Connecticut Yank Essays - Time Travel Films,

Connecticut Yank A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is a complicated novel that fundamentally deals with the concept of the human experience. Hank Morgan is a nineteenth century mechanic who is transported back thirteen centuries to medieval Britain, during the time of King Arthur. After his initial shock, he becomes determined to civilize Camelot by introducing modern industrial technology. At an initial look Twain seems to be favoring the industrialized capitalist society that he lives in over the feudal society of medieval Britain. But in a closer examination of the work it becomes clear that this observation is much too simple, as the industrial world that Hank Morgan creates is destroyed. Therefore the book can be viewed as a working out of the idea that a quick change in a civilization brings disaster. Civilization and change need to be developed, or at least explained within the culture itself, in order for them to become lasting institutions. Hank's failing is that he believes that h e is superior to everyone, and that he can change the society of Camelot simply by introducing technology. Hank becomes the boss of Camelot, and begins his plans to free the serfs and establish a republic. However his plans are destined to fail because he is incapable of understanding values that are different from his own; he is the ultimate know-it all, and sets out to remake the world in his own image. He is given the choicest suite of apartments in the castle, after the king's(Twain 31), but he criticizes them because they lack the conveniences of the nineteenth century, such as a three-color God-Bless-Our-Home over the door(Twain 32). His lack of acceptance of the local culture is also seen through his Victorian modesty, he sleeps in his armor because it would have seemed so like undressing before folk(Twain 60), even though he had clothes on underneath, and he is repelled by the language used in mixed company. Although Hank says he only wants to help the poor people of Britain who in his words ? were merely modified savages(Twain 61), create a society like his own where ?all political power is inherent in the people?(Twain 65) instead he promotes himself to the level of despot. He continually criticizes the structure of feudal society because it was a place where, a right to say how the country should be governed was restricted to six persons in each thousand of its population(Twain 65), but he sees himself above reproof. Here I was, a giant among pigmies, a man among children, a master intelligence among moles?(Twain 40). Hank forgets his own humanity and begins to believe that his knowledge makes him more of a man, just as the nobility that he shunned believed they were better than the serfs because of the titles they held. Hank Morgan uses his superior knowledge of technology to gain personal power. It soon becomes clear that even though thirteen hundred years have given Hank a technological advantage, they haven't made him any smarter. Hank possesses all of this technological knowledge, but fails to understand the implications that this knowledge will have on the people of the Camelot. Instead of educating the general public and teaching them how and why something works instead he sends a select few to his man factories. He uses his knowledge instead to produce fantastic miracles, which although they give him personal power, continue to perpetuate the superstitions of the populace that he is trying to overcome. For example, Hank is asked to fix the well at the Valley of Holiness. He installs a pump that will return the water, but instead of explaining the principle behind the pump, Hank keeps the people in the dark and passes off the project as a great miracle. Afterward he says, ?the populace uncovered and fell reverently to make a wide way for me, as if I had been some kind of superior being-and I was.(Twain 131) It is evident from this that Hank is obsessed with his power. It seems ironic that the very ignorance that he deplores in the people is the same thing allows him to obtain power. It is this lack of willingness to share his knowledge that

