Proof Of Innocence Research Articles

Making a symbolic gesture: a qualitative examination of self-immolation in Iran

Self-immolation is one of the most dramatic methods of committing suicide. Some regions in Iran have a high prevalence of suicide by this method. This study aims to understand and explore the experience of self-immolated women in Iran. Twenty women have interviewed in the burns centers of three different cities immediately the following hospitalization due self-immolation, and the data was analyzed using conventional content analysis. The results were categorized in three main categories: Cultural background and preparing the stage, making a symbolic gesture and events of the day of the incident. Making a symbolic gesture consists of the critical elements of self-immolation, including the presence of significant others, dramatic presentation of misery, bringing an end to misfortune, proof of innocence, creating a sense of compassion or guilt and inspiration from similar cases. The social situation of women in Iran is contributing to self-immolation through feelings of anger and helplessness.

Habeas Corpus and Innocence: A Remedy for the Wrongly Convicted

Once a conviction takes place, in the event that proof of innocence comes to light after all appeal routes have been exhausted, the wrongly convicted will have little opportunity to get that evidence before a court and will remain imprisoned. The elusive silver bullet of exculpatory DNA evidence may well give support to the post-appellate extraordinary remedy of ministerial review pursuant to.696.1 of the Criminal Code but evidence relative to the far more frequent incidents of mistaken eyewitness identification, false confessions, perjured jailhouse informant testimony or otherwise faulty forensic science will very likely never see the light of day in the criminal justice process. Therefore, when all else has failed, this paper proposes that “The Great Writ of Liberty” of habeas corpus as a fundamental error conviction device may well be the last best hope to get evidence of innocence before a court for the purposes of exoneration. The traditional approach, relying upon the limitations of statutory jurisdiction only, stands for the proposition that habeas corpus cannot be used to circumvent the ordinary appeal process. This promotes the interests of finality for criminal convictions and the principle of res judicata. It is different matter however when there is no longer recourse to appellate remedies, either because all appeals have failed or the time for pursuing same has elapsed. In this regard, the production of fresh evidence leading to proof of innocence that has come to light post-conviction and appeal can better be served by the “purposive” interpretation of habeas corpus as a Charter remedy. A careful reading of the case law and legislation reveals that there is no doctrinal basis upon which to forestall the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus as a serviceable remedy to get proof of innocence before a court to exonerate the wrongly convicted.

Gens Claudia i rzymski kult Wielkiej Macierzy – Kybele

GensClaudia and the Roman cult of Magna Mater (Cybele) (Summary) Eminent historian of ancient Rome, Professor Maria Jaczynowska, was a teacher of many generations of not only historians, but also classical philologists. This article is written by classical philologist who is grateful for Professor’s research effort. The inspiration is recognized by the outstanding Scientist Jaczynowska topic of Claudii in the Roman cult of Magna Mater (Cybele). It has been described so far in only one Polish monograph “Religions of the Roman world” published in Warsaw in 1987. The purpose of this article is to make a fine complement to observations done by Professor Jaczynowska in aspect of philological research, which for obvious reasons could not be included in Her book. Analysis of extant literary sources in the context of references to the role of representatives of the family Claudii in bringing Cybele to Rome in 204, and Ludi Megalenses of 56 BC, brings us to interesting conclusions. The texts of Cicero, Livy, Ovid, Valerius Maximus, Tacitus, Statius and a minor mention in other ancient writers works, let us draw a conclusion about undeniable ties between gens Claudia and the cult of the goddess of Pesinunt. The reason is that the matron, who was delegated to welcome the Magna Mater to Rome was Claudia Quinta, the grandchild of censor Appius Claudius Caecus. Undoubtedly, the historical fact evolved since the days of the Republic till the second century of Empire into the literary legend of the “miracle of the goddess” who gave “proof of innocence” to the dishonored patrician. Another “miracle” is associated with a standing in the temple of the goddess statue of matron. Interesting is also the evolutionof a priest position to Brogitar by Publius Clodius and the riots called by him during Ludi Megalenses in 56 BC is, as historians say, the element of rhetorical invective on the tribune hated by Cicero. of Claudia who was described in Republican texts as a matron, and in imperial times as a vestal virgin. The Legend of Claudia Quintais the strongest proof that the gens Claudia was described in the sources as closely associated with the cult of Cybele. However, references in the works of Cicero regarding the sale of a priest position to Brogitar by Publius Clodius and the riots called by him during Ludi Megalenses in 56 BC is, as historians say, the element of rhetorical invective on the tribune hated by Cicero.

