is quite disturbing when few women represent less than 16 percent of law associates in the United States even when the number of women enrolling in top American law schools increases each year. This means that there is something wrong in the courtroom; a gender-related issue (Fisher 44).
Another factor that underlines gender bias in United States courtroom is the number of female lawyers as compared to men. Statistics released by the American Bar Association’s Young Lawyer Division indicate that the ratio of men to women layers is one to four. Nevertheless, this has not benefitted female attorneys in terms of promotions. For example, the statistics released by this body revealed that 81 percent of female attorneys work as associates in law firms as compared to 54 percent male attorneys. It is quite clear that if law firms promote their employees without gender prejudice, women would benefit most, as they are few (USA: Women in law 90).
Conclusion
In conclusion, exclusion from internal networks, negative attitudes, and stereotypes have prevented women from competing favorably with men in the courtroom resulting in gender bias. Although the United States justice system has taken many positive steps to eliminate the vice, many remain undid. Nevertheless, if society accepts women professionals as capable members in the legal profession, then gender bias will cease to exist in the United States courtroom.
The current case touches upon the Fourteenth and First Amendments issues regarding civil rights violations. It included the freedom of speech of the black students. Two hundred young people were protesting against arresting their black friends, emphasizing the racial discrimination causes of the arrest. The protesting group blocked the part of the jail. As a result, all protestors were arrested due to the “trespass with a malicious and mischievous intent” (Adderley v. Florida, n.d.). From the plaintiffs’ perspective, their civil rights were violated on a discrimination basis. To be precise, the freedom of speech and petition rights were denied. The Regional Court has denied the lawsuit due to the presence of an adequate reason for the arrest. The group of students appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to have this case solved.
Case Outline
Title: Adderley v. Florida – 385 U.S. 39, 87 S. Ct. 242 (1966) (Adderley v. Florida, n.d.).
Facts of The Case: Harriet Louise Adderley is the representative of the group of protesting students. The primary aim of the students was to protest for the releasing their black friends from the non-public prison (Adderley v. Florida, n.d.). Before the arrest, the prison worker and police officers tried to warn students about their unlawful actions of trespass on private property. Students highlighted the race discrimination issues due to the fact that they protested, claiming the rights of black people. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court should solve the questions about the violation of civil rights correlated with the First Amendment and unequal treatment of the different races. The defendants were the prison administration and the state of Florida’s governmental bodies in general.
History of The Case: The doubtful situation took place in state Florida in 1966 (Adderley v. Florida, n.d.). The group of the Florida A&M University protested against racial discrimination. They were arrested and convicted of the breakdown of law and order on the streets of Florida. On the next day, a huge group of students (approximately two hundred students) from the same university went to jail to protect the rights of their friends. They tried to claim that the primary reason for the arrest was racial discrimination. The administration of non-public prisons ordered workers to arrest the protestants immediately. The police officers and the prison workers warned students that the prison is private territory and they have no legal right to hold protests here. Prison workers repeatedly asked students to leave the private domain. However, protestants continued blocking the one road within the prison territory.
As a result, all two hundred students were arrested and convicted of trespass with malicious intentions. Later, Harriet Louise Adderley and thirty students appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to solve the case of violation of civil liberties based on discrimination. The prison administration acted based on the private territory protection laws. The arrest can be considered a legal action due to the fact that the prison is regarded as private ownership.
Legal Questions: One of the essential questions that the Supreme Court should have answered was the violation of petitioners’ rights of free speech, assembly, or petition (Adderley v. Florida, n.d.). The issue of equal protection was highlighted as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Moreover, the Court also was to decide whether the discrimination issue was the primary motif of the prison workers, police, and administration.
Decision or Holdings: The Supreme Court held that the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly or petition were not violated. Thus, constitutionally, the rights of the students were not denied. Judges emphasized that the students were arrested because they denied the order of the police to leave the prison territory. As a result, Court found no evidence proving that the plaintiffs were detained due to discrimination reasons. The breach-of-the-peace violation by the students was stopped aiming to ensure the prison’s security. Thus, the Court decided that the defendant had a rational-legal basis for the arrest. The prison workers’ and police officers’ actions were legal without discrimination connotations.
Verdict and Opinion (Judgement): The Supreme Court preserved the jury’s decisions claiming that there was no violation of the First Amendment. Five out of nine judges voted for the no rights violation. The final verdict included the information about the security concerns of the jail. Judges emphasized that according to the state’s legislation, the citizens are allowed to visit private properties seeking particular services. However, in the current case, petitioners had no such a reason. The Supreme Court supported the decision of the regional jury.
Conclusion
The Court’s decision proclaims that the disrespectful attitude towards the state’s laws should be punished. The public order should be preserved at any cost. The members of society should be able to distinguish between the violation of their rights and legal procedures (Clement, 2018). Understanding the legal responsibilities before the state people live in is essential for law-abiding citizens (Alfieri & Onwuachi-Willig, 2020). The state can ensure the respecting of the rights and freedoms of people only when they respect the laws. The legal actions of the prison administration were not racially discriminative. The vital lesson that should be learned from this legal case is that citizens should know not only their rights but also the rights of entities and organizations. The lack of legal understanding and knowledge about freedom and rights can cause negative consequences.