1. From the e-Activity, give your opinion of Jack Kevorkianâ€™s saying, â€œdying is not a crimeâ€, and analyze the manner in which his actions rose to the level of homicide. Provide one (1) example of his actions that meet the elements of a homicide.
Read the article, titled â€œThe Life and Deaths of Jack Kevorkian (1928â€“2011)â€, located at http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2075644,00.html#ixzz2s1VqmyIt.
2. Review State v. Lamy, 969 A.2d 451 (N.H. 2009) and the born alive requirement that are discussed in Chapter 10 of the text, determine one (1) ethical issue that may arise from social debate as a result of the requirement in question. Next, speculate upon one (1) approach that the court could take in order to address the ethical issue in question. Justify your response.
3.From the e-Activity, summarize at least two (2) arguments presented for and against granting Sanduskyâ€™s motion for a new criminal trial. Identify the most likely factors that you believe would support the judgeâ€™s decision to grant a new trial. Provide a rationale for your response.
Go to the ESPN College Football Website and read the article titled, â€œJerry Sandusky wants new trialâ€. Be prepared to discuss.
4. In the event that Sandusky were to be granted a new trial, discuss two (2) specific aspects of the case that you believe the defense and prosecuting attorneys would alter in their new arguments. Provide a rationale for your response.
5. John, a married, law-abiding, father of two children is serving as a juror in a trial where a child had been murdered. Determine the significant impact that a juror from the described demographic could potentially have in the outcome of this particular criminal trial. Provide rationale in your response.
6. Analyze at least three (3) overall differences between criminal and civil court proceedings. Discuss the fundamental reasons why you believe that these differences are the most notable. Justify your response.