In the Shooting Salvationist, David R. Stokes recounts the murder Essay

In the Shooting Salvationist, David R. Stokes recounts the murder trial of fundamentalist clergyman J. Frank Norris. Despite muc - Essay Example The court was told of the Norris’ feuds with the Fort Worth Mayor where the preacher had alleged that the city Mayor was an adulterer. Mayor Meacham swore to his friend, D.E Chipps that, â€Å"something must be done† to stop Norris behavior (Stokes 56). Chipps, a local businessperson, agreed to face up to the preacher to threaten him against tainting the local politicians. On July 17, 1926, Chipps entered Norris office and threatened to kill him if he continued to attack the Mayor. According to an eyewitness, L.H. Nutt, Chipps then appeared to have left the building before storming back with the same threats. Norris was standing in front of his desk where a gun belonging to the guard of the church was kept in a drawer as a ‘safety precaution’. Norris then short Chipps three times and claiming that the attacker was â€Å"stronger and could easily have overpowered† him had the brawl resulted into a physical fight (Stokes 112). The defense team stood it s ground that Norris acted in self-defense. According to Stokes, the defense team insisted that Norris’ popularity, fundamentalism views on modernity and his castigation of local leaders and sinners had attracted many enemies including the Mayor. Stokes and the final verdict seemed to agree that Dr. Frank Norris had not premeditated to murder Chipps. He only feared that the drunkard man endangered his life. To strengthen their case further, the defense team presented evidence of Norris inquiring from Nutt about Chipps identity. The case would have yielded different results had the court been presented with evidence that the preacher indeed had prior acquaintance with the victim. On these grounds, the court appeared to be reluctant to convict Dr. Norris of first-degree murder (Stokes, 34). Previous acquittal of Dr. Norris on arson and perjury also served to strengthen his ‘not-guilty’ plea. The prosecution team tried unsuccessfully to relate the two cases as proof that the preacher was culpable of the murder. This was never going to add weight to the case that was facing public scrutiny like never before in the American justice delivery history. There was an apparent fall-out between the public and the once renowned preacher. This was a weak point in the prosecution team because of the enormous task to proof behind reasonable doubt that it was not acting due to public pressure. Ultimately, this proved to be the breakdown of the trial in Norris favor as prosecution team appeared to be overreached. Stokes blamed both the jury and the prosecution team for the apparent injustice of finding Norris not guilty. The prosecutors could easily have won the case had they charged Norris with second-degree murder. Their overly vicious immovable decision to stage a â€Å"first-degree murder case or nothing† was not justifiable under the overwhelming evidence of the contrary (Stokes 150). The jury on the other hand appeared not to consider the possib ility of advising the prosecutors to reconsider their stand. Their final decision baffled the whole world because the enormity of the case warranted a better rationale for a ‘not-guilty’ verdict. Stokes noted that Norris had â€Å"great gifts and abilities† but he exercised â€Å"coercion, control and manipulation†¦Ã¢â‚¬  to further his cause (Stokes 105). Dr. Norris strongly believed that â€Å"the end always justified the means† as he went to every length, including lying, to expand his doctrine of

Contact Issues in Family Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3750 words

Contact Issues in Family Law - Essay Example The increasing incidence of divorce has created custody battles and problems of access, which have proved to be detrimental to children. Studies conducted by Flouri and Buchanan have revealed that rancor among divorced parents and lack of contact with their father can lead to depression in children, especially girls and in the case of males, the absence of a father can also lead to criminal behavior. According to Matthew Stannard, one of the causes for violent criminal behavior in fatherless boys may be a â€Å"mother’s hostility† towards the father which deprives the child of contact with him, or because the father doesn’t take fatherhood seriously. Bob Geldorf, one of the most vocal activists for the rights of fathers, pointed out that fundamental changes are required in the law and the process in family courts, which tend to favor mothers in the battle for custody of children. The family Court system is based upon adversarial rules of litigation, and acrimonious divorce proceedings can often place the parents as bitter opponents in the Courts and cause child custody hearing to become scenes of power struggles. The family Courts have been ineffective in enforcing court ordered access to fathers, since they are reluctant to separate the children from their mothers and there is a lack of availability of middle ranking punishments and incentives to ensure cooperation from mothers – even when punitive fines and prison terms exist for breaching of contact orders, they may not be imposed in view of the danger of adverse consequential effect upon the child. Family cases take a long time to be processed through the court system, as a result of which fathers are denied access to their children for extended periods.