YOUNG OFFENDERS
These days more and more young people are turning to crimes. These crimes are being committed by young offenders of all ages. The crimes they are committing are get even more and more serious and in the last five years the percentage of youngsters committing more crime has increase by more then 50%. Young offenders are committing these crimes because the know that the punishment is real weak. If you ask me most young offenders think the young offenders act is a JOKE, and trust me I am a young person I know just as other young people.
"A young offender is a person between the ages of 12-17. This person is a person who comities a crime and is given special rights. These right are less server then adults would get if they committee this same offenses."
There are many cases where a young offender has got off much easier then a adult and no punishment at all. In one case in particular "A boy who was 11 years old who has been in trouble with the law before took a girl with him to his apartment with his gang and then raped her. Then when the police arrived he said you can not touch me" . This to me is very sad first off because he is only 11 years old and he raped a girl but the thing I found most shocking and the rest off the media was that when the police arrived he told them that they could not touch him. Even though he did committee the crime and he should have been charged but sadly e was right. This young offenders knows that the young offenders act is a joke and that is why he committed the crime. He could care less about what he did.
Another case talking about the young offenders act is the James Bulger. " Had the murder of toddler James Bulger occurred in Canada, his killer would never been charged. Under the Canadian law, no child under the age of 12 can be charged with any criminal act, no matter how odious." This was a cases which created a lot of heated discussion about the young offenders act. The discussion was that the young offenders act has to be more strictly and changes are need.
In another case a teen was charged for a murder. "An 18-year-old was killed with a baseball bat Tuesday after he was trapped at the entrance to a chopping mall in Hamilton by six youths out settle a grudge against his younger brother. Police charged a 15-year-old with second-degree murder." . This teen committed a crime of murder and got charged with second degree murder but if a adult had committed this offenses he would have got charged with first degree murder.
Two teen got arrested and charged when they tried to hijack a bus. " A pair of grade 10 students armed with a knife and a gun tried to hijack a school bus from Osoyoos, B.C, to Ontario. A 16-year-old and a 17-year-old face kidnapping and weapons charges" . This is another typical example of what youth are doing and getting away with. If this was a an adult (a person over the age of 18) would have got charged with a much serious charge and would have had to pay a greater price.
Youth court in Ontario is held at city hall. At youth court is so far behind because of all the crimes. Most youth have to wait a few months before actual going to court and by then the less serious cases are then thrown out (because of the delay).
The days of youth going to play in the park, going to school, hang out are all come to any end. These times are being replaced by breaking the law in most cases and will remain so until the law is changed and the rules become more strictly. To most young people we believe the young offenders act is a JOKE.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Students Rights
Civics Report
Students Rights
I chose to do my report on students rights in the public
school system. Lisa Rowe, then sixteen a student at Teaneck High
School, in New Jersey, thought she was doing a good dead when
she returned a purse she'd found in her English class. When she
took the purse to the office instead of being rewarded she was told
to step into the principals office and asked to pull up her sweater
and pull down her slacks, and then she was searched. Why? In
case she was hiding stolen money from the purse. That is just one
example of how students rights are being violated, and here is
another. In the case T.L.O. Vs NEW JERSEY a girl got cought
smoking in the bathroom of her school. She was then taken to the
office, and asked to open her purse and spill out the contence.
What was found in the purse was marijauna a role of money and
notes sujesting that she was a marijuna dealer. Her parrents soon
filed a suit against the school on the basis that the evidence found
was obtained illegally becauce no search warrent was used. In
1985 the case got all the way to the supreme court. The court ruled
that the fourth amendment rights didn't apply in the school, and
school officialsstill have to have reasonable suspicion not probale
cause. Another famous case is the case TINKER Vs DES
MOINES where two students wanted to protest the war by
wearing arm bands. When the school officials saw what the two
students were wearing the teachers demanded that the students
take the arm bands off at once. The case got all the way to the
United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that the
students had a right to wear arm bands just as long as they wernt
going to harm themselvs or any one elts. Just a coupple of laws on
students rights. The First Amendment says that you have a right to
freedom of speech, press, religion, and freedon to a peaceful
assembly. The Second Amendment says that you have the right to
be secure in your home, and your personal things, but apon
probable cause. Can students lockers be searched without a search
warrent? Yes, your lockers can be searched without a warrent,
only reasonable susipision that a rule or law has been broken is all
that is needed to preform a search. Can students be subject to
mass searches on campus? No, there must be suspicion directed at
each student beaing searched. What should you do if something of
yours is getting searched the best thing to do is to say in a loud
clear voice that you dont want them to searech your things so that
you can have witneses, but don't try to stop them. Most important
of all don't put anything in your locker that you don't want anyone
to see. I feel that students rights are being violated mare than
people know. If more people knew exactly what rights they had it
would make alot of things better and easier to understand.
Biblography
Cover, Marilyn. "Should Students have Rights," Update, Winter 1985, 11-15
Reprintedin Privacy, Volume 3 (Boac Ruton, Flordia: Social
Recources Series, Inc, 1993) Article number, 42.
Price, Janet R. Levine, Alan H., Cary, Eve, The Rightsof Students, United
States of America, American Civil Liberties Union, 1988.
Schuessler, Nancy, "A Question of Rights." Seventeen, May 1989,
192-193+207.
Sudo, Phil, "Do You Know Your Rights," Scholastic Update, (September 21,
1990) 6-8 25+26.
Zirkel, Perry A., "Searching and Researching," Phi Delta Kappan, Volume
71, (December 1989), 330-332.
Students Rights
I chose to do my report on students rights in the public
school system. Lisa Rowe, then sixteen a student at Teaneck High
School, in New Jersey, thought she was doing a good dead when
she returned a purse she'd found in her English class. When she
took the purse to the office instead of being rewarded she was told
to step into the principals office and asked to pull up her sweater
and pull down her slacks, and then she was searched. Why? In
case she was hiding stolen money from the purse. That is just one
example of how students rights are being violated, and here is
another. In the case T.L.O. Vs NEW JERSEY a girl got cought
smoking in the bathroom of her school. She was then taken to the
office, and asked to open her purse and spill out the contence.
What was found in the purse was marijauna a role of money and
notes sujesting that she was a marijuna dealer. Her parrents soon
filed a suit against the school on the basis that the evidence found
was obtained illegally becauce no search warrent was used. In
1985 the case got all the way to the supreme court. The court ruled
that the fourth amendment rights didn't apply in the school, and
school officialsstill have to have reasonable suspicion not probale
cause. Another famous case is the case TINKER Vs DES
MOINES where two students wanted to protest the war by
wearing arm bands. When the school officials saw what the two
students were wearing the teachers demanded that the students
take the arm bands off at once. The case got all the way to the
United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that the
students had a right to wear arm bands just as long as they wernt
going to harm themselvs or any one elts. Just a coupple of laws on
students rights. The First Amendment says that you have a right to
freedom of speech, press, religion, and freedon to a peaceful
assembly. The Second Amendment says that you have the right to
be secure in your home, and your personal things, but apon
probable cause. Can students lockers be searched without a search
warrent? Yes, your lockers can be searched without a warrent,
only reasonable susipision that a rule or law has been broken is all
that is needed to preform a search. Can students be subject to
mass searches on campus? No, there must be suspicion directed at
each student beaing searched. What should you do if something of
yours is getting searched the best thing to do is to say in a loud
clear voice that you dont want them to searech your things so that
you can have witneses, but don't try to stop them. Most important
of all don't put anything in your locker that you don't want anyone
to see. I feel that students rights are being violated mare than
people know. If more people knew exactly what rights they had it
would make alot of things better and easier to understand.
Biblography
Cover, Marilyn. "Should Students have Rights," Update, Winter 1985, 11-15
Reprintedin Privacy, Volume 3 (Boac Ruton, Flordia: Social
Recources Series, Inc, 1993) Article number, 42.
Price, Janet R. Levine, Alan H., Cary, Eve, The Rightsof Students, United
States of America, American Civil Liberties Union, 1988.
