Get help from the best in academic writing.

Simpson ‘S Criminal Case Descriptive Essay

Table of Contents Evidence

Public Exposure

The trial

The verdict

References

A retired American football player, football broadcaster, spokesman, and actor, O. J. Simpson was born on the 9th of July 1947. Simpson was held and criminally charged for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. It was a lengthy legal tussle that was held in the Californian superior court.

Felman (2002) says that the Los Angeles case had such publicity to earn the description as the case of Simpson against the people. The lengthy trial however saw Simpson acquitted. It lasted for a whole nine months and was deemed the longest trial ever witnessed in the history books of California’s courts. In his defense, O. J. Simpson had hired such a team experienced in court cases with such esteemed profile.

This esteemed high profile team was led by Robert Shapiro, a capable and learned person in matters of the law. Robert Shapiro had participated in diverse cases to earn him the distinction of a high profile figure. Later on, the high profile team was led by F. Lee Bailey and Jonnie Cochran. A display of wit and excellent mental ability characterized F. Jonnie Cochran when he exercised his ability to convince jurors that the DNA evidence adduced in court was as a matter of fact not solid evidence against Simpson.

Aeseng (196) notes that Cochran convinced the jury that the evidence was diversely defective. This was coupled with the newness of this kind of scientific innovation and discovery in the law courts as a reliable tool to adduce evidence. In addition F. Jonnie Cochran’s arguments weighted to his advantage the blood evidence that it had been contaminated and had no reason to be sustained as solid evidence against Simpson in the murder trial.

This and other evidence adduced in court were overwhelmingly refuted under the able leadership of Cochran to the defense of Simpson. The defense team argued that the Los Angeles Police Department at diverse times and in diverse circumstances associated with the investigations and handling of evidence clearly involved in such misconduct as to warrant their evidence invalid according to (Felman, 2002).

Ito (1995) chronologically documents that Simpson married Nicole Brown on February 2, 1985 with whom they had two children, but later divorced in 1992. It was not until 2nd June 1994 that Simpson’s former wife, Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman were found dead and Simpson acquitted of any criminal charges in a controversial court case thereafter.

However, Jury findings pointed to Simpson as liable for the death of Ronald Goldman. Jury verdicts from previous trials like the one that culminated on 3rd June 1995 known as “the trial of the century” and subsequent ones acquitted OJ Simpson of both murders. Shosana (2002) points out that these verdicts drew conflicts and confrontations coupled with divergent feelings along racial lines.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More It was not until 1995 that OJ Simpson was pronounced not guilty of the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman after a series of cases such as the civil trial for wrongful death on February 5th 1995, with related litigation on September 5th 2006, and his alleged confessions in his book “If I Did It” 2007. According to Ito (1995), a series of events led to the arrest of O. J. Simpson.

This was when the Los Angeles Police Department had been convinced that Simpson could turn himself up to the police. Interestingly, these charges had no bail. In addition to the charges could placing Simpson in the possible risk of murder, Simpson’s arrest was marked with media coverage that suggested suicide. The police were in a dilemma. They had to get him by all means. His freedom was a case where lawyers had convinced them to wait for him.

It was a scenario involving the media, the police, and spectators in their hundreds if not thousands. A chase for O. J. Simpson ensued involving an estimated twenty helicopters and other vehicles. The chase was never characterized by any incident of exchanges of gun fire, though the weapons were held by either party. It came to an end at around eight P.M when a few minutes later Simpson surrendered to the police.

Evidence According to Linder (2010), incriminating evidence on the involvement of OJ Simpson on the murders testify to the act. A witness had seen him walk with his dog and incriminating evidence of gloves found at the scene and outside his home was evidence of his involvement.

A series of events testified and provided evidence incriminating OJ Simpson of the murders. On the said date, Simpson’s attempt to call Paula from his cell phone as Charles did, did not see OJ Simpson on the fateful were not successful. According to Linder (2010), OJ Simpson combined home violence with overwhelming brutality against Nicole Brown, evidence of his brutality towards her.

