Lincoln Douglas Debate free essay sample

In agreeing to the debates, Lincoln ND Douglas decided to hold one debate in each of the nine congressional districts in Illinois. Because both had already spoken in two, Springfield and Chicago, within a day of each other, they decided that their joint appearances would be held only in the remaining seven districts. The debates Were held in seven towns in the State Of Illinois: Ottawa on August 21 , Freeport on August 27, Joneses on September 15, Charleston on September 18, Eagleburger on October 7, Quince on October 13, and Alton on October 15.The debates in Freeport, Quince and Alton drew especially large numbers of people from neighboring states, as the issue of slavery was of monumental importance to citizens across the nation. Newspaper coverage of the debates was intense. Major papers from Chicago sent stenographers to create complete texts of each debate, which newspapers across the United States reprinted in full, with some partisan edits. Newspapers that supported Douglas edited his speeches to remove any errors made by the stenographers and to correct grammatical errors, while they left Lincoln speeches in the rough form in which they had been transcribed. We will write a custom essay sample on Lincoln Douglas Debate or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page In the same ay, pro-Lincoln papers edited Lincoln s speeches, but left the Douglas texts as reported. After losing the election for Senator in Illinois, Lincoln edited the texts of all the debates and had them published in a book.The widespread coverage of the original debates and the subsequent popularity of the book led eventually to Lincoln nomination for President of the United States by the 1860 Republican National Convention in Chicago. The format for each debate was: one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute rejoinder. The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates. Before the debates, Lincoln said that Douglas was encouraging fears of amalgamation of the races with enough success to drive thousands of people away from the Republican Party. Douglas tried to convince, especially the Democrats, that Lincoln was an abolitionist for saying that the American Declaration of Independence applied to blacks as well as whites. Lincoln called a self-evident truth the electric cord that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together. Lincoln argued in his House Divided Speech that Douglas was part of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery.Lincoln said that ending the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery in Kansas and Nebraska was the first step in this direction, and that the Dried Scott decision was another step in the direction of spreading slavery into Northern territories. Lincoln expressed the fear that the next Dried Scott decision would make Illinois a slave state. Both Lincoln and Douglas had opposition. Although Lincoln was a former Whig, the prominent former Whig Judge Audiophiles Lyle Dickey said that Lincoln was o closely tied to the abolitionists, and supported Douglas.But Democratic President James Buchanan opposed Douglas for defeating the Locomotion Constitution, and set up a rival National Democratic party that drew votes away from him. Lincoln used a number of colorful phrases in the debates, such as when he said that one argument by Douglas made a horse chestnut into a chestnut horse, and compared an evasion by Douglas to the sepia cloud from a cuttlefish. Lincoln said that Douglas Freeport Doctrine was a do- nothing sovereignty that was as thin as the homeopathic soup that was dad by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death. The October surprise of the election was the endorsement of the Democrat Douglas by former Whig John Accredited. Former Whig comprised the biggest block of swing voters, and Criterions endorsement of Douglas rather than Lincoln, also a former Whig, reduced Lincoln chances of winning. On election day, the Democrats won a narrow majority of seats in the Illinois General Assembly, despite getting slightly less than half the votes. The legislature then re-elected Douglas.However, the widespread media coverage f the debates greatly raised Lincoln national profile, making him a viable candidate for nomination as the Republican candidate in the upcoming 1860 presidential election. He would go on to secure both the nomination and the presidency, besting Douglas (as the Northern Democratic candidate), among others, in the process. The Lincoln-Douglas debate format that is used in high school and college competition today is named after this series of debates. Modern presidential debates trace their roots to the Lincoln-?Douglas Debates, though the format today is remarkably different from the original. Lincoln Douglas Debate free essay sample Leslie, Law Professor from the Benjamin Carload School of Law, wrote, Consequently, the contents of attorney-client communications are extraordinarily relevant and reliable evidence. If the point of litigation is to deduce the truth, why exclude attorney-client communications? Most evidentially rules further the search for truth. Hearsay is excluded as unreliable, character evidence as unduly prejudicial. The law of privileges is a stark exception because it conceals evidence that is highly reliable and probative.We tolerate attorney-client privilege because we suppose that without it, fear or ignorance would cause clients to omit, slant, or falsify information when consulting attorneys. Perhaps unwittingly, clients would refit the opportunity to obtain sound legal advice. The privilege, therefore, enables clients to function effectively in the legal system. The price is the exclusion of relevant and reliable evidence. In a fair trial, both the defendant and the accuser swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We will write a custom essay sample on Lincoln-Douglas Debate or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page This cannot occur if the defendant tells the attorney of the heinous crime, and the attorney covers up the tracks for his guilty client. This breaks the oath by not telling the whole truth under oath, and May possibly let a