The Monkey TrialEssay Preview: The Monkey TrialReport this essayTennessee vs. John Scopes, later dubbed “The Monkey Trail” illustrates the constant battle between traditionalists and modernists. While this trial made a complete mockery of the Tennessee legal system, and was carried out in a manner that was suitable of a Hollywood screenplay, it demonstrated the never ending battle between free will and majority rule. As this subject is reviewed today it may seem foolish or just complete nonsense; yet, today we are still facing similar moral dilemmas to the ones of 1925.
Today, the concept of evolution is still being debated; however, it is widely accepted by the majority of the population despite moral or religious beliefs. This does not mean there are not other issues plaguing our society; debates over abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, and even the use of the word God on U.S. currency have made there way to the court room. Each and every day the U.S. legal system is faced with the challenge of somehow appealing to the majority rule and supporting the notion of free will. These are all issues that have taken a place in every Americans live in some way or another, and the decision the court makes will impact us all.
While the same types of problems are being dealt with even today, they are not handled in the same “showboat” manner that this trial was conducted. The concept of evolution was being challenged, but the trial served more as a revenue source, or media circus for the small town of Dayton, Tennessee. I believe that this trial was the beginning of the end in many ways for the American court system as this was the first ever broadcasted court room trial. The live broadcasting of a trial can be beneficial for many purposes such as education, or to broaden the general publics knowledge on courtroom procedure; however, a courtroom should not be the forum for entertainment. This trial in specific I believe degraded
t
When it comes to technology, the world and the individual have a place to go
Technology is the tool that people use to organize, to interact, to think.
While television is now being used as a way of life and an instrument in personal, educational, cultural and social lives, it’s still only the beginning for the courtroom. We continue to evolve ways to have our media presented and to use it for the information and message that our courts are, and still do, serve. The Internet has served us well, and has evolved into a number of more advanced forms of communication. This is a necessary part of our legal and legal systems and, while it has many benefits. For example, while more people are using technology to get information and to create content, it only serves to expand our understanding of what’s happening in the system as to what that content is good for. The fact that we have more of a forum for public discussion, greater access to information, our democracy, and the ability to have conversations between a variety of audiences should not go unnoticed
In that context, it’s no less important that I continue with this one last test of how judges, and the court itself for their future, serve their communities.
For the purpose of today’s case, the plaintiffs and defendants of this case sought a declaratory or injunctive relief by order in support of plaintiff and defendant during a civil trial. These remedies were sought in support of both plaintiffs and defendants when Plaintiff was found not liable for damages. Both plaintiffs and defendants stated that the Court of Appeals, in its opinion, did not find that defendant had acted as an agent or even was a member of the group that provided Plaintiff with information on the nature and scope of his and defendant’s financial practices during the trial, and the Court reversed that judgment, finding that the trial court did not find that Plaintiff’s statements about the nature and scope of his and defendant’s interests in personal affairs that he made in connection with the trial were true and that his statements were not misleading to the effect that they were. In addition, the Court of Appeals, in upholding the declaratory relief, said that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief based on the fact that Defendants made false or misleading statements in their statements regarding the nature of his and defendant’s interests in personal affairs before an officer of the court, and that such statements should be protected based on the First Amendment. To support our previous contention that the plaintiffs and defendants of this case had not done so in a timely manner, I will first provide the Plaintiffs with a brief. Our case law provides:
1. A declaratory judgment shall be served as soon as possible after the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s