Queen vs. Carpenter - Term Paper Example

?  Queen vs. Carpenter Your History and Political Science 11/08 Analyzing the inquest and trial Evidence from MargaretGiles, washwoman and Nurse: Margaret Giles knew Carpenter for six years. Carpenter was Giles cousin and so she kept visiting her after her marriage. Giles told that she had a number of meetings at Carpenter’s home with her family. A week before the murder took place; Mrs. Carpenter stayed a night at Giles leaving Mr. Carpenter alone at home. When she asked, Gillie came to knew that Mr. and Mr. Carpenter were having some problems in their relation. Mrs. Carpenter used to had fits and diarrhea before her death. One fine day Carpenter called Giles and asked for her assistance regarding the disease which seemed to have caused serious condition of Carpenter. When Giles visited the house, Mr. Carpenter’s facial expressions where quite normal but when Giles reached Ms. Carpenter she was in an awkward condition. Her clothes were disturbed and she lay cold and numb. After the death Carpenter kept on telling contradictory things to Giles. He told all those people who watched Carpenter die that she was suffering from fits which became the cause. While in a party Giles asked Carpenter that if he knew that she had two fits; carpenter replied with no. Carpenter was also afraid to present his case at the inquest. If he wasn’t guilty he should not have faced such feelings. Lillie once told Giles that she never incurred any problem with Mr. Carpenter except that he had diarrhea and messed in the bed on which he used to get annoyed. 1 Evidence from Sarah Giles, House Maid The house maid discovered these marks on Carpenter’s body; one on the armpit, one near the stomach and one on the right of the navel. One side of the neck was pale red and no other signs of diseases were eminent on the face. There was blood on her lips. On her visits before the death, she also noticed something fishy was going on between both of them but nobody told the reason.2 Warie Winkworth House keeper Mr. Winkworth also told that few weeks ago Mrs. Carpenter didn’t have any fits. He saw her few weeks after her marriage and at her death. Mr. Winkworth was close to the family but Carpenter never told about Mrs. Carpenter’s disease or any other related problem. When Carpenter told him about the death he gave him no clue about the reasons that caused death and showed that he didn’t had a clear idea. 3 Other witnesses also told that the afternoon when Mrs. Carpenter was murdered her husband arrived earlier than expected and soon a rush was created in her home after which Giles came. Another neighbor heard voices that Mr. Carpenter was disgracing his wife few hours before the murder. Some witnesses also heard sounds of quarrels coming out from Carpenter’s home. Robert McDonald Physician He told that her fits were of hysterical nature and never lasted long. McDonald confirmed that she didn’t die of fits after he had examined her body. He predicted that Mrs. Carpenter was died a couple of hours ago. After examining the body this physician was unable to identify the cause of death but it was sure that she didn’t died out of fits.4 Peter. E. Jones Post Mortem Report The report showed a number of signs of injury. Peter examined and suggested that these signs on the back of skull were due to external injuries which might had been the cause of death. There was no matter of poising or any other brain damage. 5 There was insufficient evidence to prove Carpenter’s guilt. Post Mortem report showed a minor indentation on the skull which might had been due to an instrument of any other accident. There were no punctured parts disapproving the cause of murder as commissioned by the trial. Stomach and heart were never determined for the causes of death. 6 If we see today the evidence provided by the doctors and witnesses was insufficient. Reports cannot be formulated just on the basis of post mortem reports. In the neighborhood only Giles had the idea and links with Carpenter and his wife. Meanwhile witnesses; Sarah Giles and Margaret Giles had contradictory views about the case. 7 Murder trials in 19th century were inadequate and inefficient. Post Mortem reports never checked the inner parts of the body leaving the probability of the causes to be from external sources. The reports declared results merely on the basis of observations. Doctors implied for making official reports were affected by biasness and low graded officers were ranked wrongly. Inexperienced people acted as doctors and ruined reports. They were not just illiterate they were arrogant too. 8 The nineteenth and the twentieth century Development started in 20th century when people started to visit court for justice and the working or middle class started private prosecutions. Criminal court systems, magistrate courts and expansion of courts in cities throughout Europe made the working class consult court for justice and police force was formed to protect the courts and implement orders. 9 In the 19th century Europe and the rest of the world the responsibility for starting the trails for a murder case rested in the hands of the victim or people in relation with the victim. A number of powers were vested in the hands of the victim as he enjoyed the right to decide the severity and nature of the charges. These trials were closer to civil litigation. Private prosecution was a word really hard because it didn’t happen on regular basis because of being expensive. Therefore court trials and prosecutions were limited to the rich. 10 Beside the fact there were few private prosecutors, the absence of a proper police or any other Para-military force stopped the court orders from being implemented. Burglars often roam unharmed because it was nearly impossible to trace people involved in such crimes. Wealthy people formed associations of prosecutors which implied that only their voice was heard in the court of justice. Common man or the working class of society had no share in finding justice. Like in this case some of the counter-parts of Carpenter hired private detectives and prosecutors to end the case in their favor. 