Schuessler, Nancy, "A Question of Rights." Seventeen, May 1989,
192-193+207.
Sudo, Phil, "Do You Know Your Rights," Scholastic Update, (September 21,
1990) 6-8 25+26.
Zirkel, Perry A., "Searching and Researching," Phi Delta Kappan, Volume
71, (December 1989), 330-332.
Public Contaversy
Public Controversy
The Awakening, written by Kate Chopin, was a book that was truly ahead
of its time. The author of the book was truly a genius in her right, but yet she was
seen as a scoundrel. At the time, it was "a world that values only her performance
as a mother, whose highest expectations for women are self sacrifice and self-
effacement." ( ? ) The people of that era were not ready to admit or accept the
simple but hidden feelings of intimacy or sexuality and the true nature of
womanhood. Kate Chopin's book portrayed a woman of that time in a quite
unorthodox way. In fact, [ When she wrote the book in 1899, she ] "achieved
what was to prove her literary masterpiece and her ultimate break with popular
taste" ( Cully, Intro. )
That book was written in 1899. During this era women were seen as very
proper and sophisticated individuals who were considered caretakers of the
home. They wore an excessive amount of clothing and never exposed
themselves in public or otherwise. If a woman was caught exposing herself in
public, would be shunned and looked down upon. Loyalty and commitment to the
family was very important during this time. Regardless of their family problems,
they were expected to endure and stay faithful. [ In fact, ] " the nineteenth
century's message of the supremacy of motherhood was so strong and so intense
that it was absorbed into the systems of it's women - even women like Edna [ ,a
character in Chopin's book, ] who were not maternally inclined." ( ? ) You could
almost say that women were considered symbols of everything that is pure in the
society in which they lived. Anything short of that was considered unacceptable.
Because of the time that Chopin lived in: " The Appearance in print of her
most recent work had brought her harsh criticism and condemnation, as well as
ostracism from many of those who had always formed a close-knit world of St.
Louis society" ( Cully , vii ). Her book was seen as a vile and disgusting piece of
literature. One critic of that time stated : "One cannot refrain from regret that so
beautiful a style and so much refinement of taste have been spent by Miss
Chopin on an essentially vulgar story."( ? ). Most critics and readers of that era
felt the same way as this critic did. People were not willing to put up with what
they felt was a trashy novel. Thusly, it was banned for approximately 50 years. All
of her colleagues shunned her and put her on a black list of sorts for writers. Her
friends did not acknowledge her existence and she became an outcast in
society. In 1904, Chopin died a lonely death. The only thing that survived to keep
her memory alive was her writings.
Not only did her writings survive, but as timed passed on, people began to
see Chopin's true Genius. The appreciation for the novel grew and it became one
of the more well known, and well loved novels of the time. Why did this happen?
Well maybe it was because of the contravercy it introduced. To tell the truth, " the
misunderstanding that surrounds Edna's personal history, as well as the history of
Chopin's novel itself, attests to the greatness of both Edna and her creator." ( ? )
Chopin went from being known as an outcast of society to a pioneer of the
feminist movement. She was one of the first women to express herself fully
without conformity to societies pressures. All of this happened because of her
book. This book was named The Awakening.
The Awakening, written by Kate Chopin, was a book that was truly ahead
of its time. The author of the book was truly a genius in her right, but yet she was
seen as a scoundrel. At the time, it was "a world that values only her performance
as a mother, whose highest expectations for women are self sacrifice and self-
effacement." ( ? ) The people of that era were not ready to admit or accept the
simple but hidden feelings of intimacy or sexuality and the true nature of
womanhood. Kate Chopin's book portrayed a woman of that time in a quite
unorthodox way. In fact, [ When she wrote the book in 1899, she ] "achieved
what was to prove her literary masterpiece and her ultimate break with popular
taste" ( Cully, Intro. )
That book was written in 1899. During this era women were seen as very
proper and sophisticated individuals who were considered caretakers of the
home. They wore an excessive amount of clothing and never exposed
themselves in public or otherwise. If a woman was caught exposing herself in
public, would be shunned and looked down upon. Loyalty and commitment to the
family was very important during this time. Regardless of their family problems,
they were expected to endure and stay faithful. [ In fact, ] " the nineteenth
century's message of the supremacy of motherhood was so strong and so intense
that it was absorbed into the systems of it's women - even women like Edna [ ,a
character in Chopin's book, ] who were not maternally inclined." ( ? ) You could
almost say that women were considered symbols of everything that is pure in the
society in which they lived. Anything short of that was considered unacceptable.
Because of the time that Chopin lived in: " The Appearance in print of her
most recent work had brought her harsh criticism and condemnation, as well as
ostracism from many of those who had always formed a close-knit world of St.
Louis society" ( Cully , vii ). Her book was seen as a vile and disgusting piece of
literature. One critic of that time stated : "One cannot refrain from regret that so
beautiful a style and so much refinement of taste have been spent by Miss
Chopin on an essentially vulgar story."( ? ). Most critics and readers of that era
felt the same way as this critic did. People were not willing to put up with what
they felt was a trashy novel. Thusly, it was banned for approximately 50 years. All
of her colleagues shunned her and put her on a black list of sorts for writers. Her
friends did not acknowledge her existence and she became an outcast in
society. In 1904, Chopin died a lonely death. The only thing that survived to keep
her memory alive was her writings.
Not only did her writings survive, but as timed passed on, people began to
see Chopin's true Genius. The appreciation for the novel grew and it became one
of the more well known, and well loved novels of the time. Why did this happen?
Well maybe it was because of the contravercy it introduced. To tell the truth, " the
misunderstanding that surrounds Edna's personal history, as well as the history of
Chopin's novel itself, attests to the greatness of both Edna and her creator." ( ? )
Chopin went from being known as an outcast of society to a pioneer of the
feminist movement. She was one of the first women to express herself fully
without conformity to societies pressures. All of this happened because of her
book. This book was named The Awakening.
Gun Control 3
Gun Control
The government has placed many gun control laws, but some of the laws
were made to make the general public feel safer. For instance the government
banned a handful of assault riffles when they are not even used for most gun related
crimes. The government also administered another law called the Bradey Law.
The Bradey Law makes a five day wait on the purchase of a handgun so a check can
be run on the persons background. None of these laws have decreased the amount
of deaths caused by hand guns. The media also plays a part in more laws being
passed against guns and ammo. The media helped have a bullet that pierces bullet-
proof armor get banned, but the bullets were made specially for law enforcement
and licensed dealers. All of these laws should be considered unconstitutional
because it goes against the right to bare arms. So these gun control laws should be
stopped. They should find other ways to deal with gun related crimes and violence.
This country was founded on the people of the country owning guns to
protect what they think is right. The constitution gives the people the right to bare
arms and protect themselves. Any law against guns should be unconstitutional but
the laws were made because it is what some people want.
The ban on assault riffles took effect in the may of 1994. "Nineteen assault-
style weapons and broad categories encompassing many more semiautomatic
firearms..." were among the many weapons that were banned. The guns that were
banned were only used for three percent of all gun related crimes in 1993. Most of
the crimes and murders were committed with handguns. So the only reason for
making this law was to make the people feel good and safe.
In 1993 the Bradey Bill became a law. It placed a five day waiting period on
the purchase of a handgun. The reason for the wait is to make sure no criminals or
mentally disturbed people purchase handguns. Did that really solve any of the
problems? I don't think so. The law only prevented 45,000 people from getting
guns. That number doesn't even compare to the number of deaths caused by
handguns. If they want to stop the amount of killings enforce gun education and
enforce stricter punishment on murders.
The media also plays a part in gun control. If the news says something is bad
or wrong people take their side and views. Rhino Bullets were banned that way.
What the bullets were capable of is being able to pierce bullet-proof armor. What
people didn't hear was that it was for law enforcement officers and licensed
dealers. The bullets got banned because of lack of information because it was going
to be used for the good of the people. Society is the one who suffers because
people got the wrong image about the Rhino Bullets.
