The Compulsory Process Clause Of The Sixth Amendment Essay Example for Free

The Compulsory Process Clause Of The Sixth Amendment Essay The sixth amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees the defendant â€Å"compulsory process. †1 For this provision was ignored, until the Supreme Court gave it life in Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967). One night, Jackie Washington learned a girl he was dating, Jean Carter, was seeing another boy. Angry, Washington and Charles Fuller got a shotgun and drove to Carter’s house. Leaving others in their car, Washington and Fuller got out, with Washington carrying the shotgun. Moments later, the shotgun was fired, killing Carter’s boyfriend. Fuller and Washington ran to the car, with Fuller now holding the shotgun. Fuller was charged with murder, convicted, and sentenced to 50 years in prison. Texas then brought Washington to trial for murder. At his trial, Washington testified that as he approached the house, he realized that what he was doing was crazy, and decided to go back. Fuller, drunk, grabbed the shotgun, saying he was going to shoot someone. Washington tried to get Fuller to leave, but Fuller insisted on going on. Washington then ran towards the car. He was running away when the shotgun was fired. At the trial, Washington then tried to call Fuller as a witness to corroborate his story, but the prosecution objected. Under a Texas law, if the prosecution had called Fuller as a witness against Washington, he could testify, but Washington was barred from presenting Fuller as a witness. Fuller, who was present in the courtroom, was not allowed to testify. Washington was convicted of murder. Washington appealed, arguing that he had not been accorded his right to compulsory process. Texas responded that Washington had been accorded all compulsory process entitled him to. Because Fuller was in prison at the time of the trial, Washington’s attorney had issued a subpoena to have him appear in court to testify. Texas authorities had complied with the subpoena. They had brought Fuller from the prison to the court, so that he was in the courtroom, though barred from testifying. Texas insisted that this was â€Å"compulsory process. † The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this was not constitutionally sufficient. Compulsory process would mean little if it gave the defendant only the right to bring to the courtroom persons who could not testify. The Constitution did not make such hollow gestures. For the compulsory process clause to be meaningful, the defendant had to have the right to have his witnesses appear and testify, so that the jury could hear what the witness had to say. Texas justified its rule by arguing that its statute was meant to protect against witnesses who would lie for one another. In this instances, Fuller had been convicted. But what if Fuller had been found not guilty and then in Washington’s trial confessed his own guilt while exonerating Washington. However persuasive this argument seemed, the Court rejected it, insisting that issues of the believability of a witness were for the jury to decide. A rule which denied a defendant a right promised in the Bill of Rights could not stand where it was based on the unproved and unprovable presumption that any given class of defense witnesses were presumed to be unbelievable. If Fuller was such an unbelievable witness if he was testifying for Washington, why was he presumed truthful if testifying against him? The better policy, the Court insisted, the policy which the Constitution required was to allow all witnesses who had relevant and material evidence to testify, letting the jury find the truth. This case, Washington v. Texas, made the concept of compulsory process as guaranteed by the sixth amendment an important part of a modern justice system.

