Respond to one of the following:
A. Is it ever ok for the government to interfere or limit a defendents due process rights? (For example: What if the police feel certain a person has committed many murders but they do not have enough evidence to arrest the person. Is it ok for the police to interfere with the person's right to privacy or is in the public's best interest (safety) to infringe on this person's rights and protect a possible "future victim?"
B. The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear Jeff Skilling's case (connected with Enron). One of the arguments that Mr. Skilling's defense team is putting forth is that he was not able to have a fair trial because of the media coverage. What do you think about this? Do you think that Mr. Skilling will win his argument? (The other arugment is that the "honest service" law that was used against him was unconstitutiona.) How do you think all of the former Enron employees will feel about this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
B) I do not think that Skilling should be given another trial on the grounds of media biasedness. This is America. The media can print what they please as long as it follows the law's guidelines. In this case the media is in the clear. They can print whatever story with whatever spin they want. Its what makes the media the media. They used the same tactic during watergate and showed America conspiracy. They should be allowed to do the same now.
ReplyDeleteTaylor F
Period 2
B)
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Taylor on this. The only unbiased person is an uninformed person. Being biased in favor of the truth and justice, which in this case is being biased against Jeff Skilling, is a good thing. Jeff Skilling has the money to buy the best attorneys in the world, and their only argument is to plead off a technicality. Skilling was an evil and greedy man who cheated his employees. It would be poetic justice for him to cheat his attorneys. I could never be an attorney, because I have too much of a conscience to defend a guilty man.
Shane A Healy
Period 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA. I believe it is never ok for the government to interfere or limit a defendant's due process right. The laws were established to help protect our rights and not incriminate ourselves as well as being sent to prison for a crime we may have never committed. Ever since events such as the Watergate Scandal and the Vietnam War, the people have become distrustful of the government and infringing on a person's privacy would further give the people a reason to not trust the government.
ReplyDeleteTina P.
2nd Period
I believe that the government doesn't have the right to interfere or limit a defendant’s due process right. Laws and also the amendments were made in order to protect people’s rights. In some cases the government does interfere in the defendant’s due process right, because they think they have evidence to arrest or charge a person for specific charges. For example in Terry V. Ohio Detective McFadden notice Terry and Chilton look suspicious in a street corner he suspected something was about to happened, therefore he ask for the guys to step inside the store and he started searching them. Most of the people believe that the detective was violating the 4th amendment that provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this type of cases the police can interfere with the person's right to privacy, because the police officer is only doing his job that is to protect people's life. In Terry v. Ohio’s case the 4th amendment doesn't protect suspect who are acting in a suspicious manner while being questioned by an officer.
ReplyDeleteAndrea Reyes
2nd period
I am split regarding if the government should interfere or limit the defendants due process rights. This is because i believe its not ok for the government to infere nontheless limits someone's due process rights. Every one should have a chance to have the benefit of the doubt. However there are some people in this world who do bad things and do not get caught because the government does not interfere enough. So therefore I think the government should interfere a little more regarding the criminal aspects because we want to keep the nation safe, but not to an extreme where people would not like it.
ReplyDeleteLaura Paez
2nd Period
B. I don’t think that Skilling should get another trial. I don’t think his case, blaming the media, is very strong. The media and press have the right through the first amendment to put their opinions and thoughts out there for the rest of America to see. But I’m not saying that the media didn’t have anything to do with it, they probably did play a role, but it wasn’t as influential towards the case as he says they were. I believe he went to prison because he scammed a ton of employees, and made them loose their jobs. I think the former Enron workers would be angered that he may have a chance of getting less time in prison after destroying so many people’s lives. And his whole deal with the “honest service”, I don’t think that’s right at all. “In this legal Wonderland, Skilling may succeed in his claim that, essentially, he was providing honest services by deceiving shareholders because it made the company's stock price go up.”(http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/6670118.html) It’s so ironic.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government doesnt have the right to interfer or limit the defendents due process rights. The government doesn't have the right to limit one's right even though they have commited a crime. They are also a human being that have all the rights everyone have. They are protected by the law also, even if they have done a bad deed. Everyone should have the same benefit from the law that was created to give everyone the rights we deserve. IF one's right could be taken away so easliy then their shouldn't be any laws.
ReplyDelete-lisa y.
It is not constitutional to interfere with ones due process. No matter what someones past is police and fed's should have enough evidence to make sure they can arrest someone. It wouldnt be right to shoot someone who was not armed. This is the same situation except instead of dying you just got to jail.Exspection of a "future criminal" should be done with all percuasions. If the government should limit a persons due process rights they might as well be able to invade ones home without a permit. I believe a officer should have a good amount of evidence to try and arrest a person knowing that they could accidentaly violate a persons privacy rights.
ReplyDeleteA.I believe that the government to interfere or limit a defendents due process rights. Every one should ahve the same rights and they should be protected. Even if a person has committed many murders, as long as they dont have enoguh evidence to put him away then he should technically be free. I know people think this is stupid because hes a murderer but, if our own cops cant get enough evidence to put a murderer behind bars their doing something wrong. In no way should people due process laws be infringed on or taken advantage of. The cops themselves should step up their police work to put people behind bars that are committing crimes.
ReplyDeleteLaura C.
ReplyDeletePer. 5
A) I don't think that the government should interfere or limit our due process rights. If there was a person that the police knew was killing people but they didn't have enough sufficient evidence to arrest them then I think that the police should just work harder to get the evidence. That person shouldn't be walking free but if the police don't get enough on the person then the jury won't convict them because of the lack of evidence. Leading to them not being able to be on trial again for that murder(s). For police interfering with a person's right to privacy I'm in between on because sometimes police strongly believe that a person is guilty. They act on it, like with O.J. Simpson he was seen as guilty but was found not to be. The police just need to be careful about who they pursue and smarter about what they do.
