Moral Compass of Lawyer

The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer

The chapter from the book explains the theatrics involved in with the litigation that goes on inside of a courtroom. It explains in detail how attorneys use manipulation and under handed schemes that are only deemed unacceptable a small portion of the time. The article touches on how attorneys have strategies that they use in order to gain favor of the jury and to set an atmosphere that favors the circumstance of their client. The article looks inside the stereotypes of lawyers; that they are dirty liars, who aren’t concerned with justice, but rather winning. Unfortunately the article confirms that lawyers not always truthful, and will go to extreme measures to spin their clients’ “truth.” Another important issue discussed is the infamous playing of the ‘race card’. The author goes inside of the OJ Simpson trial and breaks down the different factors of the case that involve race, and how the defense used race to their clients’ advantage and why they were criticized for that. Importance of the jury to the trial is explained and how lawyers try to select the best jury for that case. Some believe it’s to have less intelligent jury members, some feel it is important to not have any Blacks.

While reading the chapter I thought, “Whoa, am I sure I want to be a lawyer?!” I have always been aware of the stereotypes given to attorneys, but in reading this chapter I realized that winning a case seriously requires persuasion, which sometimes manifests itself in a spinning of the truth. Do I want to be a part of that world? Can I represent a person who is accused of committing a heinous crime? Could I really come up with strategies to manipulate a jury, and if I did, how would I feel about it afterwards? These are all questions that ran through my mind. I’m still deciding what are of law I want to study and after reading this section, I know that I have a lot more research to do.

I was surprised to find out that that lawyers strategically dressed to win favor with jury members, flirted with them, and would go to the extent of hiring individuals to set up a certain scene; I had no idea that lawyers themselves admittedly regard the courtroom as a stage and they are the actors. It saddens me because it makes me think that there’s a lack of integrity and justice in our criminal justice system. As badly as I would love to be a part of the solution, would I really be able to change things in our American justice system? I can at least try. Lawyers have to work with what they have when it comes to a trial, and I think that is an important thing to remember. I believe that one can be an attorney and not have to be conniving, I don’t know to what to extent, but that’s the type of attorney I plan on being.

I think the section on the Simpson trial was informative; I was only 6 or 7 years old when that trial was publicized. I agree that the trial had race all up and through it because it was during a time when racial tensions were high due to the Rodney King trial and the LA Riots, and here you have a Black, rich celebrity accused of killing his white wife. I distinctively remember Blacks only siding with OJ because he was Black. I remember my parents and I sitting around the TV, waiting on the verdict and we all were excited once the verdict came back “Not Guilty.” The Black community, I think, was just happy that a Black man wasn’t convicted of a crime against a white woman. I think it’s ironic how the Black community, years after the verdict, will admit that they believe OJ did commit the murders-that he was guilty, and that he deserves to be in jail now.   

Response to Students Choice

Should We Recognize a Child’s Right to Refuse Vital Medical Care?                                                  

The first article is about what age child should be deemed as able to make decisions concerning their right to refuse medical treatment. The article talks about a 13-year-old girl named, Hannah who won the right to refuse a heart transplant. Her story involves the support of her parents and a social worker who evaluated her, however and doesn’t speak to children who are parentless or whose parents disagree with their children. The article describes that there must be written consent to perform medical procedures and that when a consensus cannot be reached, parents, guardians, and in some cases, the courts perform medical procedures.
The second article pushes for the need for children to have rights at any and every age, allowing them to have the right to decide whether they want medical treatment at any age. It is a British article that explains that children should provide consent before medical procedure is done and that in some instances a child may be more competent than a parent. It talks about a 16-yr-old who refused to eat and had to be force-fed until her 16^th birthday.  
I believe that children, as individuals possess rights and liberties and its important that their rights be protected and respected. With that said, children have a lower mental capacity than adults and therefore there are laws that need to be in place in order to ensure that safety and well-being of children. Children under the age of 13 should be completely, and extensively informed, along with their parents, of any medical action being taken by medical authorities in any situation that is not a state of emergency. Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to refuse medical treatment unless the parents or guardians of the child agree, or unless an extensive evaluation is performed that determines the child’s competence and true understanding of the affects of refusing treatment. In the case of a child that is under the age of 13 and has no legal guardians, if the child refuses, they should receive an extensive evaluation to determine if they are competent enough to understand the decision. If the child under 13 is deemed capable of making that choice, then the child along with the parent or legal guardian and if applicable, should be informed and explained in detail of the procedure and what it means to refuse the procedure. If a child is between 13 and 17, the child, along with their parents or legal guardians or lack there of should be explained in detail of the planned medical procedure. If the child refuses, then they should not be required to have the medical procedure, even if that means the child may die. If a child 13-17 does not have parents or a legal guardian and they refuse medical treatment, they should not, be required to receive medical treatment. The one exception to this rule is that any child 13-17 who refuses medical treatment must undergo an evaluation that determines whether they suffer from any mental illness. If there is no detected mental illness then they don’t have to receive the treatment.                                                                                                        I say the ages 13-17 because 13 is the age when we begin to charge children as adults in crimes, which means that it is acknowledged that persons of this age can make competent decisions that are usually made by adults. Likewise, they should be able to make decisions regarding their lives. I feel the cutoff age should be 17, because 18 is the age our country has determined is appropriate to defend a country and fight in war, so that should be an age where you are able to decide if you want to have a medical procedure performed without any intrusion from anyone.

