Posted: April 13th, 2023

Assignment #20/Essay#10 Departmental Essay Exam essay

Camden County College
ENG 102-OL8 • Fall 2021
Instructor: Michael Willmann
jwillmann@faculty.camdencc.edu • michaelwillmann@wmsh.com • 856-278-3333 (m)

ASSIGNMENT #20:
Essay #10—Departmental Essay Exam

LENGTH: 500 words
DUE: April 30, 2021

Name: Score: /100 Date:

Please select one of the following topics, read both the introduction and articles listed below it, and then write an approximately five-hundred-word essay in which you respond to the prompt in the form of an argument supported by properly cited references to the sources. Please be advised that you must refer to at least TWO sources at least ONCE EACH to pass.

TOPIC ONE: Trial by Jury vs Trial by Bench
Introduction: At the end of a sensational trial, a former celebrity was acquitted of a brutal double murder. During the epic 252-day trial, the celebrity’s dream team of lawyers employed creative and controversial methods to convince jurors that his guilt had not been proved “beyond a reasonable doubt,” thus surmounting what the prosecution called a mountain of evidence implicating him as the murderer. Some people believe that the jury had been manipulated by a very smart, well-paid group of lawyers and that the accused should have been found guilty. In fact, he was found guilty at a civil trial. The civil jury found that more than likely this person did indeed cause the death of the two victims.
In order to understand the differences between the civil and criminal trial, we need to remember that the burden of proof is different: In the criminal system, the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the plaintiff (accuser or one who initiates the law suit) needs to prove that the defendant’s intentional or negligent conduct resulted in the victim’s death. While some cheered at the verdict of the civil case, there are others who think that justice prevailed when the accused was found innocent by a jury of his peers.
We might begin to think that the law and justice are distant cousins; sometimes they don’t even talk to each other (Andre Brink). In a recent TV series, for instance, the defense lawyer says that she does not care if the defendant is guilty or innocent; it is her job to “muck it up” so that she can leave a doubt in the jurors’ minds and find her client not guilty. Can we say that such a practice is really honest? We have to ask ourselves if such a practice renders justice.
We also need to ask ourselves if perhaps using trial by bench is a more reliable method. So now we are left with the question: Are trials by juries actually the most reliable method to prove innocence or guilt or should we be using the trial by bench?
Let’s first look at the terms: In a criminal proceeding in state court, a defendant may face a jury trial or a bench trial. At a jury trial, a panel of twelve chosen people presides. At a bench trial, the judge makes the same procedural decisions, hears the evidence, and decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

The right to trial by jury in a criminal case resides in both Article III, Section 2 of the federal Constitution (“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury”) and the Sixth Amendment (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury”). However, the right isn’t as broad as those texts might suggest, meaning that many defendants have to settle for judge trials, where the court decides whether the defendant is guilty.

The argument against trial by jury includes the fact that not only can a jury find a guilty person innocent but also that it can find an innocent person guilty. A defendant, for example, who cannot afford an attorney and is appointed one who may be not too competent can receive a verdict of guilty instead of not guilty, despite the fact that he is really innocent. DNA, for instance, has proven this kind of situation to be true. On the other hand, we can say that juries help to preserve human liberty, individual dignity, and a free society. Most of the time, lawyers agree, the juries get it right, and twelve heads are better than one.

On the other hand, Singapore, Pakistan, India, and Malaysia abolished jury trials because the consensus was that juries are susceptible to bias. However, can we not argue that judges can also be susceptible to bias?

Read carefully the links to articles that argue both points of view. Should we abolish trials by juries or should we maintain trials by juries? Consider also if trial by bench is more reliable or if trial by jury should be reconstructed. Take a position and compose an argument. Do not forget to consider the opposite point of view from your stance and present a rebuttal. While you certainly may use your own voice, be careful to substantiate it with direct evidence from the articles.

Prompt: Should the US abolish the trial by jury system in favor of trial by bench?