Jeff Skilling wants to have another trial?? Look, the media is going to be there no matter what. What he did was wrong. That can’t be denied. He is just being a stinky spoiled brat, and is using his big lawyers to find any reason to get him back on trail so he doesn’t have to hit the slammer. That’s ridiculous. I don’t expect anyone to be sympathetic towards this man. I don’t think he’ll win the case. Former enron employees should be angry. He was a part of a big disservice to hundreds of people. It’s not a surprise that the media jumped all over it. The price he has to be pay from the media scrutinizing him is a small one compared to all the bad things he’s done.
ReplyDeleteI believe that jeff skilling shouldn't get another trial because everybody knew that he was a greedy person and with the media putting out stories about him cheating his employees it only made it worse. Another reason why he shouldn't blame the media is because the media is protected by the 1st amendment, which most likely will help him lose. there's really no point in having another trial when he's going to be found guilty anyways.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government should not interfere in with a defendents "due process". Every citizen in the United States should have equal rights. If we don't have equal rights then what have we accomplished after all? Our entire history has been based off of equal rights and equal opportunity for all. The government should not interfere with the defendents "due process" because it is after all one of our rights. The defendent should be able to plea his case and there should be eveidence of the crime that the defendent has committed. If there is no evidence of his crime, then how can one take him to trial. Due process is a very important right to all American citizens.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government should not interfere in with a defendents "due process". Every citizen in the United States should have equal rights. If we don't have equal rights then what have we accomplished after all? Our entire history has been based off of equal rights and equal opportunity for all. The government should not interfere with the defendents "due process" because it is after all one of our rights. The defendent should be able to plea his case and there should be eveidence of the crime that the defendent has committed. If there is no evidence of his crime, then how can one take him to trial. Due process is a very important right to all American citizens.
ReplyDeleteOmar Bahena
Period 5
Under no circumstances is it okay for the government to interfere without the necessary reasons and/or materials. It would be totally unfair and contradictory for the government to have established all of these laws when it was planning on breaking them. The word "government" and "American politics" already leaves a bad taste in citizens mouth. If they made exceptions for these types of situations they'd only be digging themselves into a deeper hole with Americans. Maintaining and demonstrating governmental consistency to thousands would go further than busting a single potential criminal.
ReplyDeleteWintress Cloud
Period 2
A) Although sometimes it would be in the best interest of the public to invade a certain person's privacy (possible criminals, murders, or rapists), It is still not the correct thing to do. If there is no substantial proof against a person you are accusing, you may as well be risking infringment on an innocent person's rights as well. It is always better to find evidence of a person's misdeeds and arrest them on those charges, than to barge into someone's home without proof, without a warrant, and then find absolutely nothing. Interfering with a defendents due process law will cause more problems in society than solving them. Anyway, why make these laws to make America fair place to live, and then break them? Everyone is equal so even criminals or immoral people have the right to due process as well. The government is not allowed to infringe on them, ever. All crimes leave some kind of trace, so if a case is going cold, the government should try a different method or approach that do not jeopardize any type of Rights.
ReplyDeleteLenitie C.
Period 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA.) Although I do believe that every criminal should pay the price for their crimes, I think it's only fair if they are charged properly. I mean if they really commited the crime, it shouldn't be that difficult to prove that they are guilty. Since we want justice, i think we should demonstrate justice. I don't believe that any official has a right to impose on a citizens rights, even if they are guilty. I understand how it may be hard to sit back and watch, but we have to trust that justice will be served. Also keep in mind that there are some people who get thrown in jail for crimes they didn't commit. If they had had better due process, maybe they wouldn't be in there. Any person who is found guilty, should be sentenced ACCORDING TO the crime committed. We can't sentence someone to life for a robbery...that's impractical.
ReplyDelete[above]
ReplyDeleteKaren V.
2nd Period
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA. I believe that in certain cases depending on the severity of the crime it is okay to infringe on their rights. There have been many cases in the past that haven't found the person guilty when indeed they were. Then we have a murderer on the loose and obviously American citizens want to feel safe. However if the case doesn't involve such capital crimes then I don't feel it's necessary to violate their rights like that. As Americans we DO have rights that must be protected however I do feel there are exceptions such as the intention of protecting the public's safety. I think there should be guidelines on when it is okay to interfere and search for more evidence. But I also think that if they are to do so, they can't use evidence to prove ANOTHER crime than the crime they are searching evidence for. They also shouln't be destructive of the home or violate other persons who may live there.
ReplyDeleteTeresa P
Period 2
A)
ReplyDeleteUnder no circumstances is it ok for any branch in government to inerfere with anybody's due proccess rights. Our government was founded to protect equal rights, due proces being one of them. Therefore, if the governtment chose to interfere with these rights they would be acting in an unconstitutional way. The law enforcers should be able to prove the accused is guilty without any reasonable doubt. If this can't be assumed then theres no point in the trial, since the jury would just disagree on the accusation resulting in just a loss of time. A worse case scenario could result in the death of an innocent person being accused without being properly sentenced. Due to the fact that we live in a nation where the death penalty is used, this can happen if a simple mistake is made because of a limit being used in our due process.
Martin R
Period 5
A)
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government should, under no circumstances, infringe on our rights, no matter what the case. Even though someone is suspected to have committed a crime, it's not okay to arrest them unless there is enough evidence. Everyone should have their own rights to privacy. This is a difficult area for government intervention, because the rights of the person they suspect can be limited. Just because someone "looks" suspicious does not always mean that they committed a crime. But if they have, there could be a major problem with letting them go into the public to continue their crimes. I think that there has to be solid evidence before the government can come in and interfere with a persons due process rights. They should be innocent until proven guilty, it should be absolutely sure that they committed the crime before they can have their rights infringed on.