Confessions as Proof of Innocence

In recent years, a number of criminal cases have been reported in which defendants have sought to rely upon the confessions of their co-defendants as proof of their own innocence. The co-defendant may perhaps have admitted that he alone was responsible, or that he and some third party were responsible. His confession may have been made to the police or to some other person. In one case, the father of a girl charged with robbery covertly tape-recorded admissions made to him by one of her two co-defendants. These admissions were damning to that co-defendant, but tended to exonerate the girl.

Poverty and Sincerity in the Apology: A Reply to Lewis

POVERTY AND SINCERITY IN THE APOLOGY: A REPLY TO LEWIS by Kenneth Seeskin In a recentarticle in Philosophyand Literature, ThomasJ. Lewis offers a number of arguments to undercut the claim that Socrates' Apology is a parody ofexisting rhetoric.1 As one who supports the parody interpretation, I would like to respond. Lewis understands me correctly when he points out that a defender of the parody interpretation must do more than establish similarities between the Apology and other examples of fifth-century rhetoric such as the Apology ofPalamedes. To be effective, either legally or aesthetically, a parody must contain an element of criticism: Socrates must use the devices of courtroom orators and point the way to something higher.2 Otherwise there would be no way to distinguish the sincerity ofSocrates' defense from the insincerity of "standard" defenses. I have argued that Socrates does this at Apology 17b, when he claims that he is a skillful speaker if one means a speaker who tells the truth. The crux of the argument is that while Gorgias's Palamedes makes repeated use of the argument from probability (Phaedrus 272d-274a), Socrates keeps his promise to stick to the facts. In 1985, Steven Nadler pointed out that Socrates does use the argument from probability in the cross-examination of Meletus. But Nadler and I both follow Burnet in arguing that insofar as Socrates is trying to show that Meletus did not understand the charge he himself had brought, this passage represents a special case (Burnet, pp. 106-7). I then asked whether there is an appeal to Philosophy and Literature, © 1992, 16: 128-133 Kenneth Seeskin129 probability in the body of Socrates' speech, claiming that as far as I could tell, there is not. Lewis answers that James A. Coulter found such a passage at 31c, where Socrates offers his poverty as proof of innocence: "I think therefore I have sufficient witness that I am telling the truth: poverty."3 Since Palamedes makes a similar appeal at Palamedes 15, one may ask whether Socrates is making an argument of the following sort: "How could a poor man like me take it upon himself to anger the gods and corrupt the sons of wealthy and powerful citizens?" or "What would my motive be for doing all of this? Certainly not money, for I am a person of modest means and have no need for large sums." If Socrates is making either of these arguments, Lewis is right, and the parody thesis is in trouble. I wish to argue that Socrates' argument is very different. In the first place, there is every reason to think that Socrates' claim of poverty is sincere: a lot of texts support it, none that I am aware of contradicts it.4 In the second place, poverty is not something Socrates simply drops into the speech to win favor with thejury; it is an essential part of his defense. We can see this by examining the context in which the reference to poverty occurs. At 30e and following, Socrates tries to show that so far from being a criminal, he is in fact a benefactor to Athens. The crux of his argument is that he has neglected his own affairs in order to urge the citizens to attend to virtue (31b). He then points out that unlike the sophists, many of whom became exceedingly wealthy, he has never charged for his services. This claim is a familiar one and can be found at 19d-e, 23a, and 33a-b as well. Thus the reference to poverty does two things: (1) it defeats the old prejudice (18b, 23a) according to which Socrates was viewed as a sophist, and (2) it supports the argument that he is a special servant embarked on a divine mission. In fact, 31c is not the only place where Socrates uses poverty to buttress his case. As early as 23b-c, Socrates maintains that he investigates people at god's behest and shows those who think they are wise that they are really not. He then concludes: "Because of this occupation, I have no leisure time worth mentioning, either for the affairs of state or for my own affairs...

Regina v Robinson-Brannan

This case is recorded on the grounds that it is of unusual interest, both from the legal and medico-scientific points of view; at the same time those interested in the “Psychology of Crime” may find food for thought. The illegitimate son of the deceased was found guilty of his non-capital murder. The immediate motive appeared to be the father's dislike of his son's homosexual associations; to this may be added the psychological insecurity of the accused, arising from his background, and a potential character change in the deceased, arising out of an accident (or a previous attempt at murder). Stress is laid on the ability of a Police Force, deficient in practical experience of the investigation of murder, to adhere to a prearranged plan, on the importance of team work—remembering that the onus of proof is on the prosecution—and on the fact that the proof may require time. Proof of innocence is as important as proof of guilt. Items of potential research are offered, to those who have the time and funds to pursue them, in the field of Finger Prints and Forensic Medicine.