|
|
|
“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” — William Butler Yeats
NOVEMBER 24, 2004
DuBose: We're gathered here today to reconsider the sentence awarded Mr. Bull Dozer in connection with his killing Jake Jones. Students, your goal is to persuade our judges either to sustain the second degree murder verdict the jury delivered at the original trial or to reduce it to involuntary manslaughter. Groups one and three will present their arguments to Judge Abbott. Groups two and four will address Judge Rae. We thank them both for making time to join us today. So let's do it!
Judge Abbott: Will the attorney for the appellant please come before the bench and make her case?
Appellant's lawyer: Your honor, I'm here today to revisit a tragedy that saddens us all. Two very good friends were hanging out and unexpectedly reached a misunderstanding. Before anyone could stop it, the situation got out of hand...
To prove that this case should be based on manslaughter rather than second-degree murder, let me present the following facts. First, Mr. Dozer was not in the right state of mind because he'd been drinking for over an hour. Second, he was provoked by Jake Jones in the heat of an argument. He was a reasonable person who lost self-control. Third, as he ran out the door, he proclaimed “I didn't mean to kill him,” words we believe he meant.
For it to be second degree murder, Mr. Dozer would have to intentionally and knowingly killed Jake. Instead we believe that it was alcohol that led Mr. Dozer to kill Jake Jones. If he hadn't been drinking, his blood would not have been running faster than usual. If he had intentionally wanted to kill Jake, he would have used a knife, a gun, or another deadly weapon. He used, instead, a half-empty bottle, an object he didn't imagine could kill.
Your honor, I request that my client be charged with manslaughter instead of second degree murder.
Appellee's lawyer: Good day, your honor. In the next few minutes I'd like to tell you why the charge against the appellant, Bull Dozer, should stay as it is...
The most important thing to know about Bull Dozer is that he is a violent man with a huge temper and a history of habitual drinking. He was fully aware that he had a problem with alcoholism, and that night his mind was clear, and his intentions...well, you, see.
On April 23rd, when Bull Dozer and Jake started their gambling and drinking, it didn't seem too out of the ordinary. But when Jake attacked Bull Dozer's honor-which we admit he shouldn't have-Dozer completely overreacted. He felt he had no honor left and the only resort he had was to attack Jake. His intent was simple: to cause clear bodily injury. Was he fully drunk? According to the bartender, no. Was Bull acting recklessly? No, he did an intentional and knowing act. He intentionally picked up the half empty whiskey bottle, he intentionally clobbered Jack over the head, and he intentionally said, “It's all over for you buddy.”
Your honor, I believe that in the case of Bull Dozer, second-degree murder is the right verdict.
Judge Abbott: I'd like to ask both sides about drinking and its effect on people and their responsibilities. Those of you representing the plaintiff, does being drunk absolve a person of their duty to behave responsibly?
Student [for appellant]: Alcohol distorts your actions, it makes your thinking faulty.
Judge: Are you saying that a person who is drunk is not responsible for their actions?
Student [for appellee]: Yes, they cannot be held responsible for their actions.
Judge: Prosecuting team, what do you have to say?
Student [for appellant]: I think it's the opposite. The person's responsibility starts with their allowing themselves to get drunk in the first place. Yeah, they stop thinking clearly when they're drunk, but they knew what they were doing before they finished that first glass of whiskey. They decided to get drunk, or at least allowed themselves to get drunk, and they are responsible for their actions from the beginning to the end.
Judge Abbott: I do believe that a person is accountable, even if they are drunk. I don't believe that Bull Dozer intended to kill Jake, but that he did intend to do serious bodily harm. I feel duty-bound to uphold the earlier conviction of second-degree murder in the case of Utah v. Dozer. Court adjourned.
Click here to return to Learning in Action>>
Central High School | 70 Fricker St., Providence, RI 02903 | 401.456.9111
Copyright © 2005 |