Gabriel G.
Period 5
A) Due process of law should never be infringed upon for the due process insures that justice is carried out in a orderly format. When this part of our law is clouded our justice will be clouded.
ReplyDeleteRather one may think that an individual is guilty of a crime or not the law protects the defandant makes sures that the defandant has a chance to prove himself innocent. This is called fairness. One persons bad assumtions should not determine an individuals fate.
I feel that it is never okay for the government to infringe on due process. Although in the example the police may be certain that the person did it, it should not be okay to infringe on their rights to prove them guilty. Furthermore if they do not have enough evidence then the police should not be able to interfere because they would not be able to provide enough evidence to prove them guilty. Although it may seem good that the police could protect a future victim by infringing upon his/her rights it should not be allowed because it could set a precedent for the police to be able to do what they want. Limiting due process would take away our rights when we were convicted and would basically lead to the government having control of who they want in jail if they were taken away. This is much like Miranda v. Arizona. This was where the police did not state the person’s rights before interrogating them and they ended up free. This is what I believe should happen if government limits due process in any way. I feel this way because government may become too powerful if they do begin to take away these rights. In this way I feel that due process should never be limited.
ReplyDeleteA) It would be completely idiotic to tamper with the application of the due processes of law, it should be applied regardless. Once due processes begins to be disregarded then it can only progress down hill. Due process is not just there to protect the "guilty" as the example would express, but rather to protect everyone. The Government cannot go so far as to take away due process of law just like it cannot take your babby away.
ReplyDeleteI believe its very important to have the laws of due process. If the government takes away the rights of the constitution then no one is safe from tyranny within the country. When people are unconstitutionaly emprisoned or searched it opens the doors for an overbearing opressive government. The laws are to protect the masses guilty or not.
ReplyDeleteA)
ReplyDeleteI do feel that if they believe that by monitering a suspect they have a chance of catching him then I am for it. I mean, what's to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong right? I understand we all deserve our privacy. But let's say the police do not interfere and that possible murderer's next victim is your sibling? Or child? Or Parent? or Friend? I bet that at that time you'd be wishing the police had monitered that suspect. Now I feel that we all need our privacy but if you are not OK with this interfering because you do something weird in private, then don't worry. It wont be publicaly told to everyone. But if you are doing something illegal, then you deserve to get caught. I am very positive most of you will disagree with me but that's understandable. But like I said when I talk about this topic I look at it from the perspective that what if it was someone I knew?
B)
No!! This man is another Britney Spears. Everyday celebrities pin their problems on the media saying it's their fault for this and their fault for that. If you are going to be a pop star then you need to learn to deal with muckrackers. And if you're going to be the head of a major corporation that screws thousands of people over then you need to be able to deal with the reporters who are doing a little thing called THEIR JOB! How is the Honest Service Law unconstitutuional? I don't think it is but that is debatable obviously. I think that Skilling will lose vastly and if he wins then our Supreme Court is flawed in my opinion. I think the former Enron workers will be very angry at the fact that he is getting a 2nd chance that he does not deserve. I wasn't affected by Enron at all (or so I think) and it really makes me mad that he is getting an undeserved 2nd chance. I say let the man rot in jail for what he has done.
B. Because of the way that our constitution is set up, citizens are entitled to the right to a fair and speedy trial. Specifically, our Bill of Rights (5th and 6th amendments) deals with our rights as a citizen to due process of the law. Although this is true, I have to agree that Mr. Skilling should not be given any further consideration or appeals into the nature of his crimes. The media has played a very influential role in the outcome of his case, this is obvious, but it is simply not fair to retry him, especially when prosecutors are legally barred from prosecuting a person twice for the same conviction. In this modern society of widespread coverage by the mass media, one has to be prepared to face the press as well as the public opinion. I think that Mr. Skilling has a valid argument, but I do not think that he will win his appeal. I hope this verdict will help to further prevent the white-collar crimes of executives or previous employees of Enron from also brining their case to the supreme court, because I believe it to be mostly a waste of government time and resources, of which these executives has already caused enough damage.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that Skilling should be given another trial. Saying the media was biased against him is true but its nothing to complain about. The media is biased toward everyone. The media has a right to say what ever they want. Like Taylor said, its what makes the media the media. To me this is just another rich corporate trying to buy his way out of the legal system. He lied and cheated his employers out of money, and feels he is being punished to harshly! This guy doesn't stop. I hope he gets sentenced to what he deseves.
ReplyDeleteChristian D.
Period 5
A. I am split when it comes to whether or not the police should be able to interfere with a person’s right to privacy. On one hand, I think privacy is a freedom that should not be taken advantage of. On the other hand, by monitoring someone who is a potential criminal, murders, rapes, and drug deals could be decreased significantly. Privacy is a key point to the rights that we as Americans have. The question that has to be asked is; are we willing to risk the lives of innocent people for our privacy? People need to put themselves in the shoes of someone who has had a death in the family or has had to experience the death of a friend all because the police could not really check things out. This is a question that has many debatable points. In the end though, I think it would be appropriate/ necessary for the police to be able to monitor a suspected criminal.