We are slowly having our rights taken away because people would rather be
safe than have freedom. If we keep giving more and more freedom their will be no
freedoms. If the common people have no guns or ammo the only groups who will
have guns will be the criminals and the law enforcement so who is going to protect
you from the criminals when the law enforcement can not come that instant.
That is why gun control is bad.
The government has placed many gun control laws, but some of the laws
were made to make the general public feel safer. For instance the government
banned a handful of assault riffles when they are not even used for most gun related
crimes. The government also administered another law called the Bradey Law.
The Bradey Law makes a five day wait on the purchase of a handgun so a check can
be run on the persons background. None of these laws have decreased the amount
of deaths caused by hand guns. The media also plays a part in more laws being
passed against guns and ammo. The media helped have a bullet that pierces bullet-
proof armor get banned, but the bullets were made specially for law enforcement
and licensed dealers. All of these laws should be considered unconstitutional
because it goes against the right to bare arms. So these gun control laws should be
stopped. They should find other ways to deal with gun related crimes and violence.
This country was founded on the people of the country owning guns to
protect what they think is right. The constitution gives the people the right to bare
arms and protect themselves. Any law against guns should be unconstitutional but
the laws were made because it is what some people want.
The ban on assault riffles took effect in the may of 1994. "Nineteen assault-
style weapons and broad categories encompassing many more semiautomatic
firearms..." were among the many weapons that were banned. The guns that were
banned were only used for three percent of all gun related crimes in 1993. Most of
the crimes and murders were committed with handguns. So the only reason for
making this law was to make the people feel good and safe.
In 1993 the Bradey Bill became a law. It placed a five day waiting period on
the purchase of a handgun. The reason for the wait is to make sure no criminals or
mentally disturbed people purchase handguns. Did that really solve any of the
problems? I don't think so. The law only prevented 45,000 people from getting
guns. That number doesn't even compare to the number of deaths caused by
handguns. If they want to stop the amount of killings enforce gun education and
enforce stricter punishment on murders.
The media also plays a part in gun control. If the news says something is bad
or wrong people take their side and views. Rhino Bullets were banned that way.
What the bullets were capable of is being able to pierce bullet-proof armor. What
people didn't hear was that it was for law enforcement officers and licensed
dealers. The bullets got banned because of lack of information because it was going
to be used for the good of the people. Society is the one who suffers because
people got the wrong image about the Rhino Bullets.
We are slowly having our rights taken away because people would rather be
safe than have freedom. If we keep giving more and more freedom their will be no
freedoms. If the common people have no guns or ammo the only groups who will
have guns will be the criminals and the law enforcement so who is going to protect
you from the criminals when the law enforcement can not come that instant.
That is why gun control is bad.
GreenspanThe Case for the Defense
Greenspan - The Case for the Defense
My fascination with the Judicial System Structure of todays society was furthered
and strengthened after reading and analyzing the works of Edward Greenspan. The
superbly written biography recollecting past cases and important events in Greenspan's
life allowed myself, the reader, to learn more about Jurisprudence and the Criminal Code.
The entire casebook revolves around several main themes including the balance of Positive
and Natural influences in the courtroom, whether a lawyer's conscience intervenes with
his duty as a counsellor, and the alarming rate of perjury occuring in front of the juries. To
be more concise and clear to the point, Greenspan's book is a diary of controversial and
beneficial issues which have hovered around our criminal courts and will continue to
plague and pester them for years to come. By observing and understanding certain issues
presented in this book, I was able to comprehend what type of person Greenspan is, what
he believes in, what he represents and what he would do for his profession.
The wheels of jurisprudence are always turning, and I came to realise how
Greenspan worked and bargained for his status in the country to be solidifed. this book
also flourished with innovative situations pertaining to the most diversified of criminal
charges, to the most uncanny regions of law ever dealt. It was this thorough look at
Greenspan's life which impressed me the most. It was quite clear that after the fourth
page, I came upon the conclusion that this casebook would create a most influential
reaction to anyone who had displayed any interest towards our Law system in general.
In Part One of the novel, No Little Clients, presents the reader with the author's
proposed thesis. His ambition is to defend innocent people accused of crimes. Whether
they are innocent or guilty without being proven guilty is irrelevant to Mr. Greenspan. A
lawyer's conscience must not be his deciding factor when advising or counselling a client.
This viewpoint is elaborated in Part Two (Not Above The Fray) and explained frivolously
by Greenspan himself. Throughout the entire novel, the theme bends and curves itself
around different and unavoidable situations, but remains its original meaning that no one is
guilty until proven so. Greenspan refers to this phrase countless times and explains to the
reader that he will not allow his moral beliefs to conflict with the path of justice (delicately
and persuasively explained by both Greenspan and the co-author, George Jonas in Parts
Four, Five, and Six of the novel). Chapter 13, Playing God, emphatically displays
Greenspan's concern with the treatment of his clients and the decision to push the client
until he can make a decision that is in favour with the lawyer himself. the significance of
this chapter is that the reader detects the amount of responsibility and endurance is
required in order to become a successful pawn of the judicial system. At this point
Greenspan's thesis huddles itself around the principle of being a "Pawn of the System" and
only serving the system without prejudice and socialistic conflicts.
The authors begin their novel with several different themes which branch out and
eventually combine. Walking The High Wire is an excellent chapter which focuses on the
effects of intended falsehoods employed by the prosecution.
My fascination with the Judicial System Structure of todays society was furthered
and strengthened after reading and analyzing the works of Edward Greenspan. The
superbly written biography recollecting past cases and important events in Greenspan's
life allowed myself, the reader, to learn more about Jurisprudence and the Criminal Code.
The entire casebook revolves around several main themes including the balance of Positive
and Natural influences in the courtroom, whether a lawyer's conscience intervenes with
his duty as a counsellor, and the alarming rate of perjury occuring in front of the juries. To
be more concise and clear to the point, Greenspan's book is a diary of controversial and
beneficial issues which have hovered around our criminal courts and will continue to
plague and pester them for years to come. By observing and understanding certain issues
presented in this book, I was able to comprehend what type of person Greenspan is, what
he believes in, what he represents and what he would do for his profession.
The wheels of jurisprudence are always turning, and I came to realise how
Greenspan worked and bargained for his status in the country to be solidifed. this book
also flourished with innovative situations pertaining to the most diversified of criminal
charges, to the most uncanny regions of law ever dealt. It was this thorough look at
Greenspan's life which impressed me the most. It was quite clear that after the fourth
page, I came upon the conclusion that this casebook would create a most influential
reaction to anyone who had displayed any interest towards our Law system in general.
In Part One of the novel, No Little Clients, presents the reader with the author's
proposed thesis. His ambition is to defend innocent people accused of crimes. Whether
they are innocent or guilty without being proven guilty is irrelevant to Mr. Greenspan. A
lawyer's conscience must not be his deciding factor when advising or counselling a client.
This viewpoint is elaborated in Part Two (Not Above The Fray) and explained frivolously
by Greenspan himself. Throughout the entire novel, the theme bends and curves itself
around different and unavoidable situations, but remains its original meaning that no one is
guilty until proven so. Greenspan refers to this phrase countless times and explains to the
reader that he will not allow his moral beliefs to conflict with the path of justice (delicately
and persuasively explained by both Greenspan and the co-author, George Jonas in Parts
Four, Five, and Six of the novel). Chapter 13, Playing God, emphatically displays
Greenspan's concern with the treatment of his clients and the decision to push the client
until he can make a decision that is in favour with the lawyer himself. the significance of
this chapter is that the reader detects the amount of responsibility and endurance is
required in order to become a successful pawn of the judicial system. At this point
Greenspan's thesis huddles itself around the principle of being a "Pawn of the System" and
only serving the system without prejudice and socialistic conflicts.