In addition to witness accounts of people seeing a man of the description of OJ Simpson in the scene of murder on the fateful day, his personal effects such as his white cap, his call history testified against him. In addition, Simpson lied to Paula on his attempt to call her from his Bronco, and Allan Park’s schedule to take Simpson to the airport on the fateful day failed (Linder 2010). Linder continues to document the facts that Allan’s endeavor to buzz Simpson’s intercom received no response.

On further investigations, Linder (2010) argues that hair was found consistent with Simpson’s hair at the murder scene and on Ron Goldman’s shirt. Other evidence that point to him as the culprit included fiber consistent with that of the carpet in the Bronco were found on cap at Bundy’s residence, blood evidence dropped near shoe prints at Bundy’s when statistically analyzed showed that about 0.5% of the population could match that of OJ Simpson’s.

We will write a custom Essay on Simpson ‘S Criminal Case specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More It was determine later that Simpson had fresh wound cuts the day after the murders were committed a clear pointer to an involvement in an act of injury, therefore pointing to the murder. Linder (2010) provides a detailed account of gloves that were found at the scene of murder matching his, and the damning evidence of shoes and strange phone calls form Simpson to Paula and Nicole, with notable nervousness of OJ Simpson when confronted with questions about the death victims. Linder (2010) indicates that Glove evidence:

Left glove found at Bundy and right glove found Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL,

Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale’s,

Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

Shoe evidence:

Shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe,

Bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe,

Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

Further evidence alluding to OJ Simpson as the perpetrator of the crime was when he refused to testify in his court case. Linder (2010) says that “Simpson did not testify at his criminal trial. Defense attorneys will almost always call as a witness an articulate client that they believe to be innocent”. Other trials indicated that Simpson had no significant effort in tracking down the killers as Shosana (2002) illustrates.

In addition, “Subsequent to the criminal trial other evidence of Simpson’s guilt surfaced. The most significant of the new evidence may have been photographs of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes. The new evidence, together with much of the evidence considered in the criminal trial, convinced a civil jury that Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman” Linder (2010). In addition, Simpson confessed in his book “If I Did It” written in 2007.

Adduced DNA evidence seemed to solidly testify against Simpson. Relatively new in determining who and what in tests, blood found at the scene had DNA that doubtlessly pointed to Simpson as the prime suspect. Aeseng (1996) describes the blood samples as confirmed to be his after DNA tests were conducted to identify whose sample the blood could be. Samples are tested and a march conducted to determine the degree of reliability on the tests. They marched well and left little doubt as to whom the blood found at the murder scene belonged.

Ito (1995) sees the blood samples found at different points evidently similar that of Simpson. These blood samples were found in near Simpson’s Bronco, on a pair of sock belonging to Simpson that found on Goldman’s shirt also strongly pointed to Simpson as the culprit, blood collected by LAPD criminologist after several weeks pointed to him, and fingerprints that were blood stained also indicated that Simpson was involved. However the blood evidence was not without pitfalls.

Aeseng (1996) comments that, among the shortcomings included unexplained circumstances in which a blood sample had gone missing from LA County District Attorney’s office. The collection procedures for some blood samples from the scene of the crime seemed flawed and strongly suggested contamination. Other evidence presented in court was refuted as not reliable. The arguments were that certain shoes presented did not match Simpson’s and that he had never won such shoes. They were not his.

Public Exposure Though the case attracted widespread media and public attention, controversy raged on as to whether to afford the case over he use of media cameras a conflict that attracted legal tussles on the professionalism of such a ruing by Judge Ito. Ito (1995) sees this as an issue that could influence the conduct and verdict of the case.