ReplyDeletei believe that it is sometimes ok to interfere with a persons right to privacy. When it comes to the safety of a large groupe of people, i think any force of action should be taken in order to protect them. Utalitarianism states that its better to benifet the greater amount of people rather than just one. In this instance if one person threatens many it should be justifyable to invade his private rights. Though this cannot be justifyable in every case. Idont think police should invade privacy on just a "hunch".Though evidence isnt always the easiest thing to find, its alot more substantial than a "hunch". hopefully one day privacy wont be the main thing blocking a case to be solved.
ReplyDeleteAdrian Figueroa P2
the government should never get rid of the due process rights. They are one of the few things that keep the government from using fabrication to imprison political activist. It also helps ensure that the ones arrested are actually guilty. If the police arrest someone and jail them without any rights of due process the person is much more likely to be innocent.They need a chance to give thier side. Due process is protecting the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is ever right to infringe on our due process rights. One of the main bases this country was found upon was freedom. If our due process was taken away or limited then we would have less freedom. It is bad that a guilty criminal can get away with murder, but if there is not suffiecient enough evidence then they can't be prosecuted. If they were to be prosecuted anyways then that would not be fair by law. This would lead to more power given to the police and the courts because all they would have to do was find someone who they know is guilty, even without proof, and they could be prosecuted anyways. If there is no proof of the crime there is no surefire way to know that someone committed that specific crime and therefore they should not be prosecuted. In order to maintain the democratic ways of our nation every citizen needs to receive the same rights.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government should not infringe on our due process rights. The idea that we are innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to our society. If the government gains the ability to ignore the fifth amendment we lose one more obstacle to corruption in our leaders. In this situation, the temtation to lock up or infringe on the rights of personal enemies and political opponents would be to much for many of our country's officials to withstand. There are too many innocents convicted as it is, and doing away with the neccesity of convicting suspects would dramatically increase the number of people wrongly hurt by our government. The idea of letting a criminal go free is horrible, especially when they pose an active threat to others, but the thought that the government could throw us in jail or violate our basic rights on a whim is even more so. The power that we give our government gives it the ability to be a much larger potential threat then mere individual suspects. Danger from the government could effect everyone in the country, while only a small part of our population would be endangered by letting suspects run free until we could prove whether they are guilty.
ReplyDeleteEthan Krohn 5th period
A:
ReplyDeleteIn the most extreme cases, I believe it is justified to interfere with due process in a careful, controlled manner. In the example that Ms. Blyth gave, if the man is not a murderer or law breaker, then what does he have to hide? It's not an inconvenience to an innocent suspect if the suspicion is unfounded; the investigation is not a personal issue, but one of public safety. The already undermanned police force can save precious time and resources in this manner. If he's innocent, then he would just let them carry out a private investigation and be done with it.
This is a rather idealistic approach to the problem; reality is rarely ever this simple. Due process is an established idea in America; interfering with the process is unthinkable and changing the American ideology would be near impossible. Of course, more laws would be made to protect the targeted individuals, but America would never be tolerant on having their rights violated.
B.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Skilling should receive another trial. I agree with the statement that the media helped sway the people, but he had it coming. How could someone swindle so many and expect no one to be angry or the backlash of the media of said people. America has freedom of press, and the press can basically say what they want. So I think that saying the media was the reason why you were found guilty, it shouldn't even be considered.
B. By no means should Jeff Skilling get the right to another trial. Just becuase the media "predetermined" his ruling, doesnt change the fact that he is actually guilty... The evidence supported that he was guilty with or without the media's involvement. It just so happens that we live in a completely media run society and absolutely everything is publicized by the media, making it impossible for him to complain. It is definately not the first time that the media has played a role, it happens constantly all throughout history, however Skilling likes to handle things always a little on the unethical side. The man could hire any attorney he pleased, and probably prolonge the process for going to prison on technicalities but he is only making it worse for himself. He deserves no sort of appeal, and if he gets it he will not get the outcome he is hoping for.
ReplyDeleteLiz S.
Period 2
I believe that the government should not be able to infringe on citizen's due process rights. Citizens are entitled to having equal protection and if that's not giving to every defendant then it'll cause racial profiling and bias'. It's essential that the government doesn't take away or reduce our protection or else it'll contradict our judiciary system because it was mean to provide justice. And just like all our laws, nothing's perfect and there's flaws. Which leaves the opportunity for guilty defendants to utilize loopholes to lessen their punishment or get away with their crimes (with the assistance of an attorney of course). This is one of the factors that would change my mind on whether or not the government should interfere, because without it justice wouldn't be performed. And though innocents shouldn't have to worry if they're truly clean from their conscience, our system isn't fool proof. Therefore, innocents could be sent to jail and be proven guilty even though our system says, “We are innocent until proven guilty”.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteA. I do not think due process rights should
ReplyDeleteever be violated. Without evidence police officers would be using personal judgement and vibes and even though they provide us with saftey, they are not perfect. Meaning they have personal bias, and if they worked off only personal judgement there would never be a true definition of a criminal and innocent people would have their lives interupted for no reason. These laws are here for a reason, to protect our rights to freedom an ideal our country prides itself on withholding. With requiring evidence we provide that fire police officers need to actually solve a case. And we make sure no fingers are pointed early because if officers just started calling people criminals and then later discover they were wrong, a resentment would grow amoungst the american people towards the people who are supposed to protect us.
Haleigh C
5th
It is never okay for the government to interfere or limit a defendant’s due process rights. Due process is one of the rights that all citizens in the United States have. If we don’t have that anymore or if the government infringe it then the people that are innocent would be found guilty and that would be injustice. Even if they think that a person is guilty, they need to have evidence to prove that the person is really guilty and until that happens, that person is innocent. If they really are in the wrong and there is not enough proof to prove that that person is guilty than they should wait until they got enough to prosecute them. Anyone that is being prosecuted should have the chance to tell their side of the story and prove that they are innocent. For me, due process is an important right. Also, everyone is equal and should have the right to due process even if they are guilty.