The authors begin their novel with several different themes which branch out and
eventually combine. Walking The High Wire is an excellent chapter which focuses on the
effects of intended falsehoods employed by the prosecution.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
voting
Everyone in my family who is old enough to vote, registers, and takes a privilege in
voting, and knowing that their voice counts. That is why everyone who can vote does
vote in every election. Both of my parents have not missed an election, and don't plan on
it.
My family votes neither democratic nor republican, they vote for both. What I
mean by that is that they vote for the best candidate who they think will get the job done.
So they would be considered non-partisan. They go about picking the candidate based on
the qualities of honesty, character, and what the candidate has accomplished in the past.
There wasn't a basic consensus on the issues they thought were most important,
but there issues they thought were most important, but there issues all dealt with money.
For example my mom thought that federal and state government needs to be downside and
programs need to be cut. While my brother thought that welfare should be cut. My dad
doesn't like his tax dollars wasted, and my sister doesn't like the military cut backs. So
basically my family has concerns with money and where it goes. Which may affect who
they vote for.
However there was a consensus on what affects there voting habits, and that agent
is war. My family felt that war wasn't good, and to end the war they would do anything.
Even if that meant voting out who they voted in. Also if a candidate wanted military cut
backs my family would probably not vote for them. That is because my family wants the
best military in the world.
voting, and knowing that their voice counts. That is why everyone who can vote does
vote in every election. Both of my parents have not missed an election, and don't plan on
it.
My family votes neither democratic nor republican, they vote for both. What I
mean by that is that they vote for the best candidate who they think will get the job done.
So they would be considered non-partisan. They go about picking the candidate based on
the qualities of honesty, character, and what the candidate has accomplished in the past.
There wasn't a basic consensus on the issues they thought were most important,
but there issues they thought were most important, but there issues all dealt with money.
For example my mom thought that federal and state government needs to be downside and
programs need to be cut. While my brother thought that welfare should be cut. My dad
doesn't like his tax dollars wasted, and my sister doesn't like the military cut backs. So
basically my family has concerns with money and where it goes. Which may affect who
they vote for.
However there was a consensus on what affects there voting habits, and that agent
is war. My family felt that war wasn't good, and to end the war they would do anything.
Even if that meant voting out who they voted in. Also if a candidate wanted military cut
backs my family would probably not vote for them. That is because my family wants the
best military in the world.
Tradegy
As Aristotle says, "Tragedy is an imitation not of human beings but of action, life, happiness, and unhappiness." Very few of the great tragedies could possibly be based in reality. For instance, how likely is it that a great king once discovered that he killed his father and married his mother in real life. The purpose of this tragedy is to show the downfall of a great leader. This includes action, life, happiness, and unhappiness just as Aristotle says. Who would want to read something about a person that bad things happen to if the reader does not understand why it happens and the reason for the reaction?
Another example would be Antigone. It was not written to watch a woman bury her brother and have everyone around her die. The purpose is to gain insight on the human way of life. The story tells of duty and honor, not of death and politics. We are made to care about not necessarily Antigone herself, but her cause. That is what makes a great tragedy.
Another example would be Antigone. It was not written to watch a woman bury her brother and have everyone around her die. The purpose is to gain insight on the human way of life. The story tells of duty and honor, not of death and politics. We are made to care about not necessarily Antigone herself, but her cause. That is what makes a great tragedy.
The Injustice of Slavery
The Injustice of Slavery
Slaves were people who were taken from their home land in Africa and brought to America, to serve as servants on farms, doing household chores, etc. Slaves were used from the beginning of time, by people like the Egyptians. Now a days it is illegal to own slaves, but it still happens. And to this day African Americans are discriminated. In my opinion, that is just not fair, they did not ask to come over to our country, we brought them here. We are the ones to blame. Yet, they have to pay. If you were a black man and had a trial with a white jury, you will probably be guilty. If you are a black man, many white people will try to steer clear of you, or look at you in a funny way.
How did slaves actually become free, you might be asking yourself. It all began with a man named Abraham Lincoln, he wanted to set slaves free. But the southern states had large plantations and needed slaves to help, so this was not a good idea, in their opinion. This controversy led to the Civil War, which was eventually won by the north, and slaves were set free in America. But people discriminated slaves very much, and that was not good.
Discrimination of African Americans is not that big now a days, but it is still out there. Discrimination sort of died out when a man named Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed some of his thoughts about discrimination. His famous speech was entitled "I Have a Dream". Back before his speech, African Americans were not treated as people. They had to stand at the back of the bus, they had to live in a certain area of town, they could not use the white restrooms or white drinking fountains, they could not even eat in the same restaurants as white people. Thanks to many people like Martin Luther King Jr. this is non-existent today.
To conclude my report, I would like to say how bad I think slavery actually was. To just take these people from their homelands and take them to a place where they would be mistreated, beaten, and even killed, is just totally un-ethical.
Slaves were people who were taken from their home land in Africa and brought to America, to serve as servants on farms, doing household chores, etc. Slaves were used from the beginning of time, by people like the Egyptians. Now a days it is illegal to own slaves, but it still happens. And to this day African Americans are discriminated. In my opinion, that is just not fair, they did not ask to come over to our country, we brought them here. We are the ones to blame. Yet, they have to pay. If you were a black man and had a trial with a white jury, you will probably be guilty. If you are a black man, many white people will try to steer clear of you, or look at you in a funny way.
How did slaves actually become free, you might be asking yourself. It all began with a man named Abraham Lincoln, he wanted to set slaves free. But the southern states had large plantations and needed slaves to help, so this was not a good idea, in their opinion. This controversy led to the Civil War, which was eventually won by the north, and slaves were set free in America. But people discriminated slaves very much, and that was not good.
Discrimination of African Americans is not that big now a days, but it is still out there. Discrimination sort of died out when a man named Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed some of his thoughts about discrimination. His famous speech was entitled "I Have a Dream". Back before his speech, African Americans were not treated as people. They had to stand at the back of the bus, they had to live in a certain area of town, they could not use the white restrooms or white drinking fountains, they could not even eat in the same restaurants as white people. Thanks to many people like Martin Luther King Jr. this is non-existent today.
To conclude my report, I would like to say how bad I think slavery actually was. To just take these people from their homelands and take them to a place where they would be mistreated, beaten, and even killed, is just totally un-ethical.
The Emmitt Zone
4-18-97
Book Report
Steve Delsohn's, The Emmitt Zone, was a fascinating book. It gave insight into the life of an NFL player, as well as to the life of Emmitt Smith. It was a non-fiction book. Telling of Emmitts life ever since he was big enough to hold a football, to the present day.
Emmitt Smith came from the town of Pensacola in Florida. In his family were his two brothers and his sister. Since his parents did not make that much money, and Emmitt wanted to go to college, he knew he was going to have to pay his own way. However, his football skills permitted him to attend college on a full-ride scholarship. No one in Emmitt's family had ever been to college. So it was a great accomplishment for him as well as his family for Emmitt to be able to attend FSU and eventually graduate from there.
After setting many collegiate football records as a top-notched, blue chip running back, he was drafted by a skeptical Dallas Cowboys football team. Jimmy Johnson, the head coach, knew that he would develop into the type of team leader and player the cowboys needed. Even though owner Jerry Jones was skeptical about the draft choice that Johnson was quietly pursuing.
Emmitt proved to coach Jimmy Johnson that he had made the right pick by setting a record, three straight NFL rushing titles. Not even the great Walter Payton or Jim Brown had ever done this. This is what labeled Emmitt Smith as one of the best football players ever to step onto a turf or grass field. He was quoted by Jimmy Johnson saying, "Emmitt makes everyone around him a better player just by his presence."
All in all, this was a good book. I learned all about the kind of records Emmitt Smith set. I learned that not all people are as fortunate as Emmitt to have a great skill and be able to take it on.
Book Report
Steve Delsohn's, The Emmitt Zone, was a fascinating book. It gave insight into the life of an NFL player, as well as to the life of Emmitt Smith. It was a non-fiction book. Telling of Emmitts life ever since he was big enough to hold a football, to the present day.
