can some1 explain to me wht this whole thing meanz in simple english??? Step 1 Pick one of the following individuals and research them (Steven Truscott, David Milgaard or Donald Marshall)....
can some1 explain to me wht this whole thing meanz in simple english???
Pick one of the following individuals and research them (Steven Truscott, David Milgaard or Donald Marshall).
- Write three pro-arguments for the original conviction of the individual. That is, take the side of the law at the time of the conviction. Why was the evidence compelling enough to convict the individual for the crime he was accused of committing? You may, yourself, not agree with the conviction; however, your job is to try to understand how the conviction was upheld. In your discussion, list three or more reasons for convicting the charged person.
- Write three or more reasons for doubting the conviction. Identify how justice was miscarried. What was overlooked, not considered, or falsely added to the evidence? Was there something about the convicted person’s personality or character that may have obstructed justice?
Essentially, the task is asking you to take both sides of an issue and lay out the defense for each. In the first part, you will need to develop three reasons why the Court was right in sentencing each individual. This will require you to do some research on how each individual was convicted and develop three separate supports explaining why the Court ruled the way it did. Analyzing the elements of the crime which were present as well as the proof of it will be important here. In the second part, you are being asked to deconstruct the findings to see if there are grounds for a reversal of decision. Did you find examples of procedural due process violations, where mistakes in the execution of the law were present, or any substantive due process violations, mistakes in the law itself? Writing these out is what will constitute completion of the second part of the task.
So you have to write arguments both for and against the conviction of one of these men.
You have to write both for and against convicting them, no matter whether you think they did the crime or not.
For the first part, you have to answer these questions:
- What reasons were there for convicting that person?
- List three reasons.
For the second part:
- What are three reasons for saying the person was innocent?
- What evidence might have been faked or added to the evidence even though it should not have been?
- What evidence was left out even though it could have helped prove his innocence?
- Do you think that there was something about the person that made them want to convict him even though he was really innocent?