ReplyDeleteLydia C. (5th period)
I think that under certain circumstances, the police should be able to interfere with a citizens due process. Only if its an obvious and dangerous crime that is about to be committed. If the evidence shows that its obvious, but its still not enough, then there should be some limitations that are able to be broken. I believe in a defendants' due process rights; But i think if completely necessary, then they should be broken. But the reasoning and evidence would have to support the cause of violating a citizens rights. Not just any evidence, but clear evidence that shows the criminals actions or future actions. So i think there are certain times when due process right should be broken, but am not against the right.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Skilling should not be given another trial especially under the Supreme Court. He wronged his employees of thier pensions plans. I hope they deny any of his request in the supreme court. He complains that his sentence is too long but white collar crimes aren't really punished. I think white collar crimes go lightly in the United States. The media has a right to say what they want to say. If they didnt then they wouldn't be called the media. Of course they are going to be biased because they are the media, so Skilling needs to stop playing that card
ReplyDeleteA) I believe it is not okay for the governemnt to interfere/limit a defendant's due process rights. Everyone deserves to have the same rights as everyone. Laws are created to establish justice and equality. If the government were to violate someones 5th amendment rights constantly without any evidence, well America wouldn't be America now would it? However there are circumstances where the government can interfere. As long as they have the evidence believing someone might commit a crime, they should have the power to limit there due process rights. There are times that innocent people are convicted but this is because of the justuce system in America, its not perfect. In the end its all related to evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe one above, Alex Negreros 5th period
ReplyDeleteyes, i think there should be a limit to peoples due process. if the police believed a killed someone and i know i didnt i would want to prove my innocence. if i resist arrest then there would be something that im trying to hide. I would not be happy if they arrested me without saying something first-like if they just came up to me and arrested me but if i knew they were suspecting me then that would be differnet.
ReplyDeleteLeslie H.
Per. 5
B) First of all I believe that Jeff Skillings argument is very weak, "not a fair trial because of the media coverage", because what if a murderer shot someone and then the news reported he shot someone and then the murderer complains that the media coverage was unfair, even though they have all the evidence they need to convict him. Also what he did was wrong, even if he claims the constitution was violated by using the "Honest Service" law against him. For one thing he carried out his task of making it look like enron was getting alot of money when really Enron was losing all of its money, and he was getting payed for it. So all those people who lost their investments in Enron are mad becaue Skilling got tons of money for doing something very evil, but getting money.
ReplyDeleteAmy G.
Period 2
sorry late..
B) Media coverage has nothing to do with it. What the enron company did was wrong on so many levels economically and morally. Because of that money all the people were cheated out of, as well as the damage it did to their social status, many suffered big time. this is what makes his arguement almost non-existent. They did what they did and there is no getting around that. No amount of media coverage can help him in that point. As for the honest service law, the fact that he was paid for making the company lose all its money is completely bogus and a juvenile attempt to get out of the charges.
ReplyDelete@karen
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, a defendant's due process rights are there for a reason and when the government imposes on those rights, it makes them void. Even though we would all like justice to be served we cannot jeopardize the rights that all defendants are granted.
@lizschneider
I agree with you also, Skilling knows he's guilty and he's only prolonging the process in order to gain more media attention and attempt to avoid the charges brought against him.
@Alias
I somewhat agree with you, if a man has a clean record then he should have nothing to hide and be willing to consent to a search with or without a warrant. It would make things run more smoothly, but this is reality, the people are very distrustful of the government and even an innocent man may be inclined to refuse a search.
Rebekah B.
ReplyDelete5th period
I agree with Wintress when she says that government and American politics leave a sour taste in our mouths already. I never thought about it that way. I also never thought about how the government should think about maintaining consistency rather than go out of the way to bust a criminal.
I agree with Jeff when he says that due process is also meant to protect the innocent, because if it were overlooked or restricted then innocent people who have bad luck and end up looking guilty could be tried and sentenced just because they look bad, rather than there actually being conclusive evidence.
I also agree with James Jimenez when he talks about the police being able to gain too much power if due process was allowed to be restricted. The police would have more power than average citizens and would be able to decide who they were going to convict regardless of the evidence they had against that person.
@ Aaron Krohn
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, the government should never get rid of the due process rights. People should be able to have the benfit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
@ LouisianaGr
I agree with you, interferring with a defendants due process law will cause more problems. This is true because then people would argue about their rights and not the crime they are being acused of. This has happened in past supreme court cases.
@ Wintress Cloud
I agree with you, it is not fair that the government breaks the rules they set up. This just increases the distrust in government more.
Laura Paez
Period 2
I don’t think it should ever be ok for government to interfere or limit a defendant’s due process rights no matter the situation. It would give government unnecessary power to decide individual rights in the courts. If a person is known to convict many murders but can’t be convicted like the situation above, it is almost logical that they will commit others that will eventually spawn evidence. Of course, in situations like this, lives might be the cost. However, I’d rather live in a country where criminals are forced to come to legitimate punishment rather than one whose government can punish individuals for something they may not have committed. If the U.S. government attains a new power like interfering with due process, I fear it will make a habit out of it. In the most extreme case, government might try to interfere with the other individual liberties listed in the Bill of Rights. If a constitutional amendment can be broken in America, what can’t?
ReplyDeleteNilsen S. 2nd per
@GabiMarinez: I agree with your statement because the media has been the way it is now for decades. Skilling needs to accept what he’s done because I doubt the media blasts him more negatively than ordinary people aware of the situation do.