guilty man be let free even tough he is in all rights guilty. The reviled even excludes evidence that is related to but not necessarily a part of what is covered in by the privilege. As a democracy the U. S is formed around the idea of the social contract in which idea that citizens will give up certain rights, to a certain degree, in order for the government to protect the populace and effectively serve justice.The way the government upholds its end of the contract is through its laws, meaning that breaking the law will result in consequence. If the laws are broken and there is no punishment then the laws dont serve their purpose meaning the government cant serve TTS purpose either. Attorney client privilege makes it harder for the guilty to be convicted and result in a larger number of incorrect verdicts. Therefore the law isnt upheld, the guilty go free and the law process ineffective. More importantly, however, the innocent arent protected and therefore this undermines the purpose Of the social contract.As a democracy the U. S is formed around the idea of the social contract in which idea that citizens will give up certain rights, to a certain degree, in order for the government to protect the populace and effectively serve justice. The way the government upholds its end of the contract is through its laws, meaning that breaking the law will result in consequence. Fifth laws are broken and there is no punishment then the laws dont serve their purpose meaning the government cant serve its purpose either.Attorney client privilege makes it harder for the guilty to be convicted and result in a larger number of incorrect verdicts. Therefore the law isnt upheld, the guilty go free and the law proves ineffective. More importantly, however, the innocent arent protected and therefore this undermines the purpose of the social contract. With this essentially immoral, albeit perfectly legal arrangement, we have surrounded ourselves with lies, and locked ourselves up within a system that perpetuates further lies.Our jails are filled with people who are incarcerated for all the wrong reasons, a miasmas haze of generalized guilt unspecified and totally disconnected from the actual events themselves. They sit in jail, and the story of what happened sits with them. And no one seems to care, as long as jails have low vacancy rates. We have bargained away the sanctity of truth for the certainty of a jail sentence. Indeed, the official courthouse records of criminal suppositions are distorted, because they reflect false punishments. A rape IS reduced to an assault.Something that is felonious suddenly, magically, becomes merely mischievous. A first-degree offense is lessened to a crime with a lower degree of culpability, stripped down to something less ominous- and less true. We are all ultimately the unwitting victims off system that subordinates truths to its narrow vision of justice. But constituencies all about discovering the truth? Moral and historical justice cant be accomplished without knowing what happened. This is what people assume courthouses re for: truth telling, truth seeking, justice embodied in the very nature, and in all the delicate nuances, of truth itself.Some proponents of the privilege argue that abandoning the privilege will discourage people from seeking legal advice, but this is not empirically proven. Edward J. Malingered, Law Professor at U. Cal Davis, writes, There have been a number of studies on the effect of the attorney-client and psychotherapist-patient privileges. It is certainly dangerous to extrapolate from the available data, because there have been only a few handfuls of studies. However, the findings in the studies re relatively uniform.The researchers have fairly consistently found that: Even absent a privilege, only a small minority of laypersons would be deterred from consulting the professional; without a privilege, perhaps a significant minority of the laypersons would be somewhat more guarded in their communications, particularly written communications, with the confidant; but the vast majority of laypersons would still consult and communicate with their confidants to roughly the same extent. On reflection, these findings should not come as a surprise. As professor paschal pointed UT in the Senate hearings on the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, most laypersons communicating with confidants are engaged in primary, pre- litigation activities. Typically, at the time of the communication they have little or no concern about subsequent litigation. Moreover, they often have strong, even impelling, reasons to communicate. For example, if a patient is in intense pain or fears that he or she is dying, the patient is likely to disclose any information requested by the physician regardless of the existence veil non of a medical privilege in that jurisdiction. And even if it were true that abandoning the privilege will discourage some from seeking legal advice, only those who are guilty would be discouraged from doing so. The innocent have nothing to hide. All societies are formed around the social contract. All social contract theories are based off of the idea that the people will give up certain rights, to an extent, in order for the government to protect the populace in some way.The mechanisms for a government to uphold its end of the social contract are its laws. However, for laws to mean anything, they must have authority, meaning that if someone breaks a law, they must be punished, otherwise it would be as if no laws existed at all. The mechanism is simple, but its implementation is difficult. Modern jurisprudence, including attorney client privilege, makes it substantially more difficult for the guilty to be convicted, causing a net decrease in the number of correct verdicts.In these circumstances, the law is not upheld, and the guilty go free, undermining the authority of the law in the process, and, by extension, the social contract itself is undermined. Negative The primary argument in favor of retaining the attorney- client privilege is hat it facilitates effective representation, which is important to justice. The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to enable clients to make full and frank