Emmitt Smith came from the town of Pensacola in Florida. In his family were his two brothers and his sister. Since his parents did not make that much money, and Emmitt wanted to go to college, he knew he was going to have to pay his own way. However, his football skills permitted him to attend college on a full-ride scholarship. No one in Emmitt's family had ever been to college. So it was a great accomplishment for him as well as his family for Emmitt to be able to attend FSU and eventually graduate from there.
After setting many collegiate football records as a top-notched, blue chip running back, he was drafted by a skeptical Dallas Cowboys football team. Jimmy Johnson, the head coach, knew that he would develop into the type of team leader and player the cowboys needed. Even though owner Jerry Jones was skeptical about the draft choice that Johnson was quietly pursuing.
Emmitt proved to coach Jimmy Johnson that he had made the right pick by setting a record, three straight NFL rushing titles. Not even the great Walter Payton or Jim Brown had ever done this. This is what labeled Emmitt Smith as one of the best football players ever to step onto a turf or grass field. He was quoted by Jimmy Johnson saying, "Emmitt makes everyone around him a better player just by his presence."
All in all, this was a good book. I learned all about the kind of records Emmitt Smith set. I learned that not all people are as fortunate as Emmitt to have a great skill and be able to take it on.
Speech
I have a vision, that all people be treated equally. Race, religion, sex, age, and other petty differences should not mater. Every one has a rite to me here, on Earth. Everyone has a rite to be heard. I hope that some day, when a person looks at another they won¹t judge them until they actually meet them. Race, religion, sex, and age doesn¹t make someone any less of a person.
Age should not mater. Both young and old have a rite to be heard. As long as a person is educated about something, they have a rite to form an opinion about it. Children are no less of people because they are young.
Sex should not mater. Both men and women are people, therefore, they should be treated with respect. Many men and women are harassed every day by the opposite sex. People should realize that without the opposite sex, it would mean the end of the human race. So both men and women are just as important as the other.
Religion should not mater. A person is raised to believe something. No religion is wrong. Any person could argue that another religion is wrong. So if you tell someone that they are believing the wrong thing, they could same to you. No religion is wrong.
Reverse discrimination is also wrong. It isn¹t a person¹s fault that people of their race and sex usually get a brake. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination, and all discrimination is wrong. All discrimination is the same. No one should discriminate against another ever. Especially if I it is to bring them self up.
I hope that all people will learn to go about things in a peaceful way. So many people have died in the past because someone was trying to make a statement. None of these people should have died. In society today we kill and will continue to kill to bring justice. Will we ever learn that as long as we keep trying to get people back for what others have done to us, there will never be peace.
In conclusion, people are people, discrimination is discrimination, and what¹s wrong is wrong. No one is any better than anyone else. I hope that someday people will stop trying to get back at one another. Until this happens there will never be peace.
Age should not mater. Both young and old have a rite to be heard. As long as a person is educated about something, they have a rite to form an opinion about it. Children are no less of people because they are young.
Sex should not mater. Both men and women are people, therefore, they should be treated with respect. Many men and women are harassed every day by the opposite sex. People should realize that without the opposite sex, it would mean the end of the human race. So both men and women are just as important as the other.
Religion should not mater. A person is raised to believe something. No religion is wrong. Any person could argue that another religion is wrong. So if you tell someone that they are believing the wrong thing, they could same to you. No religion is wrong.
Reverse discrimination is also wrong. It isn¹t a person¹s fault that people of their race and sex usually get a brake. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination, and all discrimination is wrong. All discrimination is the same. No one should discriminate against another ever. Especially if I it is to bring them self up.
I hope that all people will learn to go about things in a peaceful way. So many people have died in the past because someone was trying to make a statement. None of these people should have died. In society today we kill and will continue to kill to bring justice. Will we ever learn that as long as we keep trying to get people back for what others have done to us, there will never be peace.
In conclusion, people are people, discrimination is discrimination, and what¹s wrong is wrong. No one is any better than anyone else. I hope that someday people will stop trying to get back at one another. Until this happens there will never be peace.
numbers versus reality
More and more women are being elected to the House of Commons today.
However, this does not mean that there is an increase in the mobilization
of women's issues. There is a need for a "critical mass" to be achieved
before the voices of women shall be heard in elite politics. This "critical
mass" theory say that when the number of women reach 30% then they become
a real force in politics. Having more women visible in the media is making
the idea of becoming a politician more and more feasible to young people.
Role models are extremely important. Presently, women compose of 19% of the
House of Commons. Who knows, maybe five years from now,
the "critical mass" of 30% shall be achieved. Then, women's voices shall
really be heard and the increase in representation will amount to an increase
in policy.
However, this does not mean that there is an increase in the mobilization
of women's issues. There is a need for a "critical mass" to be achieved
before the voices of women shall be heard in elite politics. This "critical
mass" theory say that when the number of women reach 30% then they become
a real force in politics. Having more women visible in the media is making
the idea of becoming a politician more and more feasible to young people.
Role models are extremely important. Presently, women compose of 19% of the
House of Commons. Who knows, maybe five years from now,
the "critical mass" of 30% shall be achieved. Then, women's voices shall
really be heard and the increase in representation will amount to an increase
in policy.
Mauburry v madison
1. Market Revolution: A change in the way people bought, made, and sold goods.
2. That George chopped down a cherry tree.
3. An entrepreneur is someone who takes on business risks for the sake of prophet.
4. Well, the women were paid about half the salary as men were for the same jobs. However, women lived in he factory, where men did not. They were looking for single women.
5. The employees simply maid money for them by working. They did not think of them as real people, just workers.
6. Delaware, Maryland. Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North & South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, & Louisiana.
7. Because cotton was the biggest source of income for the south.
8. He wanted to take over Charleston.
9. The North was against slavery and the south was very much for it.
10. 1823, was mostly written by John Adams. This document wanted European Govts. To stay out of the Americas, and let them grow on their own.
11. Patronage
12. Government would support internal improvements, including, roads, canals, bridges, lighthouses, universities and many other projects. The whole purpose was to develop American Industry.
13. he thought that the State of Kentucky should build the road, not the National Govt.
14. The National Republicans.
15. Warden, Life in the woods.
2. That George chopped down a cherry tree.
3. An entrepreneur is someone who takes on business risks for the sake of prophet.
4. Well, the women were paid about half the salary as men were for the same jobs. However, women lived in he factory, where men did not. They were looking for single women.
5. The employees simply maid money for them by working. They did not think of them as real people, just workers.
6. Delaware, Maryland. Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North & South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, & Louisiana.
7. Because cotton was the biggest source of income for the south.
8. He wanted to take over Charleston.
9. The North was against slavery and the south was very much for it.
10. 1823, was mostly written by John Adams. This document wanted European Govts. To stay out of the Americas, and let them grow on their own.
11. Patronage
12. Government would support internal improvements, including, roads, canals, bridges, lighthouses, universities and many other projects. The whole purpose was to develop American Industry.
13. he thought that the State of Kentucky should build the road, not the National Govt.
14. The National Republicans.
15. Warden, Life in the woods.
Mary Astell extreme solutions
Discussion Question: Why did Mary Astell suggest such extreme solutions as a learning environment for woman, and is it necessary?
In Mary Astell's From A Serious Proposal to the Ladies is a plea for intellectual equality among the sexes. The author was tired of the oppressive nature of man, which kept her and her sisters from developing their minds. She felt that females back then should have the same rights as women have achieved through the Civil Rights Movement today. Her answer to this was "A Religious Retirement." It is Mary Astell's ideal place to end her intellectual suffering and open new doors for the female mind. I feel that Mary went a little to far with this idea. She wanted to segregate males and females, live in a convent, and find alternates to marriage for women, which, I guess, would be the same as living in a convent. Mary was a feminist which I feel lead her to be so aggressive in this proposal, but I can understand why she is mad. I would feel the same way if I was not aloud to attend Florida State because of some ridiculous stereotype, for example, due to the fact I am a male. I guess I would also want a separate place to learn if society shunned me for who I am and what I wanted to do with my mind, but I would not exclude people to the same degree that Mary wanted to. So these places that Mary Astell wanted to create do have some merit to them. For without them, women of that time, unless rich, would not have been able to be educated.