ReplyDelete@Lydia C.: I agree with what you said about due process being equal. As an individual right, the process gives anyone a fair chance to defend him or herself. Although it may not be as important to people who truly have committed their charged crime, people do get framed or perhaps just suspected wrongly. Due process is almost an equal to free speech in a courtroom. It gives our judicial system a sense of actual justice.
@Avery422: I don’t think the media helped sway the people in Skilling’s case. It simply exposed what it was that he was doing and the viewers chose for themselves that it was wrong to do. And for that reason, I do agree that he can’t blame the media for the court’s ruling. He took advantage of a whole bunch of people and like you said, he had it coming
Nilsen S. 2nd Per
@Wintress
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the fact that the government should practice what they preach. There already is enough distrust of the government and it would make matters worse if our governing body chose not to abide by them.
@Liz
I totally and one hundred percent agree with you! He was guilty, everyone knows it and for him t blame the media is childish. In our society there is nothing that the media doesn't cover.
@Nilsen
Maybe it wasn't worded right. What I meant was that since the media does have quite a bit of influence of the American people it could've only focused on a certain point and not the whole issue. I'm in now way defending him, I'm just saying.
Laura C.
ReplyDeletePer. 5
I agree with Grace that Skilling should not get another trial. Taking people's money adn scamming them was wrong adn illegal, no question about it. The former workers of Enron are probably livid about this happening.
I also agree with Shane about the Skilling case. The entire country knows that that man is guilty. It wasn't the media who sentenced him. Those jurors made their own decisions.
Andrea was right about the fact that laws and amendments were made in order to protect our rights. The government and police should know that they can't cross those lines yet the 4th Amendment doesn't protect suspects who act in a suspicious manner. So we just all need to be careful about what we do.
Destin P.
ReplyDeletePer. 5
I agree with Taylor, he should not get another trial. He should be exposed even more by the media in my eyes. He did murk all those people by taking their money and he did it illegally. He is guilty send him to prison.
I agree with Donald, the government should never be allowed to interfere on a persons due process rights. Cops should have to have alot of evidence to arrest someone not just because they think the person is guilty.
I agree with Laura Cipra, the police must have enough evidence before they can interfere. Just because cops think that a person is killing someone doesnt mean that they can go and arrest that person they lots of evidence first.
CHICHIWONKA
Lisa Y.
ReplyDeleteperiod# 5
I agree with grace. Just because one is commit with a crime, they should have a second chance to have a second trial. This trial may be a turning point for a major event.
i agree with Karen, just because one has commited a crime doesn't mean they can't keep their right. It's just unfair if their rights are taking away.
I agree with lydia, the government can't just pop out of nowhere and take away peoples right. All citizens have the same right that can't be taken away, even if they have commited a crime.
@James Grant
ReplyDeleteI agree that what Jeff Skilling did was wrong but to some extent the media could have messed with his trial but the man should still be guilty for what he did. He should not get off scott free
@Glezen1
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that what the man did was wrong and that the media coverage did not adversely affect his trial because he did somthing wrong. The only way i could see this as being bad would be if someone who was not really guilty got unfair media coverage.
@leslie
ReplyDeleteI am confused with your post. At first you say that you want there to be a limit on due process then how you dont want cops to do what they want. I found this to be a sort of contradiction care to explain?
@ Adrian F. - I agree with you. You were stating basically what I was thinking - that sometimes it shoudl be okay, but like I said, even that small amount of meddling into peoples' rights will cause more problems. It may also cause people to bend the rules on other rights or the amendments.
ReplyDelete@ Just - It's true that if a person is innocent, they should have nothing to hide, BUT there are weirdos who will strongly fight for Law Officials to get Search Warrants ect. to search their houses even though they are in fact innocent. If we take them to be guilty for not letting the police search their houses and the police violates their Defendents Rights on that misinterpretation, then they will be in serious trouble.
@ Haleigh - You make a very good point. I agree that we shouldn't risk invading the Defendents' Rights of innocent people by violating Defendents' Rights on hunches or go around accusing them - "pointing fingers" - without evidence. =]
@ Alias- I agree with you because if a person doesn't have anything to hide therefore they shouldn't act in a suspicious way. Like you said, Investigation is not a personal issue, but a public issue. For ex) When a police officer feels that certain person has committed a murder they have the right to investigate the case in order to find enough evidence to arrest a person.
ReplyDelete@Tina- I agree with what you said about how laws are made to help protect our rights and not by incriminating ourselves. But at the same time I believe that government should interfere when other people are involve in a problem that they never commit.
@ Laura Paez- I agree with you because in some cases people who commit a crime don't get caught because the police don’t have enough evidence to send someone to jail. But in other cases the police department tries to clean their hands by sending a innocent person to jail. i also believe that government should interfere a little, but not to an extreme.
Andrea Reyes
2nd
@Haleigh
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point about police officers having a bias. It happens now; it would run rampant if there were no legal ramifications behind their actions
@Chobbie555
Under what circumstances would you let the defendants rights be violated? Without clear parameters, the police could do whatever they want, and that is not the answer to crime.
@Leslie
I think I agree with your post, but it is a little confusing. Do you mean that you should always be notified of the crime your being arrested for? You might want to expand and clarify that.
@ Pauline
ReplyDeleteYou said it. Though I was not one of the few hundred victims, the act was just vile. Skilling shouldn't be able to get away with his sentence and our system should be able to see the evident incentives he's trying to pull off.
@ Caleb
Yes it is infuriating that Skilling is going to be heard by the Supreme Court and the royally screwed employees aren't. But it's America and our country has the right to due process. This would be another reason why people would get rid of it, but consider it in a smaller scale where prejudice is a factor. Then what would happen to civilians without that right? Though it does not sound fair and it probably isn't, to those who aren't Skillings but to himself think that it is his right.