disclosures to their attorneys so that those attorneys can provide effective advice and candid representation.Without the privilege, people would not be able to use attorneys effectively because they would be deterred from sharing critical information with their attorneys out of fear that it could be used against them in trial. Ronald Goldberg, Attorney states protection O f attorney-client communications a modern form Of proof reductionism toward which courts are especially solicitous? Historical privilege has benefited from judicial deference and understanding. Court reported, It is out of regard. .. O the administration of justice, who cannot go on without he aid of men skilled in jurisprudence, in the Para the courts, and in those matters affecting rights and obligations which the subject of all judicial proceedings. If the privilege did not exist at a one would be thrown upon his own legal resources. Deprived of all professional assistance, a man would not venture to consult ay skillful or would only dare to tell his counselor half his case. And without off representation, it would be difficult to achieve justice. One of the basic tenants of the U. S. System is a strong defense without all the knolled: possible a defense attorney cannot give a defendant the best defense possible. The absence of Attorney-Client privileged would cause defend to actually not tell their attorneys the truth resulting in the opposite e the intent of the Resolution. One could actually argue that Attorney CLC preventable is essential to truth seeking therefore they should have CE precedence. On one scenario, we have truth seeking, which does not serially bring justice at all and is incredibly difficult to discern.Our scenario is the attorney-client privilege, which allows the defendant to professional advice on what is the right action, and thereby just. This the defendant to more accurately decide what is just, and therefore, b the attorney client privilege brings a higher chance of justice, should etc precedence over truth seeking in the United States criminal justice sys How can a government be legitimate if its violating peoples basic hung rights t o privacy, did we not found this country to preserve our basic h eight?Also why would a client tell his attorney anything if he knows HTH information would immediately be released, it doesnt allow lawyers etc there job, and if they know the full and unedited truth it can help bring! A correct verdict rather than also letting peoples rights be infringed u Negative debaters can question the value Of truth seeking. While that the privilege excludes evidence that is important for truth seeking important to note that this evidence would not exist in the first place v the privilege. Its not as if the privilege is covering up evidence that wool tennis be known.

buy custom General Introduction to the Case essay

buy custom General Introduction to the Case essay The case involves Carol Howes, who is a Warden of the Lakeland Correctional Facility in Michigan as the petitioner. Randall Fields who is a prisoner at the Lakeland Correctional Facility is the respondent. Randall Fields is sentenced to imprisonment for ten to fifteen years. He is serving the sentence under state convictions for criminal sexual conduct of the third degree. According to the petition side of the case, two sheriffs deputies removed Randall Fields from his cell without advice on his Miranda rights. However, Fields was informed that he was at liberty to leave if he was not willing to continue with the interrogation. Nonetheless, the respondent did not leave or ask to be escorted back to the cell. The petitioner argues that a bright-line Miranda rule that was applied in this case gives convicted criminals more rights even than ordinary citizens (American Bar Association 12). The petitioner further asserts that the Court should endorse Miranda context-specific test especially where prisoners are involved and thus should revert the new bright-line approach of the Sixth Circuit. According to the respondent side of the case, Fields Miranda rights were violated since he was not duly instructed of these rights before the interrogation and removal from the jail as is legally expected. Although he was informed of his liberty to leave if he was not willing to continue with the interrogation, there was actually no one to escort him back to the cell since he was not familiar with the building. Randall Fields had no alternative but to sit and continue with the interrogation since there was no one to escort him back to the cell. Therefore, whereas he was at liberty to leave, this was not absolutely guaranteed. This is contrary to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment law that guarantees the application of the bright-line test in relation to cases involving custodial interrogations (American Bar Association 18). The Supreme Court law also requires that Miranda rights be given to an inmate removed from prison population for interrogation outside the prison and where the officers involved are unaffiliated with the prison (American Bar Association 18). The case requires the Supreme Court to determine the applicability of Miranda rights rules and whether or not Fields was entitled to these rights during his interrogation away from the general prison population. It also involves determination of whether or not the Fifth Amendment law absolutely applies where custodial interrogations are involved (American Bar Association 12). The Supreme Court is thus to determine whether, in line with the Fifth Amendment law and the bright-line Miranda principle, Fields rights were actually violated during the interrogation away from the prison population. Ideological issues in the Case The liberal side of this case would support Fields on grounds that he was not informed of his Miranda rights even as he was being removed from the general prison population for interrogation in the conference room in unusually odd hour. Although he was informed that he had the option of leaving back to the jail, one of the deputies admittedly testified that thedefendant was not escorted back to the cell (Dominguez 2011). The liberal side would thus support the respondent and base their decision