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt in Criminal Trials

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt in Criminal Trials In the United States court system, the fair and impartial delivery of justice is based on two fundamental tenets: That all persons accused of crimes are considered to be innocent until proven guilty, and that their guilt must be proven â€Å"beyond a reasonable doubt.† While the requirement that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is meant to protect the rights of Americans charged with crimes, it often leaves juries with the momentous task of answering the often subjective question - how much doubt is â€Å"reasonable doubt?† Constitutional Basis for Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, persons accused of crimes are protected from â€Å"conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.† The U.S. Supreme Court first acknowledged the concept in its decision on the 1880 case of Miles v. United States: â€Å"The evidence upon which a jury is justified in returning a verdict of guilty must be sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.† While judges are required to instruct juries to apply the reasonable doubt standard, legal experts disagree on whether the jury should also be given a quantifiable definition of â€Å"reasonable doubt.† In the 1994 case of Victor v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court ruled that the reasonable doubt instructions given to juries must be clear, but declined to specify a standard set of such instructions. As a result of Victor v. Nebraska ruling, the various courts have created their own reasonable doubt instructions. For example, judges of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instruct juries that, â€Å"A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.† Considering the Quality of Evidence As part of their â€Å"careful and impartial consideration† of evidence presented during the trial, jurors must also evaluate the quality of that evidence. While first-hand evidence such as eyewitness testimony, surveillance tapes, and DNA matching help eliminate doubts of guilt, jurors assume - and are typically reminded by defense attorneys - that witness may lie, photographic evidence can be faked, and DNA samples can become tainted or mishandled. Short of voluntary or legally-obtained confessions, most evidence is open to being challenged as invalid or circumstantial, thus helping to establish â€Å"reasonable doubt† in the minds of the jurors. Reasonable Does Not Mean All As in most other criminal courts, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court also instructs jurors that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a doubt that leaves them â€Å"firmly convinced† that the defendant is guilty. Perhaps most importantly, jurors in all courts are instructed that beyond a â€Å"reasonable† doubt does not mean beyond â€Å"all† doubt. As Ninth Circuit judges state it, â€Å"It is not required that the government (the prosecution) proves guilt beyond all possible doubt.† Finally, judges instruct jurors that after their â€Å"careful and impartial† consideration of the evidence they have seen, they are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually committed the crime as charged, it is their duty as jurors to find the defendant not guilty. Can Reasonable Be Quantified? Is it even possible to assign a definite numeric value to such a subjective, opinion-driven concept as reasonable doubt? Over the years, legal authorities have generally agreed that proof â€Å"beyond a reasonable doubt† requires jurors to be at least 98% to 99% certain that the evidence proves the defendant to be guilty. This is in contrast to civil trials on lawsuits, in which a lower standard of proof, known as a â€Å"preponderance of the evidence† is required. In civil trials, a party might prevail with little as 51% probability that events involved actually occurred as claimed. This rather wide discrepancy in the standard of proof required can be best explained by the fact that persons found guilty in criminal trials face far more severe potential punishment - from jail time to death - compared to the monetary penalties typically involved in civil trials. In general, defendants in criminal trials are afforded more constitutionally-ensured protections than defendants in civil trials.   The Reasonable Person Element In criminal trials, jurors are often instructed to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not by applying an objective test in which the defendant’s actions are compared to those of a â€Å"reasonable person† acting under similar circumstances. Basically, would any other reasonable person have done the same things the defendant did? This â€Å"reasonable person† test is often applied in trials involving so-called â€Å"stand your ground† or â€Å"castle doctrine† laws that justify the use of deadly force in acts of self-defense. For example, would a reasonable person have also chosen to shoot his or her attacker under the same circumstances or not? Of course, such a â€Å"reasonable† person is little more than a fictional ideal based on the individual juror’s opinion of how a â€Å"typical† person, possessing ordinary knowledge and prudence, would act in certain circumstances. According to this standard, most jurors naturally tend to consider themselves to be reasonable people and thus judge the defendant’s conduct from a viewpoint of, â€Å"What would I have done?† Since the test of whether a person has acted as a reasonable person is an objective one, it does not take into account the particular abilities of the defendant. As a result, defendants who have shown a low level of intelligence or have habitually acted carelessly are held to the same standards of conduct as more intelligent or careful persons, or as the ancient legal principle holds, â€Å"Ignorance of the law excuses no one.† Why the Guilty Sometimes Go Free If all persons accused of crimes must be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that even the slightest degree of doubt can sway even a reasonable person’s opinion of a defendant’s guilt, doesn’t the American criminal justice system occasionally allow guilty people to go free? Indeed it does, but this is entirely by design. In crafting the various provisions of the Constitution protecting rights of the accused, the Framers felt it essential that America apply the same standard of justice expressed by renowned English jurist William Blackstone in his often-cited 1760s work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, â€Å"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.†

Summary And Discussions Dissertation Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Summary And Discussions - Dissertation Example This research was able to focus on the poverty and how it plays a role in facilitating domestic violence amongst the Hispanic community. In coming up with the facts, the researcher was able to find out that poverty increases the stress level of the Hispanic people, hence making them vulnerable to committing violence against their family members. Furthermore, the poor amongst the Hispanic community is approximately 26%. Furthermore, from the results of the surveys, violence occurs in 50% of the homes of the Hispanics. From this research, the researcher was able to find that it is the poor families amongst the Hispanic community that are vulnerable to poverty. This is because to high-stress level caused by poverty, and inadequate education. On this basis, this research was able to answer the research question and meet its objectives. The significance of this finding is that poverty is the root cause of domestic violence amongst the Hispanic community, and there is a need of coming up w ith policies and measures of tackling poverty amongst this group of people. Furthermore, this work is important because it gives out the ways in which poverty causes domestic violence amongst the Hispanics. Furthermore, it identifies the most vulnerable group to this violence. From this research, they are the most vulnerable group to domestic violence. In this research, by answering the five sub-questions, the researcher was able to defend the assertions that poverty plays a role in promoting domestic violence amongst the Hispanics.