Sources:
Click on each link and read each article carefully and refer to at least TWO of them in your essay:
14 Important Pros and Cons of the Jury System – ConnectUS (connectusfund.org)

https://www.businessinsider.com/america-should-get-rid-of-the-jury-trial-2014-7

https://www.victorinsuranceus.com/Content/Risk_Management/Risk_Management/News_and_Events/Proceedings_-_Public/PastPapers/2015-54thProceedings/Papers/Judge_or_Jury-_Bennett.aspx

_______________

TOPIC TWO: Censorship and Moral Decay

Introduction: Although the First Amendment to the United States Constitution asserts that Congress shall not make any law “abridging the freedom of speech” and Americans celebrate their right to express themselves freely, the United States nevertheless has a long history of censorship — especially as it relates to the entertainment industry. Since the advent of radio and television in the early 20th century, music and film have both been censored in order to protect the public — and children, in particular — from foul language, violence, and other explicit content. For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in 1934 to regulate broadcasting and was intended to prohibit people’s exposure to “indecent” and “profane” content. The motion picture industry came under scrutiny even earlier following the birth of “talking pictures” in the late 1920s, and the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association adopted what has come to be known as the Motion Pictures Production Code (formerly known as the Hays Code). The Production Code was self-enforced from 1934 to 1968 and censored profanity, “licentious or suggestive nudity,” the “illegal traffic in drugs,” any “inference of sex perversion,” “ridicule of the clergy,” as well as “sympathy for criminals,” the “sale of women, or [the depiction] of a woman selling her virtue,” and much more. For the first half the 20th century, most believed that such censorship was necessary in order to prevent the country’s moral and cultural decay.

Americans’ attitudes changed, however, following the Sexual Revolution and the rise of an anti-establishment counterculture in the 1960s. Since then, music and film have seen less and less censorship, and today, almost anything goes; the entertainment industry is now rife with profanity, nudity, explicit sexual content, and graphic depictions of violence and drug use. Recently, the hit single “WAP” by Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion shocked many with its explicit lyrics and highly sexualized music video, and similarly, the new Netflix film Cuties sparked furious debate over child exploitation; conservative commentator John Nolte even went so far as to call the film “soft-core child pornography disguised as art.” These are only two of the most recent controversies, but they nevertheless reflect growing concerns over trends in the entertainment industry. Each day, more Americans ask themselves whether things have “gone too far” and whether it is time for the government to step in and regulate music and film in order to combat perceived moral and cultural decay. While such regulation has traditionally taken the form of outright censorship, regulation may also take the form of financial penalties or taxes on those who produce and distribute “profane” or “indecent” content; on the other hand, regulation may also take the form of financial rewards or incentives for those who produce and distribute content that is “family friendly.”

Prompt:

Consider the United States’ history of censorship from the 1930s-60 as well as the different forms that censorship and content regulation may take. In an essay, argue whether the United States government should or should not intervene to censor or regulate music and film with the intention of curtailing moral and cultural decay.

Sources:

Read the following articles, which discuss censorship in America’s entertainment industry:

• “Shocked, Mr. Mogul? Look at the World You Tell Kids is Cool” (2004) by Nell Minow from The Chicago Tribune: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-03-02-0403020033-story.html
• “From The Wizard of Oz to Top Hat — Why the 1930s is My Favourite Film Decade” (2018) by Alex von Tunzelmann from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2018/apr/02/my-favourite-film-decade-1930s-wizard-of-oz-top-hat-hays-code
• “Hollywood’s Happy Hoodlum Makes Murder Routine” (2019) by Karl Spence from American Greatness: https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/25/hollywoods-happy-hoodlum-makes-murder-routine/
• “Hollywood is Quick to Cry Censorship. The Industry’s Not Wrong to Be Afraid.” (2015) by Alyssa Rosenberg from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/07/10/hollywood-is-quick-to-cry-censorship-the-industrys-not-wrong-to-be-afraid/
• “Censoring the Movies — What was the ‘Hays Code’” (2020) by Nathan Allen from Medium: https://medium.com/frame-of-reference/censoring-the-movies-what-was-the-hays-code-e44a025e2823
• “Hollywood Once Had a Vibrant Moral and Ethical Code. What Happened?” (2017) by Billy Hallowell from The Blaze: https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/hollywood-once-had-a-vibrant-moral-and-ethical-code-what-happened