Not sure if you can write a paper on Simpson ‘S Criminal Case by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Scandals also rocked the media particularly that of the Times. Felmam (2002) describes it as being labeled an American tragedy; such stories indicated sinister feelings and motives among the authors and publisher of the Simpson story and trial in the media. However manipulations of Simpson’s picture in the TIME magazine, on of the publishers of the Simpson trials that had a racial element in it received public criticism though apologies were also publicly sought for.

The trial During the trial O. J. Simpson pleaded not guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on the fateful day. However, other factors apart from the adduced evidences served to influence the verdict of the case. These included wide media coverage and public interest.

These culminated in the dismissal of the grand jury on the 23rd of June. Inclusive in those who testified against Simpson were Jill Shively and Jose Camacho whose occupation was selling shoes. According to Felman (2002), others in the case were the Californian’s Superior Court Judge who Kathleen Kennedy Powell who certified that Simpson’s incriminating evidence was sufficient for his trial, LAPD detective Tom Lange.

Marcia Clark Deputy District Attorney served in the capacity of the court prosecutor. Several witnesses were interviewed as Simpson had requested for a speedy trial. This was evident in the way the jury handled and interviewed witnesses in the case. Those viewing the trial witnessed scenes of protest, with various interruptions evident in the proceedings until the verdict was entered upon.

The verdict On October 13, 1995, Simpson was declared not guilty by the jury. This was a deliberation that lasted for only four hours. Though the verdict attracted mixed feelings form diverse quarters, the case had attracted huge media and public attention and had caused such feelings to be rooted in both racial divides. It was a dramatic case (Felman, 2002).

References Aeseng, N. (1996). The O. J. Simpson Trial: What It Shows Us about Our Legal System; Walker Publishing Company, Incorporated References.

Felman, S. (2002). The Juridical Unconscious: Trials and Traumas in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00931-2

Ito, J. L. (1995). Chronology of the O. J. Simpson Trials. Web.

Linder, D. O. (2010). The Trial of O. J. Simpson: The Incriminating Evidence. Web.

Shosana, F. (2002). The Juridical Unconscious: Trials and Traumas in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00931-2

American Education: A Critical Discussion of Values Education Trend Term Paper

Nursing Assignment Help Table of Contents Introduction

Values Education: Definition and Origin

The Philosophy of Values Education

Foundations of Values Education

Values Education: Is it Still in Use?

Feelings towards Values Education

Conclusion

Works Cited

Introduction Today, more than ever before, the American education system seems more interested in nurturing students’ attitudes than on what can realistically and ideally be called real teaching. This strategy of learning, mainly touted as ‘affective education,’ treats issues of self-esteem and personality development as the ultimate objective of education, eliciting feelings of misgivings and doubt among parents and guardians keen on the type of education given to their children (Lindslay para. 1).

It may, however, mesmerize many educational pundits and parents when the knowledge of the origins and development of this particular system of education is availed to them. Affective education draws its origins from an earlier trend of education known as values education (Hardin 23).

It is, therefore, the purpose of this paper to critically evaluate values education in terms of attempting to understand its origins, theoretical orientations, usage, and its influence in the American education system.

Before engaging in the analysis, it is imperative to note that the American education system, especially in the public sector, has been influenced by a wide allay of trends that are introduced or evolve to cope with particular situations (Tauber 20).

For instance, pundits argue that both affective and proactive approaches to education arose when teachers were desperately in need of mechanisms and strategies to control issues of discipline in the classroom (Tauber 23). These trends, though heavily criticized in some quarters for deviating attention to issues of student independence and morality at the expense of learning, are indeed working to maintain discipline, both at the classroom and societal level.

Supporters of these strategies argue that for real learning to take place, an enabling environment must be created in the classroom, and teachers are at the center of creating such an environment by acting as facilitators rather than controllers (Johnston et al 58). This line of thinking influenced, to a large extent, the evolution of values education in American education system during the 1970’s.