In Mary Astell's From A Serious Proposal to the Ladies is a plea for intellectual equality among the sexes. The author was tired of the oppressive nature of man, which kept her and her sisters from developing their minds. She felt that females back then should have the same rights as women have achieved through the Civil Rights Movement today. Her answer to this was "A Religious Retirement." It is Mary Astell's ideal place to end her intellectual suffering and open new doors for the female mind. I feel that Mary went a little to far with this idea. She wanted to segregate males and females, live in a convent, and find alternates to marriage for women, which, I guess, would be the same as living in a convent. Mary was a feminist which I feel lead her to be so aggressive in this proposal, but I can understand why she is mad. I would feel the same way if I was not aloud to attend Florida State because of some ridiculous stereotype, for example, due to the fact I am a male. I guess I would also want a separate place to learn if society shunned me for who I am and what I wanted to do with my mind, but I would not exclude people to the same degree that Mary wanted to. So these places that Mary Astell wanted to create do have some merit to them. For without them, women of that time, unless rich, would not have been able to be educated.
MARTIN LUTHER KING
"Martin Luther King, Jr."
The reason we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. day is because Martin Luther King Jr., a Clergy and Civil Rights Activist, made it clear to all Americans that all men are equal, white or black.
Rosa Parks was on a bus one day when a white man asked her to move and give him her seat. She was arrested after she constantly refused to let the man have the seat. This formed the beginning of a boycott. Martin Luther King Jr. was chosen to lead the bus boycott. The boycott was held
because black people were forced to sit in the back of the bus. He told all the black people not to ride the bus.
Martin Luther King Jr. was sent to jail for this 381-day boycott. His house was bombed, and he was constantly threatened by death. Then, he made his famous "I have a dream" speech, which motivated thousands of people around the United States. Martin Luther King was assasinated in 1968.
Martin Luther King Jr. is not only remembered for his acts, but also because he fought back non-violently, and also stopped many black riots. For all of this, we remember him on Martin Luther King Jr.'s Day.
The reason we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. day is because Martin Luther King Jr., a Clergy and Civil Rights Activist, made it clear to all Americans that all men are equal, white or black.
Rosa Parks was on a bus one day when a white man asked her to move and give him her seat. She was arrested after she constantly refused to let the man have the seat. This formed the beginning of a boycott. Martin Luther King Jr. was chosen to lead the bus boycott. The boycott was held
because black people were forced to sit in the back of the bus. He told all the black people not to ride the bus.
Martin Luther King Jr. was sent to jail for this 381-day boycott. His house was bombed, and he was constantly threatened by death. Then, he made his famous "I have a dream" speech, which motivated thousands of people around the United States. Martin Luther King was assasinated in 1968.
Martin Luther King Jr. is not only remembered for his acts, but also because he fought back non-violently, and also stopped many black riots. For all of this, we remember him on Martin Luther King Jr.'s Day.
Contras of millays LAment and Cummings since feeling is
Millay vs Cummings
"lament" by Edna St. Vincent Millay and "Since Felling Is First by e.e. Cummings are two very different poems. The poems are diiferent in style and tone.
In Millay's poem "Lmaent" the theme is dealing with death an ho we must act in order to accept it. In "since Feeling Is First, Cumming's theme is just the opposite. Cummings is saying we should enjoy life by acting like a fool and not talin things seriously.
Millay stresses the unimportance of feelin. "life must go on,/ And the dead by forgotten" (15-16). Cummmings attitude is totally different. He believes that feelings are very important. Cummings streeses that being foolish is better than being smart and serious: "and kisses are better fate/ than wisdom."(8-9)
Millay uses simple language, where as cummings uses more complete language. In "Lament," Millay stresses her point by usingan unusual style of writing.
Teh tone in "lament" is very somber. Millay is writing about the death of a woman's husband and how the wife feels that "Life must go on". (21) although she has forgotton just why. The wife is trying to forget about her husbands death: "and the dead be forgottne" (16). The tone of (since feeling is first" is a happy tone. A man is telling his girlfriend to enjoy life and stop being so serious.
"lament" by Edna St. Vincent Millay and "Since Felling Is First by e.e. Cummings are two very different poems. The poems are diiferent in style and tone.
In Millay's poem "Lmaent" the theme is dealing with death an ho we must act in order to accept it. In "since Feeling Is First, Cumming's theme is just the opposite. Cummings is saying we should enjoy life by acting like a fool and not talin things seriously.
Millay stresses the unimportance of feelin. "life must go on,/ And the dead by forgotten" (15-16). Cummmings attitude is totally different. He believes that feelings are very important. Cummings streeses that being foolish is better than being smart and serious: "and kisses are better fate/ than wisdom."(8-9)
Millay uses simple language, where as cummings uses more complete language. In "Lament," Millay stresses her point by usingan unusual style of writing.
Teh tone in "lament" is very somber. Millay is writing about the death of a woman's husband and how the wife feels that "Life must go on". (21) although she has forgotton just why. The wife is trying to forget about her husbands death: "and the dead be forgottne" (16). The tone of (since feeling is first" is a happy tone. A man is telling his girlfriend to enjoy life and stop being so serious.
Buffalo Soldiers
Buffalo Soldiers
"Buffalo Soldiers" was the name given to African-American cavalrymen by their
native-American antagonists during the Indian Wars in the post-Civil War American
West. The first men to serve in all-black army units did so in the Union Army, during the
Civil War. The initial all-black regiment, the 54th Massachusetts, trained by its white
commander, Col. Robert G. Shaw, suffered heavy casualties in a heroic, though
unsuccessful attempt to capture Fort Wagner at Charleston (S.C.) harbor in July 1863. In
all, about 209,000 ex-slaves and free blacks served in the Union Army, and more than
68,000 of them died in battle or from wounds or disease. After the Civil War, Congress
authorized two cavalry regiments and four infantry regiments of black troops, who were
led by white officers. The 9th and 10th cavalry regiments were formed in 1866 and were
used to control "hostile" Indian tribes in the West for the next 25 years. Despite
prejudicial treatment by some army officers, as well as open prejudice displayed by many
civilians in frontier towns, the black regiments performed effectively. They fought
innumerable skirmishes and running battles with Indian warriors in the Great Plains,
western Texas, the southwestern desert, and the mountains of Colorado. One company of
the 9th regiment fought in the last battle of the Indian Wars, at Wounded Knee, S. Dak.,
in December 1890. The black troops were proud to be called Buffalo Soldiers; in fact, the
regimental crest of the 10th cavalry bore the figure of a buffalo.
"Buffalo Soldiers" was the name given to African-American cavalrymen by their
native-American antagonists during the Indian Wars in the post-Civil War American
West. The first men to serve in all-black army units did so in the Union Army, during the
Civil War. The initial all-black regiment, the 54th Massachusetts, trained by its white
commander, Col. Robert G. Shaw, suffered heavy casualties in a heroic, though
unsuccessful attempt to capture Fort Wagner at Charleston (S.C.) harbor in July 1863. In
all, about 209,000 ex-slaves and free blacks served in the Union Army, and more than
68,000 of them died in battle or from wounds or disease. After the Civil War, Congress
authorized two cavalry regiments and four infantry regiments of black troops, who were
led by white officers. The 9th and 10th cavalry regiments were formed in 1866 and were
used to control "hostile" Indian tribes in the West for the next 25 years. Despite
prejudicial treatment by some army officers, as well as open prejudice displayed by many
civilians in frontier towns, the black regiments performed effectively. They fought
innumerable skirmishes and running battles with Indian warriors in the Great Plains,
western Texas, the southwestern desert, and the mountains of Colorado. One company of
the 9th regiment fought in the last battle of the Indian Wars, at Wounded Knee, S. Dak.,
in December 1890. The black troops were proud to be called Buffalo Soldiers; in fact, the
regimental crest of the 10th cavalry bore the figure of a buffalo.
