Sunday, March 06, 2005

Trial of Chicago 8

1) Comparing the three judges, Hoffman, Murtagh, and Larson, who do you think was the most just and fair during the trials? And why?

2) What effect do you think Judge Hoffman had on the defendants when he consistently called the junior counsel by the wrong name? If there was a method to his actions, was it affective?

3) What kind of tone do you think Abbie Hoffman set during the whole affair?


At March 7, 2005 at 1:30 AM, Blogger John S said...

Larson seems to be the most just judge because he allows the defendants to express themselves, and he doesn’t set outrageous bails and jail periods for the priests. He also sentences the priests leniently, which sounds like the right thing to do. The battle between the worst judges is much tighter. Hoffman was completely unfair in most aspects of the trial, especially in the area of motions, but at least he allowed the defendants their freedom by letting them pay a reasonable bail. Jailing the jury is something that I didn’t even know was possible. Murtagh seems to be denying a constitutional right to a speedy trial in New York, and is leaving the defendants locked up before they have been proven guilty. The last two are so bad, I don’t know which one I would want if I was on trail for anything.

I think Judge Hoffman was trying to make the defendants think there legal team was incompetent by always calling the junior counsel the wrong name. Kind of like, he is so bad, and unimportant, that I can’t even remember who he is. Perhaps he hoped it would scare them. Unfortunately, for the Judge, all it seems to do is make himself, and our legal system look incompetent. One of the things the defendants probably wanted to accomplish on their own.

He seems to set a humorous tone to the trial, kind of like the tone one would experience in a circus. He manipulates the questions to put forth his views, and speaks brilliantly while he is doing it. He also doesn’t give up any information easily, not even his name. If I saw someone doing that in a courtroom I would assume it was a cheesy court TV comedy, not something happening in real life.

At March 9, 2005 at 1:44 AM, Blogger jon said...

Hey guys, SO, this is a bit weird but stay with me. I'm not going to be able to make it to class the next 2 days so I had to post my thoughts on the FOIA on the blog. Because I'm an idiot I can't figure out how to do a real post. So I'm doing this instead..

So about the FOIA. It's pretty bizarre stuff. I found it extremely difficult to find relevant and interesting information, which I guess should be expected from a sight with such a vast amount of information. The intro comments on each "subject" were slightly helpful, but they do not really describe the true meanings of the investigations. To find that, you really have to delve deep into the files and find paticular statements. A good example of this was the info on Fred Hampton. The intro provided no real background on the true reasons behind the investigation and the files were so vast and backed up that it was nearly impossible to find relevant information on him and how the FBI targeted the Black Panthers. If I were running the government I suppose I would arrange it in the same manner, but still, you would have to devote years to searching this stuff to find the real info the public wants. Overall, very cool stuff.


Post a Comment

<< Home