Surrogacy

Surrogacy

The first section of the compilation talks about what the definition of surrogacy is and two famous cases, Baby M and Johnson v Calvert, surrounding the controversy and the lack of laws and legal involvement in the matter. This section asserts that in both of these rulings, the courts takes a case-by-case approach in dealing with the issue of surrogacy, therefore making the area grey and uncertain. There is no clear-cut approach in surrogacy and everyone has to just hope the process goes according to plan.

I do not agree with surrogacy for religious and moral reasons. I believe that God blesses those with children whom He feels should have children, which is why some people are not able to conceive children. That is why there is no guarantee with surrogacy—because that decision is ultimately up to God. Man can only manipulate life to a limited extent, but God is the only true giver and taker of life and that is what I believe. With that being said, I understand that everyone does not feel as I do, and I believe that women should have the right to choose what they want to do with their own bodies. Surrogacy is a very sensitive issue because such medical and technological advances are being made causes the process to become more like a manufacturing of a baby for monetary gain and that brings up moral questions. I also believe that these technological will force more legislation and regulation in surrogacy because there needs to be lines drawn within this area as to what can and cannot be done. Further research needs to be on this issue so proper counseling and support for the people involved can be provided.

Is Surrogacy Moral?

This section deals with the moral issues that can arise in the issue of surrogacy. The issues that arise are whether the act exploits women who may use surrogacy as a means of making money because they are economically unstable. It also touches on how the women may not be able to handle giving up their baby, and that there can be complications about who is the actual mother of the child when the surrogate doesn’t want to give up the baby. The article also talks about how it can be problematic for the child if they want to know about their birth mother, if the birth mother wants visitation rights or wants to be a part of the child’s life. The most disturbing issue that was mentioned was the stress that may occur if the child is born with a disability and neither party wants to have the baby. These are just some of the moral issues that are involved.

I do not look down on those who want to have children but can’t conceive and would like the help of a surrogate, I believe that it is natural to want to do whatever you can to have the things you want in life. The problem arises when we begin to have babies to use as bone marrow donors for their own siblings. Who’s to say that people won’t start having babies to make them slaves, or prostitutes which are things that happen even now. But if it falls under the umbrella of “surrogacy” what can you do? As I said there are so many risks involved with surrogacy because man does not have all of the answers. After spending 50,000 dollars, you still might not have a child. Or the child may be born with a disability. I don’t believe it’s worth it when there are plenty of children in foster homes who need a home.

Surrogacy Laws: State-By-State

This section gives an account of what states permit and prohibit surrogacy, and what whether they recognize contracts and allow compensation.

There needs to be state laws that are consistent in order to regulate surrogacy and to make sure that people are aware of the laws. The states should be in agree as to whether they will legalize surrogacy or not and if they are to what extent. Over half of the states have unclear views and consensus on how the issue should be handled. That is dangerous because there is a human life involved throughout the process. Some states allow monetary compensation although I believe all of these agreements involve compensation or reimbursement of some sort. So me states allow gestational and some don’t. Whenever there is confusion and lack of law, there will be confusion amongst the people and result in more and more cases that need clarification and rulings.

