Fifth Blog: Family Law

Imagine the scenario:

A man, (Jack) and a woman (Jill) are happily married and are relatively wealthy. One day, the mother comes home to find her beloved husband having an affair with another woman. This hasn't been the first time, but the wife decides that it will be the last. Immediately, the wife files for divorce, and everything goes fine, until the subject of their child, (Jack Jr.) who is only 14, comes up in discussion. Of course, Jill wants custody of Jack Jr., and Jack Sr. doesn't have a problem with it. Then Jill realizes that all the money in their past relationship came from Jack Sr., and now Jill and Jack Jr. have no money. Jill wants Jack Sr. to pay for child support, so Jack Sr. gives his minimum, and then elopes with his new wife to an unknown state and had many, many children.

So what happens? Or even more importantly, what should happen?

When a family gets split up, it's normally because of a stubborn partner. They either do something stupid, like have an affair, or gamble too much, or drink too much. These are the main reasons why families split. The problem is, is that what if the partner that's leaving doesn't want custody for the child and to pay for the child, and has all the money. I think that no matter what, both parents are responsible for the child, and need to give equal efforts to help that child. As far as I know, it's not only the other partner's life is getting ruined, but it's equally, or even more hurtful and effective to the child. Adults can re-marry, but children can't get a new real father or mother.

Another issue is that when the parents get split, one will only want to pay the minimum dollars for their child. This means that the child may only have three pairs of clothing, and the same lunch of bread with peanut butter for the rest of their lives. AND THIS IS LEGAL!!! It's ridiculous first off, and second, down right distasteful. The father loved the child, and should always, even if the wife wants a divorce. Why does the father not want to support the child just because the mother was a heavy drinker? It makes no sense, but yet, it still happens all the time.

Fourth Blog: 12 Fidgety Men

This blog is a complaint and an idea that the government might want to think about and apply to its "amazing" court system.

A perfect example can be found in the film, "12 Angry Men". My question is, "Why does the government make everyone serve as a juror?" As you can this in this film, there are some people in the jury who don't want to be there. An example is the juror who wants to get the thinking over with and make it to his seats at the baseball game. He doesn't give anything about this case, so he figures he will vote the majority to get out fast. This is bad, unfair, and dishonest. In this case, the defendant isn't getting a fair trial. Not only because of this juror who wants to get out for the game, but the others who don't want to actually think about it and only look at the cover of the story, and vote in the favor of death.

My argument is that the jury needs to be thought through better. The government should keep doing what they are doing with picking names out of the hat to pick whose turn it is, but after that, they shouldn't put that person right up on the jury stand. Honestly, some people really don't want to be a juror, and along with that comes an attitude. This person will be sulking the whole time and then not make good judgment, or just get influenced by someone else and vote guilty/not guilty with no reason. This may sound like not such a big deal, but one vote can change everything when a 12-vote system like the jury uses is in order.

What the government should do, is they should ask the person if they want to be a juror of the case. The case will always end up right if you have all 12 jurors actually wanting to be there and to make a difference. If one, or half of the jury wants to get out to go watch the Pistons, or get back to whatever they were doing at home, he/she is going to try and get out as fast as possible, without taking the responsibility at hand, which is making a verdict on someone's life.

Luckily, in this particular case, not only was there one juror who actually wanted to stay and dissect the evidence of the case, but even when constantly shot down by more proof, he kept going at what he believed in, and in the end was rewarded with his fellow jurors to his side, and being able to set the innocent boy free, rather than sending him innocently to his death.

Comments on the movie, I thought it was great. It was actually the second time I've seen it, but it's been awhile so it was mostly new, but I did know that it was going to end up how it did. I liked Juror #1 the best, he was such a funny guy. Anyone like a cough drop?