American indian Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

American indian - Essay Example He was also known as â€Å"Liver-eating Johnston† because it was believed that he ate the livers of the Indians he killed as a sign of disrespect. In the movie however, Johnson was not really a violent man. He was only driven into vendetta when the Crow Indians murdered his family. Redford gave a great performance in this movie. Even with just Redford’s acting, the film could very well be a stand-out. Will Geer’s performance as Bear Claw Chris Lapp is also outstanding. The thing that I liked best in the movie is the fantastic cinematography. The film was shot in Utah Zion’s National Park. The setting is breath-taking and gives an excellent backdrop for the movie. The background music used in the movie is very appropriate and blends well with the scenery. I find the last scene of the movie very touching. Johnson is shown reaching his hand into the air as a sign of friendship in reaction to the Crow Chief’s raising of his hand too as a sign of peace b etween the tribe and Johnson. I find this scene also symbolic of the friendship that is to come between Johnson and the Crow Indians. There was so much meaning in this scene. In terms of accuracy, I think Pollack researched well about the language, culture and clothing at that time. The technology presented is authentic such as the use of the Hawken rifle.

Criminal Justice Bill of 2003 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Criminal Justice Bill of 2003 - Essay Example The proposal says that there are fundamental problems, first in the investigation process and then in subsequent trial. The seriousness of the alleged office and the mentality that leads to such offence should be fathomed by jury because a careless acquittal or a ready acceptance of non-existing innocence could spell abortive justice though it is difficult to achieve unanimity in this matter . As it is establishment of fraud is a highly time consuming procedure warranting diverse evidence and corroborative facts. If judge has to educate jury on all of them it is naturally further waste of Court time. All investigation cannot claim transparency and it is neither easy nor compulsory to have it. Commercial investigation might involve even distant parties and inside knowledge of such parties’ financial dealings might encourage jurors to use it later for their own advantage. There might be juries who had fallen prey to fraudulent financial issues and might have developed bias towar ds fraudulency and such jurors will be prejudiced while dealing with the case . If it is necessary to choose sides, perhaps it is better to have trials without the jury. First of all, it is the right of the Court to decide on the trial and not that of the defendant, as told by Lord Justice Auld . He also recommended for creation of an ‘intermediate’ Court with a bench consisting of a District Judge and two Magistrates and Government rejected this idea, but the Minister agreed that such arrangement could be considered in certain cases . Clause 36 will allow the defendant to opt out of jury trial by making an application and the judge will examine the feasibility. If there is a co-defendant, his views are of paramount importance . There are mixed reactions to this issue and the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association were rather uncomfortable and opined: â€Å"Rather than trying a cross section of cases and defendants, judges are likely under these proposals to have a diet of unpopular sexual allegations; unattractive middle or upper class fraudsters; and cases where the defence lawyers hope for a technical victory, either in the court of trial, or on appeal following defects in the reasoned judgment" . Roger Smith, Director of Justice said: â€Å"the jury is often presented as something which is to defend the defendant's interest; it is actually wider than that. The jury protects the public's interest in the system. That is not just the defendant; it is a protection for the professional judiciary in the system because they take the decision on guilt or innocence" (Ibid). The Select Committee on Home Affairs supported the view expressed by Lord Judge Auld.