John Peter Zenger's Crimes

In this particular article, the author isn’t given a name, however they are listed as the History Channels’ staff writer. The writer gives a brief explanation about the beginning of the accusations and the events that took place in the following years. Their purpose for the article is to provide evidential information on an educated

New Yorker Magazine it states that there must be clear intent to tarnish one’s reputation in order for libel tort law to come into effect. This case was very similar in regards that there was enough evidence that suggest there was intent to hurt the reputation of those mentioned in the articles. Also in the case Anderson v. Liberty Lobby it states the plaintiff must be able to prove that there was in fact damage done to one’s reputation and be able to proof to judges that there was actual malice. As with this case, the court of appeals must take in consideration if the ruling can be made in favor of the plaintiff and that if the summary judgement would go in favor of the plaintiff. The judges want to make sure that they are not wasting time and that there was actual damage done to the plaintiff which can be awarded for punitive

John Peter Zenger’s case was not only significant to to the journalists, but it was also very significant to the rest of the colonists in the American colonists. John Peter Zenger’s case sparked a rebellion into the colonists, which eventually led to them wanting their freedom and fighting for it against Britain in the American Revolution (Linder 2). John Peter Zenger claimed that his writing was, in fact, accurate. Although, the jury could still convict Zenger even if it was true or not, the judge convinced the jury not to convict on the grounds of publication alone (Kennedy 1). When the court decided to accept the truth as the truth, it laid the work for the future which eventually was put into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution (John 1). “His trial establishes the principle that truth is a defense to libel and that a jury may determine whether a publication is defamatory or seditious,” (First

The court case of New York Times vs Sullivan was a case that involved public officials and how they were libeled in the press in the year of nineteen sixty four. L.B. Sullivan was one of three elected commissioners of Alabama. The respondent was L. B. Sullivan was a public official from Alabama and brought a lawsuit against an clergymen, a negro and against a petitioner of the New York Times Company. L.B. Sullivan sued all of these people because he felt that he was libeled in a advertisement of the New York Times. The case had to deal with if the constitutional protections of speech and press limit the states power to award damages for the libel action brought by a public official against the critics of his official conduct.

The decision from the first case was reached in just one day, rather expeditiously for a case, which took fourteen months to get to trial; yet there were valid reason. For Example, the judge ruled, “the testimony could not prove that Irene Emerson owned Dred Scott.” (Lukes, 21) This shows that the burden of proof was on Dred Scott to prove his ownership, in order to have a ruling on his freedom. This also shows how one tiny oversight by one side can affect the outcome of a case. In addition, the record indicated, “The said defendant is not guilty in manner and form as the plaintiff hath in his declaration complained against her.” (Lukes 22) This shows that because of Scott’s attorney’s error in argument, the court had to rule in favor of Mrs. Emerson. This also shows that in a strange twist of fate, in effect, allowed Mrs. Emerson to keep her slaves because no one had proven they were her slaves. In conclusion, Dred Scott had lost in the first court appearance, but the case was far from over. 182

Peter Zenger owned the New York Weekly Journal and once wrote something against the royal governor and was writing for a political party. He was put on trial for libel, but Hamilton was the one who got the jury to say “not guilty” because he stated that New York’s libel laws are not the same as England’s libel laws. This was the foundation of the freedom of speech.

He was apart of politics; he was a congressman in New York and ran for office as a liberal republican in 1872, but died in November 1872. (Editors) In his newspaper he wrote about his views on the movement westward, he saw the land out west as an opportunity for unemployed and young people.

Guilty or not, Tom Robinson could not win his trail strictly because of his race. The society where Atticus, his children, and the townspeople lived was filled with prejudice. Because of the prejudice and racism, from the beginning his case was a lost cause. In the end, Tom Robinson was found guilty. Prejudice and maturation are two of the most dominant themes in the novel. Jem, Scout, and Dill are un-prejudiced but not yet fully mature, but the townspeople are the complete opposite. They are mature adults that are blinded by prejudice. Atticus, along with a few others, possess the better of both traits; specifically, the gift of wise maturity and the ignorance of prejudice. These differences create different views of Tom Robinson’s trial and its outcome.

The most important questions are often the most controversial. The question of whether or not to forgive a wrongdoer is particularly debatable, especially when considering large-scale crimes. Large-scale crimes, or crimes against humanity, involve senselessly killing mass amounts of innocent people. There have been many examples of large-scale crimes in the history of mankind, and such atrocities are still occurring today. Forgiveness is the act of pardoning an offender, and for most people, it is easy to forgive small blunders made by others on a daily basis. But forgiveness becomes a lot more troubling for the victim when they are asked to forgive something as terrible as a large-scale crime, which has irreversible effects for millions of

In the hit book, The Pelican Brief, John Grisham's depiction of lawyers who will do anything for money and their clients presents an interesting ethical dilemma. In the book, two Supreme Court justices are killed by a hired assassin, Khamel. FBI, CIA, and the press are working hard to find who the killer is. The only people who know the truth are attorneys from White and Blazevich, Nathaniel Jones (also known as Einstein), Jarreld Schwabe, Marty Velmano, and F. Sims Wakefield and their client, Victor Mattiece.

Crime may simply be referred to as an offense against the state or against morality and is punishable by law, while justice is the fairness practiced during judgment of cases usually in instances where crime has taken place. Crime and justice go hand in hand as commonly evident in a case whereby a criminal is apprehended and taken to a court of law, then a ruling of justice practiced on the case and fairness used in passing of judgments. In most governments globally, crime and justice is managed by a criminal and justice department and typically, various departments are involved. These departments may primarily include; the police, the prosecution department, the law department, the correctional

ideas on what exactly crime is, how it is represented by the media, and how

The environment a child is surrounded in is what develops a child’s perception into the mind of a criminal. The mind of a child is made purely of innocence until one is exposed to destructive developmental patterns. Children that have grown into the shoes of a criminal had been raised into a home with no control and where the environment creates vulnerability. Those who grow up into childhood with an unorganized lifestyle only want to possess the control and power that criminals contain. Children raised in this unstable environment develop a slow pace of skills adolescents learn earlier on (Shi and Nicol par.2). Juvenile sex offenders do not fully develop basic skills which makes it easier to be negatively pressured by society (par.

The meaning of libel was clarified in other such court cases as Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). This case is about the murder of young man by police officer, Mr Nuccio. The victim’s family appointed lawyer Elmer Gertz to represent them in court. The lawyer Gertz was later in an article Robert Welch’s magazine, American Opinion, about communism and how the murder was a setup to try to create a communist government in america and discredit police officers. The article also said falsely that Mr Gertz was a crimminal and that he was a communist. Gertz filed a lawsuit stating that he was wrongly accused of being a communist and that the other statements made in the article were false. He used the court cases of New York Times v Sullivian and the other case Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts to prove his case. The

The crime-control implications for this perspective are basically based upon creating effective punishment to eliminate crime. These measures must be humane and adhere to human rights to successfully keep criminals from committing the