Curious Lives of Surrogates

This article goes inside the lives of surrogate mothers and discovers that a large amount of surrogate mothers are not poor, scheming women who have no morals, at least the ones that go through the agencies aren’t. Surrogate mothers from all over are interviewed explaining their joy about being surrogate mothers. They explain how excited they are to give a gift to individuals who want children, but are unable to have them. They explain feeling very liberated and fulfilled by the act and that they attend support groups that help them through the process. The article also talks about how there are sometimes issues of control, resulting in the soon-to-be parents sometimes demanding quite a bit from the surrogate. I think that is why sometime there are problems. I believe sometimes the intended parents (IPs) over exert their power and the surrogate gets frustrated and ignores or dismisses the IPs requests at which point they withhold money. I think the surrogates and the IPs should go to counseling because the experience can have a long lasting affect on the surrogate. I also think that there should be legislation that requires everyone to go through a surrogate agency and participate in an extensive background check. In addition, there should be guidelines that are laid out before the contract is signed in order to ensure there are no discrepancies. I don’t know how many dissatisfied surrogate mothers there are for every satisfied one, but I think the first step in making the lines of the issue more black-and-white is first determining whether surrogacy will be legalized and after that, how it will be regulated in order to ensure the best interest of all parties involved are ensured.

First Amendment

Amendment I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

May 4 Shootings At Kent State

This article gives an account of the tragic shootings of thirteen Kent State University students during a protest, which resulted in the death of four students and the wounding of nine other students. The article explains how a peaceful protest turns into a violent protest, with students and other members from the community lashing out by starting fires and vandalizing property to the point where the Mayor calls a state of emergency and soon after—the National Guard. After a two-day fiasco between the students and the Guard, the Guard opened fire with their M-1 Rifles into a large crown of students—many whom were bystander—firing for a full thirteen seconds killing four students who were over 100 feet away. They were later declared bystanders.

The controversy surrounding this tragedy in 1970, as well as probably now if it were discussed, is whether or not the Guard rightfully opened fire into the crowd and whether the slain students’ First Amendment rights were violated (which the Court has never ruled). I believe that the Guard didn’t handle the situation properly and I don’t believe that they were prepared to handle the situation in the first place. They were thrown into the situation, which caused them to react reckless. It is sad and unfortunate that the students who were killed hadn’t done anything to warrant the fate handed to them by the Guard. However, I feel that the First Amendment of the protesters was not violated because they were not peacefully assembled, they became violent, aggressive, and destructive in nature to the entire campus and community as they broke store windows an set buildings ablaze. I do not feel that the students deserved what they got, I do however feel different measures could’ve been taken such as possibly water hoses or maybe a plan of action could’ve been created by authorities so the Guard wouldn’t be left on their own to handle the crowd attacking them. The article explains that rocks and other dangerous objects were thrown at the Guard, which is not okay. With that said, guns should’ve been the last resort and the shooting definitely shouldn’t have gone on for 13 seconds. I believe that the uniformed men felt anger and attacked and wanted to lash out at the angry mobs of people. They wanted to prove that they weren’t afraid, wouldn’t retreat, and were stronger and had more power than the angry protestors.

Kent State Anon Interview

This is an interview conducted in 2000 with one of the guardsmen. During the interview, the Guard explains how there was a lot of confusion amongst the Guardsmen and that they received verbal orders to fire only when told, although some of the men fired without being told to do so. He was not one of the men who fired, and admitted that he knew it was wrong of the men to fire into the crowd of students.

The Guardsmen were in the wrong and this interview confirms it. They went against direct orders for a reason that will never be known except by the men who opened fire. The man in the interview did seem remorseful, but he seemed to be unsure of what he wanted to say often times, which made me wonder if he was lying or if there was a cover up of information by the Guardsmen or the government to hide the mistakes of the men on May 4th.

Kent State Memorial

This is the account of a news reporter who covered the Kent State shootings and his return to the school in 2004 for the memorial of the students. He explains the melancholy memorials on campus that commemorates both the slain students and the injured students. Caputo talks about the campus and the city of Kent after the tragic shootings, and you can only imagine that memory of those dreadful days lives on with the members of the community and the students of that time.