Values Education: Definition and Origin According to Thapar, “…values education is education in values and education towards the inculcation of values” either in school or non-school settings (para. 1). Values education draws largely from character education, which is inarguably thought to be as old as mankind, precisely because civilizations the world over becomes unsustainable in the absence of character (Tauber 23).

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Historically, generations have transferred their social, cultural, educational, and political values to subsequent generations to ensure preservation. Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers of all times, presumptuously argued that the demonstration of good behavior habits and ingrained virtues by an individual represented good character (Rogers 7). As such, it can only be argued that development of outstanding character was at the core of values education curriculum in the US during the 1970’s.

It is worth noting that American institutions of learning are firmly grounded in the tradition of transmitting fundamental values from one generation to the other. It is indeed notable that Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the nation, rooted for an enlarged and vibrant arrangement of public education to convey American democratic virtues to future generations (Johnstone 18). The emphasis of this paper, however, is to trace the origins of values education in American schools.

Educational historians and other theorists suggest that values education was conceived and grounded in the ideas and concepts of character education, an educational trend that disappeared from the American education limelight in the 1950’s (Johnstone 21). Before its disappearance, character education had been adopted by almost every public school in the US at the onset of the 20th century.

The decade of the 1950s was an era of conformity in many American institutions, including public schools. Character education took a back seat as parents, schools, the church, and society took a more conservative approach known as inculcating and modeling of character (Poulou 104).

American public schools, in particular, were on more than one occasion accused of undermining the role of character education by taking it for granted. For instance, character education in American schools in the 1950’s was limited to requesting students to be neat, punctual, polite, and to work exceedingly hard to attain success.

According to educational analysts, however, students were being given a small portion of what character education entailed, with the rest of the time being devoted to developing their intellectual capacities at the expense of moral development (Poulou 105).

By any standards, the decade of the 1960’s was marked with tumultuous and almost riotous reorganizations and reinventions in the U.S., and traditional roles and values became subject to mockery and rejection by the younger generation. As people demanded for more power and independence, the status of students, women and members of minority groups changed spectacularly in what was perceived as one of the greatest social revolutions ever to be witnessed in the history of mankind (Rogers 27).

We will write a custom Term Paper on American Education: A Critical Discussion of Values Education Trend specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More New attitudes and value systems emerged, and individuals, including students, started to experiment with a wide allay of activities such as homosexuality, drug use, new religious orientations, new career options, and enigmatic lifestyles in the name of presuming greater authority and control over their own individual lives. Cases of indiscipline and teenage pregnancies escalated in American schools, culminating to the reintroduction of character education in the 1970s under the broad based all-inclusive name of values education

The Philosophy of Values Education Some educational analysts, to date, believe that values education as introduced in American education system in the 1970’s was an original replica of character education, which dominated the education system in the decades of the 1930s and 1940s (Hardin 15).

It’s imperative to note that the decline of character education in schools across the U.S. was also unequivocally related to wide recognition and approval of scientific thinking among the members of the teaching fraternity. Logical positivism was popularized in 20th Century America at the expense of Morality-based education, which was personalized and accused of being subjective as it could not be proven using scientific methods (Lickona 7).

The positivist educators were of the opinion that they could structure a learning process and curriculum that was objective, credible, and beyond the sway of individual values. A value-based curriculum, according to them, was impossible since values were considered as shifting in objectives, situational in nature, and relative in ensuring equity.

Character education, therefore, was perceived by positivist educators as individualized, and dependent upon subjective value judgments (Lickona 7). As such, it was doomed as unfit for educational institutions in the U.S to Convey.

But the tumultuous events of the 1960’s made stakeholders in the education sector to rethink their strategies as cases of school indiscipline among students in American schools more than doubled (Hardin 18). This saw the reintroduction of character education in the 1970s, this time under the auspices of values education.

The philosophy governing this trend changed dramatically, with educators laying emphasis on individual values development rather than abiding by values set by the society as was traditionally the case. Under the new system of values education, teachers were now encouraged, not only to assist learners clarify their individual values, but also develop an enabling school environment which could facilitate students to learn the skills of moral reasoning and value analysis (Superka 38).