Lethal Tools of Our Past-Weapons of The Frontier :: essays research papers fc

Lethal Tools of Our Past- Weapons of The Frontier   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  A starving man paves his own highway with the calloused soles of his hunger. Out on the untamed wastelands, forests, and prairies it was the way of the gun, the knife, and the axe for all that managed to survive. And survive these brave men and women did with a sheer will of endurance that the pampered of today’s world has not come to know even the shadow of. In our modern comfort we live in what legacy these bold souls carved out of this nation, and much of the thanks we must give is passed to the sweat-hewned implements of their survival, the weapons of the frontier.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Scourging the countryside for this evening’s meal or simply keeping wary of impending danger, one often felt naked without a trustworthy gun at their side. A firearm often made one feel invincible, for the power of a bullet could protect the weakest and cowardly from even the strongest and fiercest of animals and people. In it’s use it proved to be an action that spoke louder than words, many a quarrel has been put to rest through this instrument, whose music is often not one of good cheer.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The rifle and the coveted shotgun, literally brought home the bacon. With sleek models such as the Winchester .44 in 1873, accurate targeting sights increased a hunter’s ability to take down his prey, even from large distances, often exceeding 200 yards. The other weapon of choice, the shotgun, did not boast a straight, clean shot, but had the capacity to tear anything to shreds in a single blast. A short barrel provided the advantage of a wider blast range and easier handling (Trachtman et al 50). In many battles, the shotguns were often preferred for their simplifying features.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the frequently lawless country that the United States had become, a quicker solution for combat was deemed necessary. It did not take long for such handguns as the 1873 Colt Peacemaker to emerge as the weapon of choice for gunfighter, cowboy, sheriff or civilian. Fighting men everywhere considered the peacemaker’s balance and durability superior to that of other revolvers of the day, and they expressed their appreciation by clamoring for a variety of versions – some decorative or modified for a fast draw, others were plain, but all were lethal (Trachtman et al 43). With a growing consideration of violence, many Americans rushed to buy them in large quantities, often through the mail.

Evolution as Fact & Theory` by Stephen Jay Gould Essay

This article talks about evolution as it relates to science and religion, philosophically. Gould talks about the fact that the arguments for creationism and evolution have not changed much, the science and religion are the same. He links the recent debates opposing the theory of evolution as the result of right wing politics that has taken hold of today’s society and political world. Gould states that today’s politicians talk about â€Å"scientific creationism â€Å"as if it is based in science. The creationists also jump on the term â€Å"theory â€Å"when used by evolutionist as if theory implies proof of guesswork, â€Å"only theory†. Gould explains the term â€Å"theory† as a string of ideas and facts. He provides examples of widely accepted theories in an attempt to debunk the creationist objection to theory. He provides similar explanation of the term â€Å"fact†. Darwin’s theory and detailed explanation are reviewed in the article, as this is central to today’s debate regarding creationism versus evolution. Gould’s view is that creationists attempt to argue against evolution is based entirely on arguing rhetoric. They use an argument style of Popper’s, which focuses on falsifying the evolutionist claims. Gould asserts that what the creationist lack is the ability to assure proves their own principles of creationism. Gould concludes that what keeps creationists firm in their belief system is dogma, not science. Thomas S. Kuhn – The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Like Gould, Kuhn takes on the debate between science and dogma. Kuhn is a scientist, clearly a believer in the scientific process though he takes pains in his article to examine the issues raised by proponents of dogma. Kuhn also believes that the opposition to evolution is based on poking holes in theories and finding loopholes, rather than convincing one with actual science. This article is largely focused on disproving dogma and supporting the scientific method. Kuhn’s overall belief as expressed in the article is that scientific theories always win arguments with dogma. This work includes a discussion on experience and perception and the relationship to presupposition. Kuhn reviews the process of scientific theory and discovery, and the philosophy behind the process.

