In 1985, Carolyn Muncey was found dead in Union County, Tenn. Findings indicated that she was raped first before the murder. Mr. Paul Gregory House, Mrs. Muncey’s neighbour was convicted of the murder of Mrs. Muncey. However, the decision of the Court was divided of which eight judges believed that Paul Gregory should be executed while six said that he was innocent and thus, should be freed. On the other hand, one of the judges, Judge Gilman, also stated that Mr. House deserves a new trial. Thus, the vote of the judges was 8 to 7 against Mr. House.
According to the prosecution, Mr. House first raped the victim and that the semen found in her clothing matches Mr. House’s blood type. Therefore, the main motive for the murder was rape according to the prosecutors. However, DNA test indicated that the semen found in Mrs. Muncey’s clothes was not from Mr. House but rather, from her husband, Mr. Hurbert Muncey.
The majority protected Mr. Muncey stating that the witnesses against Mr. Muncey were not credible. This case is a matter of life and death, the life and death of Mr. House who was convicted for the murder of Mrs. Muncey. The article does say anything about the decision of the court and thus, I can say that the outcome of the case was very unacceptable. There had been doubts on whether Mr. House should really be convicted of the crime but no solution was offered, no decision was reached. Mr. House does deserve another trial in order to ensure that the right decision regarding his case is achieved. In is not a simple issue since a life of a person is at stake and the wrong decision would lead to unreasonable end.
The main questions left unanswered in the article was whether Mr. House was given another chance to prove his innocence of the crime or not. This is something that the readers are eager to know because this is the main of concern, the question that must be answered. Basing from the contents of the article, I can say that the writer was able to present the necessary information in a fair manner. He is not biased in presenting the arguments and takes the position of both sides. Therefore, the main aim of the writer was to inform the readers about the development of Mr.
House’s case without taking any side. Thus, the writer did a very good job that lets the reader think and weight the evidence presented. He does not offer any personal assumption regarding the case but delivered the case in a fair and unbiased manner. Evidence faulted in Detainee Case It was found that the claims regarding the 17 Muslim’s from western China were based only on unverifiable claims. The 17 detainees had been hold for more than six years, after the American invasion in Afghanistan in 2001, because they are being held as military combatants.
Also, a panel overturns the past claim of the pentagon; regrading Huzaifa Parhat as an enemy of the government. The court then decided to release Parhat the following Monday. The Pentagon also claimed that the Uighurs at Guatanamo was affiliated with another group that resist the government and the said organization was in turn connected to the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. On the other hand, American officials stated that they cannot return Parhat along with the 16 other detainee to Guatamano due to the fear of maltreatment and that some other countries refused to accept them.
Marc Falkoff, a lawyer representing the detainees also stated that case of Parhat is similar to that of other detainees. Thus, the court will have a hard time defending their claim and reason for detaining the Uighurs. Some lawyers also commented on the inadequacy of having civilian judges help in the affair of military-decision making. On the other hand, the 17 Uighur detainees stated that they are allies of the government and not enemies upon claiming that they are oppressed by the Chinese government in some aspects. In response, the Chinese government stated that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement was a terrorist organization.
The outcome of the case is acceptable. Since the 17 citizens cannot be proven guilty of the offence that they are accused of, it is only appropriate to take actions and to return the Uighur to their homes. However, the attitude of some countries toward the detainees is somewhat wrong. The detainees had not been proven guilty of anything and of rebelling against the government and thus, the Uighur also deserve fair treatment and should not be judge. The main question that is left unanswered by the article is the plans of the government for the detainees.
The government had wronged the detainees and thus, they must act and search for ways in order to help return t their normal lives. However, there was no indication of whether the government have plans for the detainees. Regrading the fairness f the article, I can say that the writer had been fair and unbiased. In fact, the article does not show any side that the writer was taking. The writer only informs the readers without taking any side. He just laid out the evidences and arguments presented by the two parties, the prosecutors and the defendant. Thus, the article was written in a fair and unbiased manner.
Glaberson, William. (1, July 2008). “Evidense Faulted in Detainee Case”, The New York Times. Retrieved September 7, 2008 from http://www. nytimes. com/2008/07/01/washington/01gitmo. html? scp=23&sq=US%20court%20system%20+%20%20cases&st=cse Liptak, Adam. (07 October 2004). “7 Dissenters on US Court Cannot Stop an Execution”, The New York Times. Retrieved September 7, 2008 from http://www. nytimes. com/2004/10/07/national/07death. html? scp=15&sq=US%20court&st=cse