TOPIC THREE: The Merits of Liberal Democracy

Introduction: For most of human history, nations and civilizations were ruled by emperors, kings, dictators, and other illiberal and despotic leaders; however, this changed in the early 20th century. During his address to the United States Congress in April 1917, President Woodrow Wilson declared that “The world must be made safe for democracy.” Many agreed, and since the end of the First World War in 1918, liberal democracy has been championed as the ideal system of government. Liberal democracy may take different forms such as a constitutional monarchy, a republic, a parliamentary system, or a presidential or semi-presidential system; but regardless of its form, this system of government remains dedicated to the principles of classical liberalism and is characterized by “elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people” (Wikipedia). Although some countries outside of the West have adopted liberal democratic systems of government, liberal democracy is nevertheless a largely Western phenomenon, and many attribute the stability and prosperity of Western countries as well as the freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of those countries to their liberal democratic governments. Faith in liberal democracy is so great, especially in the United States, that President Barack Obama has even claimed that it has “been proven to be the most stable and successful form of government.” However, liberal democracy also has many critics.

Liberal democracy has long been condemned as a volatile system that promotes short-term opportunism and takes advantage of voter ignorance. Many have also accused the liberal democratic system — a system that is based on “rule by the people” — of being an illusion in which citizens are manipulated and public consensus is manufactured by unseen forces. The “radical traditionalist” and philosopher Julius Evola attacked democracy’s universal suffrage, describing it as an absurd system “in which one vote is the equal of any other, in which the vote of a great thinker, a prince of the Church, an eminent jurist or sociologist, the commander of an army, and so on has the same weight, measured by counting votes, as the vote of an illiterate butcher’s boy, a halfwit, or the ordinary man in the street who allows himself to be influenced in public meetings, or who votes for whoever pays him.” The leader of the Bolshevik communist party Vladimir Lenin also derided democracy, calling it a system in which “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament.” However, criticism of liberal democracy did not just come from those on the political fringes. The American journalist H. L. Mencken scathingly defined democracy as the “pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance,” though an even more sober criticism of democracy came from John Adams, the second President of the United States and one of the country’s Founding Fathers. In 1814, Adams wrote in a letter:

Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.

Although many still hold liberal democracy in high regard, more people have begun to question whether this system is capable of addressing the crises that many Western countries face in the 21st century. Some voice old criticisms while others question whether liberal democracy really is the “most stable and successful form of government.”

Prompt:

Consider the nature of liberal democracy, and then consider the natures of alternative, illiberal systems of government (autocracy, military dictatorship, monarchy, theocracy, totalitarian systems such as communism and fascism, etc.). In an essay, argue whether Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama were or were not correct when they asserted that liberal democracy is a force for good in the world and that it is the “most stable and successful form of government.”

Sources:

Read the following articles, which discuss liberal democracy’s many advantages and disadvantages:

• “The Inverted Monarchy: Why Democracy is Only a Means to an End” (2020) by Malcolm Pollack from American Greatness: https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/09/the-inverted-monarchy-why-democracy-is-only-a-means-to-an-end/
• “Is Our Democracy Worth It Anymore?” (2019) by Karl Notturno from American Greatness: https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/03/is-our-democracy-worth-it-anymore/
• “The Best Form of Government?” (2016) by Devin Foley from Chronicles Magazine: https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/best-form-government/
• “A Voter in His 20s Gives Up on Liberal Democracy” (2017) by Conor Friedersdorf from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-voter-in-his-twenties-gives-up-on-liberal-democracy/512525/
• “Western Leaders Defend Liberal Values Against Putin’s ‘Obsolete’ Claim” (2019) by Daniel Boffey from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/28/western-leaders-defend-liberal-order-putin-obsolete-claim-donald-tusk
• “It’s Not Enough to Defend Democracy — Now is the Time to Advance It” (2019) by Nathan Schneider from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/27/its-not-enough-to-defend-democracy-now-is-the-time-to-advance-it
-research paper writing service

Check Price Discount

Study Notes, Research Topics & Assignment Examples: Discussion Healthy Eating Approach Essay »MKT00720 – Marketing Assignment 2: Report