custom term papers

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘law essay sample’

Sample Essay on the Island of Manhattan Sold and Bought for $24

March 8th, 2017 Comments off

manhattan paperMany of us heard the story how the Dutch, governed by Peter Minuit, bought the entire island of Manhattan from the natives for a miserable price – 24$. But is really the story that correct?

The island of Manhattan has been inhabited by the Native American tribes for centuries, it is not quite possible to state for sure, which one made the deal with the Dutch, though probably it was the Canarsie tribe. Some people argue that Indians, due to their believes, didn‘t understand how trade with Europeans works, but we know for sure natives’ concepts of possession. The point is that natives had the concept of possession and private property (not dissimilar to capitalist construct), though many tribes had communal land.

Let’s return to the story itself. According to the letter written by Pieter Schagen people have bought the land from natives for the price of 60 guilders, although there are no records about the deed itself and all existing ones were written long after the purchase when the Dutch inhabited that island for several decades. But what about 24$? 19th century historians converted the value of 60 guilders from 17th century to U.S. dollars, the result was 24$. The point is that this number remained unchanged for about two more centuries, regardless inflation and changes of currency value. The results of modern reevaluations are quite different – some state that it equals 15,000$, others that it is almost 1000$. Though it is a moot, the fact that Indians didn’t sell their land for nothing. The most popular currency in New Netherland at that time were trinkets. By trinkets they meant kettles, axes, mattocks, musical instruments and drilling awls, all in all – for Native Americans it was very useful but not that expensive European stuff. The next moot is whether the land was really bought or just leased. Professor G. Edward White states that native tribes of Manhattan had a tradition of property rights and just offered the Dutch the right to hunt there, while Richard Howe notes that the Dutch, who relied rather on negotiations than on brute force (like other Europeans used to), thought the transaction was full and legitimate, making the land of Manhattan their property that could be later a subject to private purchases. One more interesting fact about this purchase – the Dutch probably purchased the island of Manhattan from Canarsies, who actually didn’t live there (they lived in the area near to Brooklyn). Historians say that Canarsie sought Dutch protection from the enemies, while the Dutch wanted to legitimize their land claims before the British.  It is also known that Weekquaesgeeks – real natives to Manhattan then fought with the Dutch, which led to Kieft’s war. As the result the Dutch drove the tribe of Weekquaesgeeks out of their land completely.

To conclude all mentioned above, it is worth stating that the entire brand of Manhattan being sold for glass beads is totally invalid. The local tribes understood the principles of trade, so they weren’t just giving away their homelands. And last but not least, Manhattan wasn’t actually sold, as Canarsies had no rights of owning the island and the deed was just an attempt to legitimize the claims.

References:

  1. Dixon, Faun Mortara. Native American Property Rights. 1st ed. 1981
  2. Johansen, Bruce E. The Encyclopedia of Native American Legal Tradition. 1st ed. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1998
  3. Levy, Leonard W, Kenneth L Karst, and Adam Winkler. Encyclopedia Of The American Constitution. 1st ed. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000
  4. Bastian, Dawn E and Judy K Mitchell. Handbook Of Native American Mythology. 1st ed. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2004
  5. Barreiro, Jose?. Native American Expressive Culture. 1st ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Akwe:kon Press, American Indian Program, 1994
  6. Grinde, Donald A. Native Americans. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2002
  7. Boxer, C. R. The Dutch Seaborne Empire, 1600-1800. 1st ed. New York: Knopf, 1965

Sample Essay on Bomb Robot Killing Dallas the Sniper

March 4th, 2017 Comments off

essay-on-drones-sniperDue to today’s sophisticated technologies our now has changed drastically and our future is to be changed as well. And it is even a bigger breakthrough when it comes to crimes counteraction and assistance in detecting the criminals. That is said about the Remotec F-5 robot made by Northrop Grumman company that was used by the police to neutralize the delinquent.

It is in Dallas, USA where for the first time in history a robot was used for the criminal elimination by the police. The incident in Texas, Dallas was the bloodiest terrorist attack for the US police after the events in September 11, 2001 as well as Oklahoma City bombing. Dallas Police had armed the robot with an explosive device to kill the criminal Micah X. Johnson who killed five policemen, injured seven plus two civilians during a street riot. The decision to use the bomb was made after unsuccessful negotiations with the suspect.

The robot Remotec F-5 costs around 180,000 dollars. It has inbuilt cameras and sensors, arm-manipulator, special additional wheels for climbing the stairs which helps to overcome not only long distances, but the stairs as well, robot climbed the second floor where the criminal was situated.