@ Gabi Martinez
That's very interesting that you mentioned white collar crime because as far as I've read other peoples' blog, no one else has mentioned the trial in that perspective.
@ Haleigh
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. Due process rights should never be violated at any given time. These laws are helpful when a police officer accuse you of a crime that you didn’t do. It will confirm that you are innocent and it can prove that personal biases are not always correct. I also agree that these laws are here to protect our rights to freedom.
@ Steven
It is true that sometimes due process rights have to be broken for extreme cases, but most of the time, it should not be violated. If it is an obvious and dangerous crime then I guess it is all right to break the right for the safety of the citizens. The safety of everybody is to be considered and if one person is endangering a lot, then that person should have his or her rights’ invalid.
@ Nilsen
I agree with you that it is never okay for the government to interfere a defendant’s due process rights. If it did happened then people would be accused and found guilty when they are actually innocent. This will cause lots of complaints and the whole government system will be in chaos. In my opinion, due process should only be broken at times when the crime clearly endangers other people in the process and when there is at least enough evidence to convict the person in suspect. It not, then it should not be interfered at all.
Lydia C. (5th period)
@Caleb Duncan
ReplyDeleteThe thing you have to remember is that due process includes than search and seizure rights. It includes the rights of people after they get arrested too.
@chobee555
You are assuming that the cops are honest and will only interfere with the suspect's rights when it is "obvious", but that is not always the case. Also if the evidence is good enough to be "obvious" then they should not need to violate the suspect's rights in the first place.
@ seth Caldwell
I disagree about the skilling's case. The media has gained to much control over such precedings and the supreme court needs to intervene. I think that skilling is guilty but it was predetermined by the media.
Aaron Krohn
period 5
@ Nilsen
ReplyDeleteI agree that due process should never be interfered with. I like how you said that if this amendmant is broken than there will be no limit to what the government can do. This is an important part of our constitution that keeps our system in order.
@Gabiii
I agree with how you said the media is biased. Its true they are never going to look at someone in the "right light". I like how you said Skilling needs to stop complaining about the media being unfair.
@Glezen1
I agree with how you said Skilling's argument is weak. He did a bad thing by making it look like Enron was doing well when it was not.
Christian D.
Period 5
@Christian Diiiaz
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. It's unfair that just because he is complaing about the media being biased he should get another trial. Thats just not how it works.
@Alexis
I agree that the government shouldn't interfere with a persons due process rights. I also agree that everything should be based on evidence.
@Laura P.
I agree with your statement. It is sometimes okay for the government to interfere with those rights. It's ok because there are cases when people get away for doing crimes when they shouldn't. So if the government WOULD have interfered more they probably wouldn't have gotten away with whatever crime they committed.
@Caleb
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with your opinion on our due process rights. The situation that you referred to reminded me strongly 0f Orewell's 1984. Maybe warrants should be easier to receive in a case where future violence is expected, but they should still be restricted and other due process rights should never be infringed upon.
@alias
Not only is your solution idealistic in terms of the American ideology but it also is unrealistic in terms of police honesty. I know that you said that it should be controlled but in that case we just have the warrants we already use.
@almost everyone who commented on the Skilling's case
Everyone, no matter how bad the crime, should be given a fair trial. I think that skilling may have indeed not had one. Also I don't see how it can be a bad thing for the Supreme Court to take a case. Hopefully they will further outline our justice branch and improve our government
Ethan Krohn per.5
@ Aaron Krohn
ReplyDeleteAgreed. the government should never get rid of the due process rights. People should be able to have the benfit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
@lydia
agreed with lydia, the government can not and should not just take away peoples right. citizens have the same right that can't be taken away, even if they have commited a crime
@aimeei
I think your concern of the wrong people getting away without a investigation. is answered by probalble cause.
@swgloveman05
ReplyDeleteI totally aree with you. Media has become such a prominent part of our society and its been like that long enough for people to realize they are relentless. Thier job is to get a good story and they do not give anyone in the lime light a break.
@Avery422
I dont agree with the fact htat he should get a new trial because sure the media gave out the information they wanted to, but in the end it doesnt matter what the people think. Even if the people where swayed by the media it really comes down to what the court rules and in the court room they were exposed to both sides of the story with evidence included. His trial was as fair as any other.
@ Liz S.
I totally agree. Regardless what the media says, it comes down to the evidence. That is what the people in the courtroom see that alot of the public doesn't. People know the media is bias, but evidence is facts and that cannot be ignored.
Haleigh C.
5th
p.s. im sorry its late but my computer has been haveing alot of on the fritz moments latley and were trying to get it fixed but for now its a surprise.
@ Tina
ReplyDeleteOK but think about what you said. "MAY have never committed" Which means there is a 50/50 chance that the man did it or didn't do it right? WHy take the chance and assume he didn't do it. Let it happen again because we think he DIDN'T do it?
@ WIntress
The Constitution was made to where it would be able to be updated as the years passed am I right? What is the Constitutuion made up of? Laws. Therefore, law sometimes have to be updated to ensure the security of our nation. In 1787, terrorism was not a big deal but in 2009 terrorism can be found just around your street corner. So in order to maintain the security of our nation, sometimes laws need to be updated to allow our government to do so.
@ Gabi and James
I agree with both of you completely. What he did was simple and wrong. And this is just another man trying to ease his way around our judicial system into open land. If we do this for him, then we have to do it for all other supreme court cases too. Which to me sounds incredibly illogical and also given some of the cases that have been brought forth before, dumb. Like I said, I agree with both of you.
