The Inheritance Of The Wind Reviews

The inheritance of the wind reviews

Real case "The Judgment of the Monkey"

This case happened on July 21, 1925 in Tennessee, the United States, the so -called "Monkey Judgment". This peculiar incident meant clashes among the country’s same citizens and was known throughout the world.

In March 1925, the Tennessee Legislature issued a law in which it was mandatory ".

John Scope, a teacher from Dayton, Tennessee wanted to prove the strength of the law and decided to teach Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory about "the origin of the species". Due to this Scope event he was arrested and took him to the courts to make him a trial and since then he is known as "the judgment of the monkey".

In his defense he worked one of the most prestigious lawyers in the country Clarence Darrow (in the film like Henry Drummond) and for the accusatory part Williams Jennings Bryan (in the movie Matthew Harrison Brady) was in charge of of the ultraconservative side and a remarkable character in terms of the church.

This case was very relevant at the time because he faced two great institutions such as religion and science. Because of this fact, the freedom of chair can be observed in which teachers did not have the freedom to teach their classes and religious freedom in which the population did not have the choice that religion wanted to believe.

The fair trial

"Everyone has the right, in conditions of full equality, to be heard publicly and with justice by an independent and impartial court, for the determination of the rights and obligations of him or for the examination of any accusation against her in criminal matters".

(Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)

Fundamental characteristics of fair trial

In order to obtain a fair judgment, a series of requirements must be followed:

• The right to information about the situation, that is, the defendant must have knowledge that he is being accused.
• The right to obtain a lawyer and to be considered innocent until its guilt is proven.
• To be heard by a competent, independent and impartial court, that is, the judge should not be subjected to any pressure.
• He has the right to have a long time to prepare a defense and that this is heard within a reasonable time.
• The person has the right to appeal a conviction and sentence.
• Equal weapons The defense and the accusation must have the same level or rank.
• Non -retroactive nature of the general rules should not apply rules or laws at the time the incident happened were not in force.
• For no reason you can accept tests that have been obtained illegally.

In the film we can see that a fair trial is not made because they break the right to equal weapons and being heard by a competent, independent and impartial court.

The impartiality and independence of the judges

Judicial impartiality is the one that pursues with objectivity and based on the test the truth of the facts, maintaining throughout the process an equivalent distance with the parties and with their lawyers. Avoid all kinds of behavior that can reflect favoritism, predisposition or prejudice.

If a judge lacks such neutrality he will be violating article 24.2 C.AND

Likewise, everyone is entitled to the ordinary judge predetermined by law, defense and legal assistance, to be informed of the accusation formulated against them to a public process without undue delay and with all guarantees, to use the means of evidence relevant to his defense, not to declare against themselves, not to confess guilty and the presumption of innocence.

According to the basic elements of impartiality, judges must have the following characteristics:

• Independent one that determines the fairer decision without being influenced.
• Equitable, that is, take into account the peculiarities of the case and resolve it based on coherent criteria.
• Responsible to assume a good functioning of the entire judicial system.
• Cortés and complete because the respect and tolerance of the people present as well as for criticism of their decisions and behavior must.
• Transparent in order to give useful and reliable information.
• Professional honesty is prohibited from receiving benefits and abusing the means entrusted to him for the fulfillment of his function.

As we could analyze the majority of the established principles the judge had broken them.

First, the judge was being pressed by the mayor at that time because if he did not give the verdict that pleased the people, he could not aspire to the position he wanted and that is where we can verify that he failed in the principle of independence.

The second was that this also felt pressure from the people because at that time they were closely linked to religion and if he did not give a sentence in favor of it they would exclude him socially. In this section we can verify that he also fails in his integrity because he put in the first position the opinion of the people and they will say.

The third is that we can analyze that the judge from the beginning was prejudiced and sparse.

 Equal weapons

The principle of equal weapons is to guarantee the judgment just in which each party both defense and accusation have the opportunity to present their case in equal conditions.

In the first place we can analyze as in this film when the lawyer arrives is called general simply because he came out in an ad. This implies that the judge when starting the trial refers to him as Lieutenant Brady, which displeased the defense lawyer, because by calling him that way by inertia he reflects that he is in a lower position and the trial does not it would be fair. In this way, the judge appointed him as Lieutenant Drummond, in order to avoid inequality.

Weigh and everything that this condition has been proposed in the face of the terms could be reflected that the conditions of both lawyers were unequal because when the witnesses present the defender had no opportunity to expose any because any scientist who presented both the Accusing part as the judge himself rejected them, on the other hand, for the opposite party it was admitted that the defendant’s wife would atosige and he would reveal intimate conversations of a partner, which led the defendant to the summit of despair.

Conclusions

A fair trial is that anyone accused of committing a crime receives just treatment within the criminal justice system.

I have understood that these judgments are extremely important so that they do not condemn someone or deprive him the freedom of her without following a due procedure.

I have also been able to realize that there are not always judgments fair first due to the weakness of the legal system, such as judges and lawyers who do not have adequate training, because of this many do not know of their rights, another factor can be the corruption that is found in all parts from judicial administrative officials to the judges of the Court of Appeal.

Thanks to this I have proven that it is very difficult. From the negative point of view they become corrupt, they lose morals, their integrity, their values … and even become the same or worse than the person to whom they are sentenced.

So the person who wants to dedicate to this profession must have a really strong feeling and sense of justice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• https: // docs.Google.com/document/d/1SJQ12G2ND8ZQDKEV5TLYAS7JICDMF-J9OSSSDZNRY/EDIT?TS = 5F871B55#
• https: // Learn.Tearfund.org/es-eS/resources/publications/footsteps/footsteps_101-110/footsteps_104/what_makes_a_fair_trial/
• https: // www.Ambitojuridico.com/News/Report/Procedural-and-Disciplinary/Las-Virudes-What-All-Juez-De-La-Republic
• https: // www.bing.com/Search?Q = the+equality+of+weapons+in+the+trial+just & cvid = a308b1075d841c1844ce75dc3692d51 & form = anab01 & pc = u531