Teachers, however, were counseled against instilling their own perceptions of values and morals on the students, implying that the educator’s role was severely limited to facilitating the students to internalize and develop their own value systems, the teachers’ beliefs notwithstanding. Many educators of the 21st century firmly believe that affective education, which is widely gaining acceptance in American education system, has its roots in values education of the 1970s.

Not sure if you can write a paper on American Education: A Critical Discussion of Values Education Trend by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Teachers, according to the proponents of this new trend of education, were not allowed to impose their own values on the students since the American society had become largely pluralistic (Superka 40). A better curriculum according to this new form of imparting skills was one that would facilitate the learners to learn adequate skills of moral reasoning, not to mention the fact that such a curriculum was also intended to sharpen the students’ decision making capacities to enable them cope with the immense life challenges after school.

Specifically, this system of education not only put emphasis on the role of education in enabling students to have personal gratification in life, but also enjoy social relations outside the education system that were both constructive and productive (Hardin 23). This, however, does not mean that the system was weak in imparting the skills needed in line with the main objective of attending school.

Contrary to popular belief, values education as a trend in American education was largely holistic, assisting the students to nurture their own values for real learning to take place. According to Tauber, values education acted as the liberating philosophy of the 1970s and early 1980s (85).

The trend, however, was largely phased out in 1980s as academic performance took the center stage at the expense of values development. Students were, once again, being encouraged to take academic performance and competition more seriously than the development of individual values.

Education analysts are of the opinion that the abandonment of values education triggered an upsurge of immoral activities in the U.S. such as drug abuse, teen pregnancy, increase in school dropouts, and disintegration of the social fabric, including family breakups (Poulou 106).

Other notable incidences witnessed in the 1990s, and which were directly related to a breakdown in values education in American schools, included high instances of teen suicide, unparalleled number of political and social scandals, and high-level cases of school indiscipline.

It is imperative to mention that these and other isolated incidences led parents and educators to reconsider their earlier stand on values education, with a significant proportion of education stakeholders requesting schools across the U.S. to revert back to educating students about values and moral reasoning.

Foundations of Values Education Many new and past trends in American education have always found delight in specific educational or psychological theories seeking to explain their existence. Values education is no exception. Many of the concepts guiding values education are founded on William Glasser’s Reality Model. The psychologist is best remembered for popularizing the three Rs approach – Right, Responsible, and Respect – in counseling students and maintaining classroom discipline (Johnstone et al 102).

For Glasser, values and morals can be taught to students of any age if the sole purpose is to reinforce their character to be able to live a more fulfilling life upon disengaging with school activities. Glasser, however, identifies the teaching of responsibility as one of the foremost tasks that a teacher should engage in as this variable determines the kind of classroom environment that will be set for effective learning to take place.

According to the Reality Model, the student is endowed with the responsibility to choose and make rational decisions. Consequently, the model argues that behavior entails an individual’s choice to meet their own needs (Tauber 83).

The Reality Model further postulates that educators must always focus on the present student behavior, and should not, in any way, focus on past behavior. For Glasser, behavior is fundamental for values development, and therefore, educators must also demonstrate caring, loving, supportive, and empathic attitudes when interacting with students to boost behavior development (Tauber 84).

According to the model, it is indeed the function of educators to assist students make proper value judgments by frequently questioning whether the students’ behaviors are working for them, and what they really want to attain in life.

Values education is also based on value-clarification approach, a model developed by a team of American educators and policy makers in the 1970s. This approach presupposes that, “…everyday, every one of us meets life situations which call for thought, opinion-making, decision-making, and action. Some of our experiences are familiar, some novel; some are casual, some of extreme importance.

Everything we do, every decision we make and course of action we take, is based on our consciously held beliefs, attitudes and values” (Simon

[casanovaaggrev]