@Omar
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Our history is based on TRYING to be equal. In my opinion, we are still a long way from the equality that we seek.
On a side note, convincted felons in many states do not have the right to vote, but they are still citizens, so they don't have the same rights as everyone else.
@Skillings case
He has the right to go back to court and challenge said issues. I'm surprised no one spoke against the other case ("honest services"), because if they government can't prove the law (or it turns out to be unconstitutional), where does that leave us? Turns off he's not guilty (in accordance to the law) after all?
@Ethan
If police had warrants, then they could legally search the suspect; I'm referring to situations where a warrant would be difficult/impossible to obtain.
-Justin, 2nd period
I agree with Gabe and Martin and everyone else who said that government has no right to interfere. Under no circumstances should our rights be violated. We can't accuse someone without having sufficient evidence. If someone is a suspect, they should still have due process of the law. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Right.
ReplyDelete@teresa
i understand your point. i see why you would say that in certain cases it is okay. what i dont like about that is the fact that it gives the government leeway. they'll start make every case an "exception" to the law, and start violating everyone's privacy. I dont think we should take that chance. Therefore, under no circumstances should the government interfere.
^^
ReplyDeletekaren v.
2nd period
@James Grant
ReplyDeleteI agree that what Jeff Skilling did was wrong. However there is a possibility that the media couold have messed up his trial. Yet it doesn't matter because he is a guilty man.
@ Donald
The government should never be allowed to interfere on a persons due process rights. Like I said, if the police are going to arrest someone, they need plenty of legit evidence to prove them guilty.
@ Taylor
I agree with you.He should not get another trial. Though the media did over do there own thing, they completely exposed the type of criminal he is. He does not deserve another trial.
@ Martin R.- I totally agree that if the government does infringe on due process then they will be doing something unconstitutional. They probably wouldnt get in trouble either. Also the Constition protects those rights and they cant be taken away.
ReplyDelete@shane-I agree with shane that even though Skilling have the money to get the best attorneys, they really dont have anything to defend because there is so much evidence that he is guilty and should go to prison for a very long time.
@ Karen- One thing that Karen put that I agree with is the fact that you have to sit back and let the US justice system take care of the case and find if the persons guilty or not guilty. Also they shouldnt be alowed to infringe our rights that we have if we are convicted of doing a crime because America is supposed to be a equal country.
Amy G.
period 2
@ Lisa Y.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that EVERYONE is entitled to their rights, but there are special circumstances under which I believe it's okay to intervene for the sake of someone else. Someone else's life could be on the line or in danger and the murderer could never be caught.
@Omar B.
Well sometimes there are cases where the evidence obtained isn't sufficient enough to really claim them guilty. I don't really like knowing that there are criminals out there who have committed murder, yet were set free and they're freely walking around and about.
@Rebekah B.
I think we just need to set clearer guidelines on when it is or isn't okay to infringe on their "rights" to try to obtain better evidence in order to clarify a case. We do definitely need our freedoms, yet we do need to take a stand in some cases and protect the public's safety.
A) I believe it is no okay for the government to interfere with a persons due process. It was made for a reason and should not be broken. If the government were to interfere with the due process, whats to say that the governmant wont break any other law in order to protect a future victim. Although many people may believe someone has committed many crimes, the government still needs to abide by the process.
ReplyDelete@ Taylor- I agree with you, the media is nothing new.
@ Tina- I completely agree with you>
@ Adrian- I can see how it could be considered right in extreme cases, but how would the govt determint what is "extreme"?
@Rebekah-I agree that the due process should not be violated because it wouldn’t be fair for everyone. But at the same time, I think it would be okay because sometimes the officers do it in order to protect the society as a whole, which sometimes can make a huge difference.
ReplyDelete@Liz-I completely agree with you. Skilling is guilty no matter what the media did. There was evidence, which the media had nothing to do with. I think it’s stupid how he blamed the media, yet, like you said, there is media everywhere in America.
@Taylor-I agree with you that the media can print or state any opinions they feel because they have the right under the first amendment.
@Tina-I agree that the people have become distrustful with the gov't. But also people shouldnt have comtrol over everything. Things would be worse than they are now...
ReplyDelete@Karen-Definately. The sentence should be according to the crime.It shouldnt be outrageuos.
@Tori/Adrian-I agree with what you said to Adrian. You're never really sure what an "extreme" case is...
@ Alex
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because there are times where America's judicial system is not always going to make the right decision, thus innocent people are convicting of crimes they did not commit. The 5th amendment should not be limited in any which way because everyone SHOULD have an equal opportunity.
@Haleigh
I agree with your statement of never violating a person's due process. It is true that police will have bad judgment when suspecting people of crimes. They have no right to be biased against ordinary citizens.
@Caleb
I never realized it in that manner and your absolutely right. The fact is that if people aren't doing anything illegal than they should have nothing to hide, and if it prevents a murder or a crime than it should be reasonable to monitor a suspects actions.
@Laura C.
ReplyDeleteI agree with her in saying that the government should work harder in aqcuiring enough evidence. They sure do make average citizens work hard to get what is obviously deserved, therefore they should to. America wouldn't be America if its subjects didn't follow the rules that they've set.
@Caleb
I understand where your coming from. Our text book says the Constitution was created so that modern revisions could be made to be in tuned with its constituents. However, like abortion, people's opinions toward this situation are too strong. I feel by making a change to this law would be more of a mistake than an improvement.
@Alias
Its not that the criminal or innocent fear the government finding a withheld item that makes us so against it. The buearcracy/government is out trying to maintain order when they themselves are creating disorder. That's the reason why we discourage interference of due process.
Wintress Cloud
Period 2