An Inspector Calls - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1746 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/09/18 Category Education Essay Type Argumentative essay Did you like this example? Essay 1 ? pages (c) Select one of the members of the Birling family. Write a character study, using the text for reference, to show how Priestley uses the character to convey his own opinions and attitudes. The playwright of â€Å"An Inspector Calls,† J. B. Priestley, was a dedicated supporter of socialism, and by writing this play, he vents his own opinions and attitudes through his characters. The play is set in 1912, two years prior to the First World War, in the home of a prosperous manufacturer, Arthur Birling. It is perceptible to the reader that a prevailing aspect of the play is Capitalism versus socialism. This theme centres on Arthur Birling, a Capitalist. A conspicuous trait in Arthur Birling is his egotism. If one analyses deeply, Birling, in fact, is a subject of satire; he is intended to be portrayed as a typical Capitalist. A man of wealth, he is a pompous snob of the upper hierarchy, often ostentatiously displaying his advantageous connections. †Å"I might find my way into the next Honours List †¦ a knighthood†¦ I was Lord Mayor †¦ when Royalty visited us,† he boasts to Gerald Croft. Besides, he is obviously elated to welcome Gerald into his arms as his future son-in-law. You’re just the kind of son-in-law I always wanted† and â€Å"I’m delighted about this engagement† show that he is impressed by Gerald’s genteel family. This is rather amusing. J. B. Priestley wishes to point out his contempt for capitalist class systems by satirizing Arthur Birling; the reader can see that Birling’s vulnerability to high society is indeed shallow; the latter views the veneer of respectability as an honour. We ought to respect those with honour, ideals and determination; Gerald’s character is not particularly radical or persevering, yet Birling admires him for his wealth and gentility. Further illustrations of Birling’s character are in his eager remarks to Geral d, â€Å"we may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings †¦ are working together – for lower costs and higher prices. † We can see his greed and parsimony; this is supposed to be a relaxed, joyous celebration, yet Birling must â€Å"talk business on an occasion like this. † It is clear that his desire for wealth cannot be restrained, even when he is supposed to be at ease. Later, we find proof of his avarice: he refused to raise the wages of capable employees despite being well-off. Priestley, being a Socialist, is concerned for the ill-paid lower classes. Birling shows an injustice in refusing to reward Eva Smith, a â€Å"good worker. † In fact, he can afford to raise her salary, which she deserved as she increased productivity, and hence, his earnings. Yet he is obstinate in his selfishness. Priestley wishes to show how shallow, money-grubbing and stingy capitalists can be; many things are to their advantage, as they held power and domi nance over their social inferiors. If their employees go on strike, they are dismissed, as eva Smith was. There was little protection for workers then. Money is a destructive force an Priestley demonstrates his disdain for its risky influence. Its evil influence is portrayed in Birling, the puppet, as it obstructs our finer feelings. We ought to compensate those who work industriously towards higher profits, and give employees a right to live better lives and more equally. Responsibility hovers around the play. As an employer, Birling is responsible for his workers’ welfare. He is responsible for paying their wages and to provide them with a suitable workplace. /yet, we see that he refused to increase the renumeration of capable workers. It is his responsibility to provide them so that that can enjoy a life of sufficient needs. Indignant, his employees started a strike, and Eva Smith, who spoke out – understandably – for her rights, was dismissed. A young woman in her position had little to live on, and Birling who already behaved graspingly, ought to have re-employed her, to provide her with a job. In another perspective, this solution would have fulfilled his other responsibility – to the consumers. Being capable, Eva Smith and the other ringleaders would have increased productivity, quality of the products and profits. With these girls, Birling could have offered better products to his consumers. After her dismissal, Eva was forced to resort to finding another job, but her earlier dismissal led to a concatenation of disastrous events, torment and ultimately, her death. When the Inspector confronts Birling with this information, Birling cold-heartedly refuses to â€Å"accept any responsibility† for her death as it would be â€Å"very awkward. † Eva was helping Birling to make profits; in other words, she shared responsibility. Priestley indicates that we should share our responsibility – fairly. Bi rling ought to have allowed Eva more freedom for her diligence, and taken her under his wing. It is his responsibility to pay her benefits. Capitalists should be willing to accept responsibility. To ignore their workers’ needs would be inhumane. Capitalists gain profits from their employees’ efforts and drudgery, and should therefore ensure a comfortable living for them. More so, as Birling did not provide benefits, he is even more accountable for Eva’s sufferings. Priestley shows that the rich make the poor