Assisted Suicide and Canadian Law
Assisted Suicide and Canadian Law
Canada still has not come to a decision on the need for
legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide. A woman named Sue
Rodriguez brought it out into open to become one of Canada's
famous court debates. In February of 1994, she ended her life
with the assistance of her doctor. She suffered from a terminal
illness called ALS (a.k.a. amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou
Gehrig's disease). The disease progressively worsens until it
robs the individual of all their abilities (like walking, control
of body movement, swallowing and breathing) until they are
totally dependent on mechanical devices to survive.
Before she ended her life, she brought the debate over
assisted suicide and the right to die to the Supreme Court of
British Columbia (which was denied) and then to the British
Columbia Court of Appeal which was lost. She fought though for
the right to change the laws of assisted suicide and have the
right to choose when she would die.
Sue Rodriguez is an example of the need for the Canadian
government to decide on the laws surrounding this issue. In this
paper I will explain euthanasia or assisted suicide, the laws
surrounding the issue and some of the arguments for and against
it. Later I will discuss the role of the social worker in
regards to assisted suicide and the health care setting.
Canada still has not come to a decision on the need for
legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide. A woman named Sue
Rodriguez brought it out into open to become one of Canada's
famous court debates. In February of 1994, she ended her life
with the assistance of her doctor. She suffered from a terminal
illness called ALS (a.k.a. amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou
Gehrig's disease). The disease progressively worsens until it
robs the individual of all their abilities (like walking, control
of body movement, swallowing and breathing) until they are
totally dependent on mechanical devices to survive.
Before she ended her life, she brought the debate over
assisted suicide and the right to die to the Supreme Court of
British Columbia (which was denied) and then to the British
Columbia Court of Appeal which was lost. She fought though for
the right to change the laws of assisted suicide and have the
right to choose when she would die.
Sue Rodriguez is an example of the need for the Canadian
government to decide on the laws surrounding this issue. In this
paper I will explain euthanasia or assisted suicide, the laws
surrounding the issue and some of the arguments for and against
it. Later I will discuss the role of the social worker in
regards to assisted suicide and the health care setting.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Opening Statements
Opening Statement
May it please the court, counsel: My name is Zach Keeton and along with my co-
counsel Chad Miller and Eric Page , we represent Mr. Chris Moss in this case. Your
honor this is the case of Chris Moss Vs. Dr. Terry Preece and the Edgewood Unified
School District.
The evidence will show that Chris is part way through 12th grade, and in fact he
can't even read. Your honor this is very alarming to us because of one simple fact: Chris
has never failed one of his reading class.
The evidence will show that there was educational malpractice in this case. We
will also show that the Edgewood School district has a set of guide lines which is passed
down from the state of Independence. The guide lines are better known as statutes. They
state: 1. Each school shall develop proficiency standards which shall include reading
comprehension, writing and computation skills in the English language, necessary to
success in school and LIFE experiences. 2. The competent educator shall use or promote
the use of appropriate diagnostic techniques to analyze the needs and potential of
individuals. 3. Each competent administrator shall support the process of learning by
providing appropriate and reasonable materials and equipment and by making reasonable
assignments and tasks. These are applicable laws that are supposed to met by all the
school district in the state of Independence, including the Edgewood School District.
Through evidence which the court will hear today, we will prove that Dr. Terry
Preece , the school superintendend made it a point to pass all of the students in his school
district whenever possible.
On the other hand we will call 3 witness to testify during the course of this case.
The first witness which we will call is Chris himself. He will state that he has problems
reading a simple restaurant menu. What again alarms us about this fact is that Chris passed
his 11th grade reading class with no grade lower than a C. The second witness which we
call is Dr. Daniel Stein. She will show that Chris could have learned these skills if in fact
he had been properly taught. Our third witness is Mr. Raye Payne. He will say that he
feels that Chris can't handle a simple mailroom job at his law firm.
The testimony that you will hear today we will show that the Edgewood School
District is in fact at fault for Chris's problems. We will show that the school district has a
duty to educate people like Chris Moss. The people that are at a disadvantage. Your
honor it is easy to educate a stduent with a natural talent, but the real challenge lies with
trying to educate the people like Chris Moss, the people who are average in intelligent, but
below average with the basic reading and writing skills.
My client is suing Dr. Terry Preece and the Edgewood unified School district for
$20,000 to cover a private tutor and court costs. My client is also asking that the school
district develop a program so that students that graduate after him will have basic reading
and writing skills. This program will benefit the future students at the Edgewood schools
in a way that the students will not have to go through the embarrassment and the suffering
that my client is going though.
May it please the court, counsel: My name is Zach Keeton and along with my co-
counsel Chad Miller and Eric Page , we represent Mr. Chris Moss in this case. Your
honor this is the case of Chris Moss Vs. Dr. Terry Preece and the Edgewood Unified
School District.
The evidence will show that Chris is part way through 12th grade, and in fact he
can't even read. Your honor this is very alarming to us because of one simple fact: Chris
has never failed one of his reading class.
The evidence will show that there was educational malpractice in this case. We
will also show that the Edgewood School district has a set of guide lines which is passed
down from the state of Independence. The guide lines are better known as statutes. They
state: 1. Each school shall develop proficiency standards which shall include reading
comprehension, writing and computation skills in the English language, necessary to
success in school and LIFE experiences. 2. The competent educator shall use or promote
the use of appropriate diagnostic techniques to analyze the needs and potential of
individuals. 3. Each competent administrator shall support the process of learning by
providing appropriate and reasonable materials and equipment and by making reasonable
assignments and tasks. These are applicable laws that are supposed to met by all the
school district in the state of Independence, including the Edgewood School District.
Through evidence which the court will hear today, we will prove that Dr. Terry
Preece , the school superintendend made it a point to pass all of the students in his school
district whenever possible.
On the other hand we will call 3 witness to testify during the course of this case.
The first witness which we will call is Chris himself. He will state that he has problems
reading a simple restaurant menu. What again alarms us about this fact is that Chris passed
his 11th grade reading class with no grade lower than a C. The second witness which we
call is Dr. Daniel Stein. She will show that Chris could have learned these skills if in fact
he had been properly taught. Our third witness is Mr. Raye Payne. He will say that he
feels that Chris can't handle a simple mailroom job at his law firm.
The testimony that you will hear today we will show that the Edgewood School
District is in fact at fault for Chris's problems. We will show that the school district has a
duty to educate people like Chris Moss. The people that are at a disadvantage. Your
honor it is easy to educate a stduent with a natural talent, but the real challenge lies with
trying to educate the people like Chris Moss, the people who are average in intelligent, but
below average with the basic reading and writing skills.
My client is suing Dr. Terry Preece and the Edgewood unified School district for
$20,000 to cover a private tutor and court costs. My client is also asking that the school
district develop a program so that students that graduate after him will have basic reading
and writing skills. This program will benefit the future students at the Edgewood schools
in a way that the students will not have to go through the embarrassment and the suffering
that my client is going though.
Juvenile Crime
One of the biggest problems which the United States is faced with is juvenile crime. The reason experts feel juvenile's commit crimes is because of risk factors when they were younger but experts still have not found the main reason why juvenile's commit crimes. Some risk factors associated with juvenile crime are poverty, repeated exposure to violence, drugs, easy access to firearms, unstable family life and family violence, delinquent peer groups, and media violence. Especially the demise of family life, the effect of the media on the juveniles today, and the increase of firearms available today have played a big role in the increase of juveniles crimes.
The most common risk factor is the demise of the family life and the increase in family violence. Between 1976 and 1992 the number of juveniles living in poverty grew 42% and this caused an increase in crimes by juveniles. Many of these juvenile criminals have been abused or neglected and they also grew up in a single-parent household. Research has found that 53% of these children are more likely to be arrested, and 38% more likely to commit a violent crime as an adult, then their counterparts who did not suffer such abuse. The symptoms of child abuse are "high levels of aggression and antisocial behavior" and these children are twice as likely to become juvenile offenders. Also improper parental care has been linked to delinquency such as mothers who drink alcohol or take drugs during pregnancy cause their babies to grow up with learning disorders, a problem which leads them to be juvenile criminals.