11 At those times most of the people lived in the villages where they were divided among a number of social classes and status. Men and women connected each other and maintained relationships on the basis of their social standings. The royal class and their relatives of trial’s men usually interfered in court matters and decisions. If the victim was a landowner or of the same social standing as the jury members then pardon was easily given and the case was dismissed. According to witnesses Mr. and Mrs. Carpenter were enjoying a wealthy and prosperous life. They never had fights in the initial weeks following their marriage. But after a while Lily encountered diarrhea and fits. Housekeepers reported that these diseases created a gap between the wife and husband and damaged their relationship. They often used to quarrel on pity things and Mr. Carpenter used to get annoyed. Lily was facing diarrhea for a long time. This disease ended with her death. She used to mess around the bed at night. This disease caused weakness in her and her affections. He was also a victim of fits in her neck and other sides of her body. Circumstantial evidence is one in which an inference is required to reach at the real conclusion or fact. Direct evidence supports the truth or fact by concrete on hand evidence. Circumstantial evidence in this case is Robert’s fingerprints, his reaching home early and his quarrels before the day of death. Direct evidence in this case is Lily’s bleeding and the wounds throughout her body and the way her body was placed after death. The circumstantial evidence to prove Robert guilty was inadequate. If I was his lawyer I would have argued that Lily died the most natural death. She was clearly suffering from long time diarrhea and fits. Robert Carpenter did also have a clear history with zero criminal records. Therefore he could not be possibly accused of manslaughter. No instrument that might have been used as a tool to kill Lily was discovered and the accused person was never trailed to justify himself. Robert was alone at the time of death. He was having problems with her in daily life. Wounds and the overall post mortem report suggested that she was hit by something outside her body therefore these clear signals links Lily’s death to her husband. Decisions of crimes were also depended on the prosecutor. He enjoyed the right to change decisions at the very last minute. For example at the last minute the prosecutor might decide to give pardon in return of an apology. This method, however being unjust, saved time and money. According to the Canadian Criminal Law the main difference between manslaughter and murder is that murder is a pre-planned activity in which a person deliberately and knowingly kills a person. Whereas in case of manslaughter a person does not plan to kill in advance but due to some situation or circumstances or even did not actually intend to kill is considered manslaughter. This case of Lily’s murder was declared manslaughter because due to signs and witnesses Robert didn’t enter his home with intend to kill. He was accused of killing by using a tool which he would have probably find in the victim’s house. Therefore I conclude that this case is of manslaughter and not intention and pre-planned murder. When the trail proceeded, direct conflicts and confrontation between the prosecutor and defendant took place and was never discouraged. The accused didn’t have the chance to hire lawyer to fight the case, instead he/she had to appear directly at the court and bear witnesses. In this manner a number of contradictory views and witnesses would gather at the hand of magistrates. Like in the case of Carpenter, neighbors, maids and housekeepers had quite different views but all appeared as witnesses to the crime. 12 The accused had to pay for all the charges that arise during the sessions and pay for his/her living. Bail was not introduced. The prisons only held people who were accused of a crime and were waiting trails were kept under custody. However convicted criminals rarely reached jails. It was easy for the accused person to run away from the crime area and never be found. But the most important thing was the fear of elite class on the working class of the society, with power of prosecutions and jails. People with money could easily accuse anyone of the crime and get him jailed while proving him wrong unfairly. In that system people tried to keep away from the trial courts and it was the last resort. Most conflicts and trials ended with the negotiation between the two parties involving money in between. The problems identified due to private prosecutions by reading the case are: In a system where the prosecution lays in the hands of individuals rather than the state, taking vengeance from the prosecutor was an issue. Public gave the idea and partial decisions about who should or should not be prosecuted. This method created more differences between diverse social classes. 13 In 1862 at Lancashire people gathered outside the courtroom turned into game makers in a plunder case. This matter intensified significantly and troops were called to restore order. This however didn’t show that state governed the decisions and the right to stop unjust inside the courtrooms. Before that, prosecutions and decisions against the working class led to huge demonstrations and processions. This issue remained unsolved because individuals did not enjoy the right to take reprisals against the state and challenge the state. Meanwhile it implies that victims should know the details of the case more than any state agent; magistrates or police. State cannot hand over the right of decision making to the community as it will possibly end up in conflicts. The prize of proceedings It was an expensive task to take a course to the courts. Prosecutor was fined if the witness failed to appear at the proceedings rendering advantage in the hands of the witness. Similar to the civil litigation laws this starting to become recognized and entered the system by awarding costs. It was therefore said and perfumed in the current case that the monetary parties settled down by giving payments to both parties and settling the issue. This unjust act was a common observation. In many of the cases even the magistrate was the supreme power who dealt the system of transferring money from one party to another and settling the dispute. The courts were therefore left for only a few cases where all the other attempts would have failed to solve the problem. In the 19th century criminal justice was similar to the civil courts of this date, where problems of paying utility bills and other such issues were rendered as the last choice in courts. 14 However it’s not true that the masses ignored and kept away from courts. Trials were often used by the ruling class to rule the working class and handle the prosecutor by money, but this doesn’t happened in all cases. For Example in the Essex Quarter Session between the 18th and 19th century had majority of laborers as prosecutors.i References: In the case of the murder trial Archives of Ontario (AO), RG 22-392, Brant County, R. v. Carpenter (1896), Evidence of manslaughter, p. 104-106 In the case of the coroner’s inquest: Archives of Ontario (AO), RG 22-392, Brant County, R. v. Carpenter, (1896), Coroner’s Inquest, evidence of bruises, pg 49-53 892 CRIMINAL CODE , . Code of criminal procedure, "Code of criminal procedure." Accessed November 9, 2012. http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?folder=69. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1975. Murder trials. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin. Andrei , Oisteanu. Roman Jewish Community, "Roman Jewish." Accessed November 6, 2012. http://www.romanianjewish.org/en/memorie_si_luciditate_06.html. No Minister, . No Minister, "No Minister." Accessed November 6, 2012. http://nominister.blogspot.com/2012/06/scott-guy-murder-trial.html. Top of Form Merck. 2011. The Merck Manual Home Health Handbook. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=830009. Bottom of Form Read More