This is not the first time when the police use robots-sappers. In April 2015 the police of San Jose dissuaded a person from committing suicide, robot spoke with the man and brought him a pizza and a telephone. This also proves the fact that robots of such types can be used in life-threatening and high-stress situations. There was another case when the robot was used by the US troops during the military operations in the Middle East, where the terrorist who was armed with M18A1 Claymore mine got exploded by the robot-sapper. In Iraq, the military used inexpensive robot MARCbot as an independent explosive device many times. In addition to bomb disposal, it can break windows, spray tear gas, cut the wires, make and drill holes. The robot is not autonomous, a person controls every action by means of remote control.

According to the military experts, the murder in Dallas is the first time when the police used a robot to kill. As a rule, robots are used to neutralize suspicious items. However, since these machines are also equipped with video cameras and microphones from time to time they are used as means of communication with the suspects. The current legislation does not prohibit to use robots during police operations and after successful operation in Dallas this practice will presumably continue. And perhaps in the near future law will permit to single out a target to kill even if the target is out of sight. For example, with only target’s biometric information.

Robots have evolved from primitive to sophisticated mechanisms with efficient inbuilt devices and have largely surpassed the possibilities of men. In the coming decades, more and more sophisticated robots will become irreplaceable helpers of people. Robotic devices have long been used by the military, so it is logical that law enforcement agencies of different countries do not want to lag behind and want to use them in practice as well.

References:

  1. Killer robot used by Dallas police opens ethical debate by M. Liedtke and B. Fowler, July 6, 2016.
  2. Use of police robot to kill Dallas shooting suspect believed to be first in US history. The Guardian, June 25, 2016.
  3. How robot, explosives took out Dallas sniper in unprecedented way. CNN, by S. Sidner and M. Simon, July 12, 2016.
  4. Police ‘killer robot’ used in dallas stirs human rights controversy. Underground reporter by N. Prupis, July 8, 2016.
  5. Dallas sniper shootings: Police robot killed gunman following standoff in car park. International business times, by L. Dean, July 8, 2016.

Court Essay Slow Motion Video Makes People Look Guiltier

March 2nd, 2017 Comments off

people look guiltierVideo recording, including hidden cameras, is an admissible tool that helps to provide the evidence in court. Audio and video materials help the court to establish the circumstances under which the crime was committed. Jury watches video footage of crimes to identify whether the person is guilty or not and such videos help to analyze and define the events that took place and their seriousness. Video and audio evidence can be made in many different ways, due to household tape recorders, cell phones or surveillance system. But the validity of this evidence will be only accepted by court on condition that the authenticity of the recording itself was proven.

Along with the advantages of slow-motion videos, there are also disadvantages that cause bias in court. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, the United States of America released a research according to which the viewers watching a slow-motion video of the committed crime considered such crime to be thought through and calculated, but not impulsively committed.  The viewers were asked to watch two types of videos: slow-motion video and a regular speed video. The participants of the experiment who watched the slow-motion video version believe in premeditation of the committed crime.

There were also other experiments carried out to prove the bias nature of slow-mo video type. There were 489 participants in the experiment who were shown the video with the armed robbery where the clerk was shot. Watching the slow-mo video of the event, but not at regular speed, the viewers believed that the wrongdoer intended to kill the clerk. In another experiment the participants were shown a video with a football tackle with the involvement of the forbidden helmet-to-helmet trick. The viewers of slow-motion video state that the player who did the helmet-to-helmet hit acted intently towards the other player.

The question now arises of whether the jury must use slow-motion videos during court proceedings or due to its bias nature, videos of such type must be banned for good?! Such bias does a serious damage to the accused party and influences the whole court process in general. Premeditated crimes get more serious sentence and punishment accordingly and it does matter when you are charged with reflexive second-degree murder or the first-degree murder. Slow-motion videos can give a false impression that the actions were planned by the person. It does not necessarily mean that slow-motion videos must not be used and accepted in court, but it does mean that the benefit of such video types may cause serious consequences to the guilty party.

Slow motion videos can make boring moments look funny ones and unseen things visible ones. Videos of such type can make not guilty person a guilty one. It may seem not serious, but when it comes to returning the verdict and punishment, it is more than serious, it is of vital importance as for the footage evidence. Of course, it doesn’t refute the fact that the person who committed a crime will have to answer for his actions, but at least the verdict he receives will be fair.

References:

  1. Slow-motion videos of a crime can cause jurors to view wrongdoing as intentional, study finds. By Debra Cassens Weiss, August 11, 2016 Harmful actions may seem more sinister when viewed in slow motion, study finds. Los Angeles Times, by Amina Khan, August 2, 2016
  2. Slow-motion replays can make juries FOUR times more likely to convict someone of a crime, Daily Mail Online, by Ryan O’Hare, August 2, 2016
  3. Can slow-motion video bias jury trials? The Christian science monitor, by Nicole Orttung, August 8, 2016
  4. Slow-Motion Video Makes People Look More Guilty, Study Shows. How stuff works, by Yves Jeffcoat, August 10, 2016