on the grounds that his rights as provided for in the Fifth Amendment law and the bright-line test approach to Miranda warnings were violated. The conservative side would favor Carol Howes, the petitioner by resorting to the provisions of Mathis (American Bar Association 10). The conservatives would endorse Miranda context-specific test approach in this case. Hemmes et al (550) posits that this provision holds that Miranda rights are applicable but do not expressly establish that such individuals in custody be automatically entitled to Miranda warnings every time they are to be interrogated away from the general prison population (Brody and Acker 245). Supreme Courts Possible Ruling Generally, the Court would adopt a liberal decision in its ruling. This decision is influenced by the provision of the Fifth Amendment and the application of the bright-line test approach to Miranda rights. Further, the Supreme Court law provides that Miranda rights be given to any inmate removed from prison population for interrogation on occurrences outside the prison and where the officers involved are unaffiliated with the prison (American Bar Association 18). This right was violated by the petitioner. This explains why the decision is likely to be liberal and in favor of the respondent. Personal Opinion about the Case In the petition case involving Carol Howes and Randall Fields, I would rule in favor of the respondent. This is because the Sixth Circuits Mathis provides that Miranda warnings must be issued whenever a law enforcement officer removes any inmate from the general population for any custodial interrogations (Dominguez 2011). Fields was not entitled to the Miranda rights at the time of his removal from the jail. Precedent and Impact of the Case The precedent in this case is founded on the general provisions for Miranda rights. In the case of Oregon and Mathiason, 429 U.S. 494 (1977), the court considering Mathis, decided that Miranda principle is absolutely applicable based on the bright-line approach in the contexts where interrogation of a prisoner takes place in a setting away from the prison population (American Bar Association 21). In Oregon versus Mathiason, the Court decisively stated that Miranda rights are very applicable where there is restriction on a prisoners freedom and where the interrogation is coercive. This was the same in the case of Fields versus Howes. In this respect, the role of stare decisis will be very critical in the Supreme Courts decision in this case. The Court will also rely on the results of the precedent case involving Rhodes Island versus Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). In this case, the Court was to decide on a matter where there was dispute between application of bright-line test principle and the contextual test approach to Miranda provisions (Hemmes et al 550). In this case the Court decided that the coerciveness of the interrogation environment is a separate question from the matter involving custody. Therrefore, where the prisoner is already in custody, the bright-line approach to Miranda is applicable in line with the provisions of the Fifth Amendment law that the Supreme Court refers to in cases of a similar nature (Brody and Acker 245-246). Considering the precedent and evaluating the impact of this case, United States versus Menzer of 1994 could be used as a reference. In this case, the officers that were doing the interrogations worked hard to ensure that the interrogations were as non-coercive as possible. The inmate was also given the option to decide whether or not he wanted to meet the officers for interrogations (Brody and Acker 245-246). This is why the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. On the contrary Fields was not granted this right. His interrogation was openly coercive. This explains why the Supreme Court must not go on the contrary in consideration of the precedent cases and the stare decisis. The precedent cases and the role of stare decisis would be very critical in determining the outcome of this case. This is because in principle, the Supreme Court does not contradict itself. The provision of Sixth Circuit that holds that routine questioning does not require advice on the rights would thus be ignored in this case (American Bar Association 32). Instead, the Court would refer to Mathis and the Fifth Amendment law as the controlling precedent in this case. The outcome of this case would be very critical especially in terms of setting precedence for the future cases involving interrogation of prisoners and where the Miranda warning provisions are involved. Besides, it will be very significant especially considering the fact that bright-line and Miranda context-specific test approaches have been crowded by differences in interpretation in the lower Courts. The decision of the Supreme Court in Fields versus Howes would thus be used as a referent case to guide future rulings in cases involving rights of prisoners that are being interrogated away from the general prison population. Relevance of the Case to Class Learning Context The case is very relevant to the course content as it involves determination of violation of Miranda rights or the absence of the same. It is further interesting to explore how this connects with the provisions of the Fifth Amendment law that guides cases involving custodial interrogations. The Fifth Amendment law reinforces the bright-line test and Miranda principles as it relates to custodial interrogations. Therefore, proper considerations must be made so as to help a person understand and exploit all the privileges that the case settings provide. Fields was not guaranteed this right and privilege during his interrogation. The Fifth Amendment law also provides that the defendant in a custodial case be made aware of the right to remain silent in the interrogation process. This is quite contextual in this case especially considering that Randall Fields was not absolutely given this right. This is despite the fact the Fifth Amendment and the provision of Miranda warning and rights safeguards his rights since he is in legal custody until he has fully served his ten to fifteen year sentence. Buy custom General Introduction to the Case essay