suffer, yet give them an unequal share and refuse to be held accountable for their inhumane actions. Another implication lies in Birling’s role as the autocratic father. He is narrow-minded and prejudiced against the lower-classes, the young and revolution. The revelation of Birling’s hand in Eva’s demise arouses Eric, â€Å"why shouldn’t they try for higher wages? We try for the highest possible prices. † Birling instea d becomes angry with him and this shows his hypocrisy. He aims to charge higher prices, but disallows his workers from following suit. Sheila voices her sympathy for Eva, but Birling disdains this. He evidently does not believe in the young voicing their opinions. This play is not merely about the pinions of Socialists, but also the ideas of the young. It is the young who bring new ideas, but due to their unestablished position in the world, the old hold them in contempt. A Radical, Priestley points this out. The old cannot change sufficiently quickly for new reforms. They fear this change, and impose their haughty stands on the youngsters. Eric and Sheila express their views that labourers have the right to â€Å"try for higher wagers†, Birling puts is foot down. The young are less hardened, but they are exposed to new ideas, and can do better for the labourers. They consider possibilities; Birling retorts that â€Å"there isn’t a chance of war. † He is t rying to avoid the possibilities of his ruin. It is ironical that he mentions, â€Å"Look at the progress we’re making. † For further progress, the ideals and the efforts of the young are required. With Birling’s preconceived notions, society cannot progress to a fairer state. How can we hope for revolution with the young suppressed? Birling’s bigotry is depicted in his male chauvinism. He treats females with less respect, and with contempt. He views them as mere toys. The discovery of Gerald’s amorous intrigue with Eva Smith does not perturb him. Gerald has committed an indiscretion by seducing Eva and betraying Sheila, and Sheila resents this. Birling, however, states that â€Å"you must understand that a lot of young men –† have libidinous flings. It does not anger him. He feels that it is all right in men to philander, but he does not respect Sheila’s resentment of Gerald’s indiscretion, and forces her to marry hi m. That portrays that he does not respect her rightful opinion. He has little admiration for womanly strength, insisting that â€Å"there isn’t the slightest reason why my daughter should be dragged into this unpleasant business. To him, women are weak, and ought not to know about violence and strumpery. Girls at that time were expected to be innocent. Priestley feels that women should be given the right to know â€Å"unpleasant and disturbing things† and express their opinions. As a large component of the workforce, women are exposed to drudgery, knowledge and the ways of the world; they ought to have the right to defend themselves and give opinions. After the war, many men were killed. And women became more significant in the workforce. Should not capable women be free to speak? Being ignorant increases their vulnerability, and girls like Eva Smith do not have the protection of a male figure. There is a suggestiveness conveyed by Priestley. Birling, as we know, i s against Socialism. He does not believe in the possibility of war. â€Å"Just because the Kaiser makes a speech or two, or a few German officers †¦ begin talking nonsense †¦ there isn’t a chance of war †¦ The world’s developing so fat †¦Look at the progress we’re making †¦ we’ll have aeroplanes that will be able to go anywhere †¦ you’ll be living in a world that’ll have forgotten all these Capital versus Labour agitations and all these silly little war scares. Naturally, the First World War took place after this, in 1914, and the progress in technology aided it. The downtrodden revolted and fought for more equality, despite the fact that rich Capitalists pooh-poohed this notion. It is as though Priestley is telling the reader that although the capitalists believed otherwise, war occurred, and Socialism triumphed. The war caused more equality. Therefore, Priestley suggest, socialism, being an excellent ideal, g ained victory, hence it is like a battle between â€Å"good and evil. † Priestley is cynical about monetary success under Capitalism. He feels contempt for Capitalists like Birling, who disdain Labour, and expressed this scorn by making Birling a hateable, despicable person. The truth is beautiful. Birling strives to conceal Eric’s affair with Eva, in order to preserve his reputation. Why should we deny the facts? Birling, besides, disapproves of his daughter’s knowledge about his covetousness and Gerald’s indiscretion. Priestley detests pretension that comes with social stability. That way, we can administer justice and determine our responsibilities. Capitalists are supposed to be law abiding; they do not permit strikes. Yet the truth is veiled. Therefore, it is evident that Priestley conveys his revolutionary opinions and attitudes toward society through this play, through subtle means. The characters serve as his puppet-like orators, but with an enthralling plot, influence the reader to think, reflect and analyse the differences between then and now. There are many opinions expressed in this drama, and we can discern Priestley’s wrath and contempt in Arthur Birling. Marks: 12/12 Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "An Inspector Calls" essay for you Create order