I believe that what happened was very much a tragic and unnecessary event that should’ve never happened. I do feel that this event forever changed the city of Kent and with each new freshmen class at Kent State, the legacy of the lost lives of those 4 students will live on through the memorials. I feel that many who believed that they were taking part in the violent behavior shamed the students killed. I also believe that Kent was shamed because the shootings took place in their city.

War Letters

The War Letters section is a selection of the letters written to the parents of Sandy Scheuer, one of the students killed at Kent State. One letter is from a bigoted woman who condemns and blames Sandy’s parents for Sandy’s death, one letter is from a woman who wants to send words of encouragement and support to Sandy’s parents. The last letter included is from President Richard Nixon, who expressed, in short, his support of Sandy’s parents and his condolences.

 The first letter was repulsive, racist, and ignorant. Perhaps the most disconcerting fact is that a woman who claimed that her heart was saddened as a result of the young woman’s death wrote the letter. The letter displays the woman’s racist views about Jewish people and he condemnation of them. I was shocked to find out that the majority of the people blamed the kids for the deaths. I couldn’t believe this woman would attack a family who has been through such a tragedy. She disrespected this family, implying they were unintelligent ill-equipped parents directly—and indirectly—caused their own daughters death. I even felt insulted just reading the letter and even became upset. However, that type of sentiment in regard to Jewish people does not surprise me because of my study of Anti-Semitism and antipathy for Jews. I just couldn’t believe the extent to which an individual, a woman who is probably a mother who taught the same racist beliefs to her children, would take an opportunity to use Jews as a scapegoat.

The second letter was very uplifting was I would’ve expected in Snady’s parents time of grief, I only hope they received more letters like this one.

President Nixon had the most pathetic letter of the bunch included—at least the racist bigot went into detail which meant she really gave the issue some thought in her own convoluted mind—President Nixon’s letter was probably not even personally written. It seemed insincere, and the fact that he maintained a public unsympathetic stance on the matter proves his insincerity in his short paragraph. I feel these students got the short hand of the deal because it was assumed that they were a part of the violence when in fact, they were not. I also don’t believe that the students who were involved in the violence deserved to die. I believe they deserved to be arrested, not killed. it is a shame that within our society we always have to make one side the ultimate hero, while the other side is made out to be the villian and shunned to the 5^th degree.

Why Do White Folks Love Sydney Poitier So?

This chapter from Sydney Poitier’s book is very inspirational to African Americans as a people and as actors in Hollywood. His well-thought determination to only accept roles as an educated African American man gained him backlash and scrutiny from his own community for a long time. Fortunately Poitier didn’t let the threat of him “selling out” keep him from remaining dignified in Hollywood and in America. He set the bar high by being particular about the type of roles he would and would not take, which forced Hollywood to open up the doors of opportunity to black actors. I commend Poitier’s courage to go against the grain and to use the anger and hurt he felt to do something positive. Given the same circumstance I would have opted to choose roles that were liberating; I would choose roles that allowed me to be portray a multi-dimensional, non-stereotypical character. I do not know how I would have reacted if I were to be harassed by law enforcement, but I know that I’m not a violent person, so I wouldn’t have done anything violent. I believe, like Poitier that I can rise above people’s ignorance and I never want to perpetuate the stereotype.

Without actors and actresses in Hollywood like Poitier—actors who decide not to allow themselves to be put into the box that society tells them they have to stay—blacks would still be portrayed as secondary characters, domestic help, and thugs. Women, would still play subordinate roles and have no voice. It takes a certain kind of actor—a certain type of person to take the platform that they have been given and use it to say, “This is NOT how it has to be.” I believe that’s what Poitier did in a sense. With time, he was taught even more lessons, what, with the Civil Rights Movement and all of things going on at the time during that era. I grew up knowing who Sydney Poitier is 53 and she was in love with the movie and the TV show, “In The Heat of The Night.” At the time, I didn’t really know or care much about him, but I did enjoy the show myself. So reading this chapter from Poitier’s book gave me insight on him as a person, beyond the movies I knew that he had done. I can only imagine being criticized by your own people AND from others