Another risk factor is the effect of the media on the juveniles of today. Before the time a child has reached seventh grade, the average child has witnessed 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on the television. There is no doubt that heavy exposure to televised violence is one of the causes of aggressive behavior, crime and violence in society. Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, of both genders, at all economic levels, and all levels of intelligence. Long-term childhood exposure to television is a casual factor behind one half of the homicides committed by juveniles in the United States.
The increased availability of guns has played a big part in escalating the number of crimes committed by juveniles. In Los Angeles juvenile delinquency cases involving weapon violation grew by 86% from 1988 to 1992, which was more then any other type of juvenile offense. According to a University of Michigan study found that 270,000 guns accompany secondary school students to class daily. This is startling because it shows how many more juveniles are carrying guns and the juvenile use of guns in homicides has increased from 65 to 80 percent from 1987 to 1991.
The possession of firearms plays a big cause in the delinquency of children and is playing a bigger role in the crimes which juveniles commit. Another cause of the increase of juvenile crimes has been the effect of children seeing multiple murders and other acts of violence on the television. Finally the demise of the family life and the increase in family violence has been the biggest factor in the increase of juvenile crime.
The most common risk factor is the demise of the family life and the increase in family violence. Between 1976 and 1992 the number of juveniles living in poverty grew 42% and this caused an increase in crimes by juveniles. Many of these juvenile criminals have been abused or neglected and they also grew up in a single-parent household. Research has found that 53% of these children are more likely to be arrested, and 38% more likely to commit a violent crime as an adult, then their counterparts who did not suffer such abuse. The symptoms of child abuse are "high levels of aggression and antisocial behavior" and these children are twice as likely to become juvenile offenders. Also improper parental care has been linked to delinquency such as mothers who drink alcohol or take drugs during pregnancy cause their babies to grow up with learning disorders, a problem which leads them to be juvenile criminals.
Another risk factor is the effect of the media on the juveniles of today. Before the time a child has reached seventh grade, the average child has witnessed 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on the television. There is no doubt that heavy exposure to televised violence is one of the causes of aggressive behavior, crime and violence in society. Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, of both genders, at all economic levels, and all levels of intelligence. Long-term childhood exposure to television is a casual factor behind one half of the homicides committed by juveniles in the United States.
The increased availability of guns has played a big part in escalating the number of crimes committed by juveniles. In Los Angeles juvenile delinquency cases involving weapon violation grew by 86% from 1988 to 1992, which was more then any other type of juvenile offense. According to a University of Michigan study found that 270,000 guns accompany secondary school students to class daily. This is startling because it shows how many more juveniles are carrying guns and the juvenile use of guns in homicides has increased from 65 to 80 percent from 1987 to 1991.
The possession of firearms plays a big cause in the delinquency of children and is playing a bigger role in the crimes which juveniles commit. Another cause of the increase of juvenile crimes has been the effect of children seeing multiple murders and other acts of violence on the television. Finally the demise of the family life and the increase in family violence has been the biggest factor in the increase of juvenile crime.
Having a Gun
Very often in life I would find myself strongly disagreeing
and upholding the totally opposite point of view about the
actions and behavior of those, whose deeds seemed to me
rather disadvantageous and harmful to the entire community
or society. These kind of actions were mostly coming from
government authorities, and quite obviously, there was not
much that could have been done in order to refute or
override them. Therefore, not only once, the idea of having
adequate power and authority to ban these kind of pernicious
practices, would appeal to me.
For the purpose of decreasing the crime rate, that was
the top concern of the Ukrainian citizen, in 1994, some
misguided politicians in government adopted the legislation
repealing the previous amendment and thus, abolishing the
constitutional right to own the handguns. Banning the sale
of firearms seems to me a most malicious and reckless deed,
that instead of safeguarding and protecting, endangers more
the entire society.
The Government justified this act by saying that it
would protect the innocent citizens. But it failed to even
entertain the notion that the enactment of this law would
come to protect the right of those who violate the rights of
others. It has never occurred to authorities that vicious
criminals, in spite of this legislation, will still manage
somehow to get the firearms.
Innocent people, however, will suffer, because they
will be less likely to obtain handguns in order to protect
themselves and their families. Therefore, it would not be
hard to imagine the carnage of the citizens, should there
not be any guns in their homes. The criminals would walk in
at any time they desired, they would take whatever they
wanted, rape whom they wanted, and shoot whoever would
resist.
The Government defended the enactment of this law by
declaring that people could not be secure as long as there
would be handguns around; they could not be secure when
three million people in the country had shotguns stuck in
the glove compartment of their cars, bedside drawers,
pockets and kitchen cabinets. But could they be secure if
some criminal would try to take away somebody's car under
the threat, rob and rape somebody in the street or try to
burglarize somebody's home, knowing that they would not have
any guns to protect themselves? The prompt and correct
answer is "NO".
The government was established to insure that none of
our rights would be violated or taken away. It seems to me
that the government, by infringing the right of people to
keep and bear arms, has failed to provide its citizens with
privilege of safety in their homes or the right to be able
to walk freely in cities and towns. If I had enough
authority and power to change the laws, I would definitely
attract and repeal this legislation, that seems to be rather
dangerous than protective. By doing so, I would bring
safety, security and freedom to the entire society, because
my point is that criminals would obtain the shotgun anyway,
so why should not normal people have a chance to protect
themselves by having a little insurance under their bed in
the form of a gun.
and upholding the totally opposite point of view about the
actions and behavior of those, whose deeds seemed to me
rather disadvantageous and harmful to the entire community
or society. These kind of actions were mostly coming from
government authorities, and quite obviously, there was not
much that could have been done in order to refute or
override them. Therefore, not only once, the idea of having
adequate power and authority to ban these kind of pernicious
practices, would appeal to me.
For the purpose of decreasing the crime rate, that was
the top concern of the Ukrainian citizen, in 1994, some
misguided politicians in government adopted the legislation
repealing the previous amendment and thus, abolishing the
constitutional right to own the handguns. Banning the sale
of firearms seems to me a most malicious and reckless deed,
that instead of safeguarding and protecting, endangers more
the entire society.
The Government justified this act by saying that it
would protect the innocent citizens. But it failed to even
entertain the notion that the enactment of this law would
come to protect the right of those who violate the rights of
others. It has never occurred to authorities that vicious
criminals, in spite of this legislation, will still manage
somehow to get the firearms.
Innocent people, however, will suffer, because they
will be less likely to obtain handguns in order to protect
themselves and their families. Therefore, it would not be
hard to imagine the carnage of the citizens, should there
not be any guns in their homes. The criminals would walk in
at any time they desired, they would take whatever they
wanted, rape whom they wanted, and shoot whoever would
resist.
The Government defended the enactment of this law by
declaring that people could not be secure as long as there
would be handguns around; they could not be secure when
three million people in the country had shotguns stuck in
the glove compartment of their cars, bedside drawers,
pockets and kitchen cabinets. But could they be secure if
some criminal would try to take away somebody's car under
the threat, rob and rape somebody in the street or try to
burglarize somebody's home, knowing that they would not have
any guns to protect themselves? The prompt and correct
answer is "NO".
The government was established to insure that none of
our rights would be violated or taken away. It seems to me
that the government, by infringing the right of people to
keep and bear arms, has failed to provide its citizens with
privilege of safety in their homes or the right to be able
to walk freely in cities and towns. If I had enough
authority and power to change the laws, I would definitely
attract and repeal this legislation, that seems to be rather
dangerous than protective. By doing so, I would bring
safety, security and freedom to the entire society, because
my point is that criminals would obtain the shotgun anyway,
so why should not normal people have a chance to protect
themselves by having a little insurance under their bed in
the form of a gun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)