http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-tankleffgallery1002,0,3188407.storygallery.
CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE. Take time to read some of the articles related to this case...Then, answer the questions below.
1. Do you agree with the decision to set Mr. Tankleff free, even though he confessed to the murder of his parents?
2. Were Martin Tankleff's civil liberties violated? How?
3. Which of Martin Tankleff's rights were violated?
4. What type of recourse should Martin Tankleff have in this case?
5. Based on this case, and the case yesterday, do you think a jury trial is always a fair trial?
25 comments:
I think that the decision to set Mr.Tankleff free was correct because they did not have enough evidence to hold him in prison. Yes,Tankleff's rights were violated. Mr Tinkleff's rights stated under the Bill of rights that protects everyone to not have cruel and unusual punishment had been violated.
Praveen S.
~sarah bianchi
i dont think that he should have been set free since he conffesed to the murder of his parents. The libertie that was violated was that mr tankleff was not given his rights unitl later on. i think that mr.t should have given more thought into what he was saying, not just blurt things out and make himself sould like a complete psyco path. i think that it all depends on what side you are on wheather a trial is fari or not.
1)I do not agree with that decision because he did murder his parents and murder is a big issue and not ony did it affect him but it affected his family members also.
2)His civil liberties were violated because he was brainwashed into confessing for a crime that he may not have commited
3)The right that was violated was his right to be told his rights as promised in the 5th amendment.
4) He should have the option of appealing to the court again based on the decision of the Miranda vs Arizona trial.
5) It is not always fair so cases should get a chance to go before the Supreme Court if they are determined enough.
Kristina Papa Class 901
yes i do agree with the decision to set Mr. Tankleff free, even though he confessed to the murder of his parents. becouse he did confess and he did due time for it but not all becouse the case had other sides to it.
i do think that Martin Tankleff's civil liberties were violated becouse he was not read his rights when taken in by the police and he already had made a full confession.
Martin Tankleff's right to a auturney and not haveing to talk were violated .
Based on this case, and the case yesterday,i dont think that the jury trial is always a fair trial
I do not agree with thye relaese of Martian Tankleff because he was sentenced 50 years to life in prision and he spent 17 years. He killed his parents. Mr. Tankleff's civil liberties were not violated in any way. He confessed to the crime. There is no recourse he can take. He confessed to the crime. I think that the jury is always fair in every case.
Richard Panio 902 per 6
I think that he has paid the price for killing his parents. So yes I agree with the decision to set him free. I don't think his rights were violated because he confessed to the murder. A jury trial is not always fair because Tankleff confessed and was set free, 20 years later, but still he confessed the crime. Now White says he didn't commit the crime intentionally plus he was "attacked" first and still he is in jail.
By:Mariela Ortiz(per. 4)
I think that now, it may be ok to let him free, because he spent more than half of his life in jail, whether he deserved it or not. This case was very confusing to interpret and even understand, because of all of the different things you are reading in the article. Some say, he is innocent, while others have the detectives interrogating him, and then he finally confessed for murdering his parents. Did he really do it? I don't even think that they have any physical evidence, or fingerprints. They never mentioned that in the articles, other than direct statements that the police and detectives thought. They automatically thought it was him, because he was at home when his parents were killed, and they said he slept through the whole thing and didn't have any emotional feelings at all towards the scene of the crime. I mean, he could have easily gotten up very early, killed his parents, hide the evidence, and then just pretend to go back to sleep, as if nothing ever happened. Honestly, I think this man needs pshychiatric help. The articles kept saying, that he thought he was in a blackout and that another Marty Tankleff killed his parents, and that he was possesed. What normal person would ever say such a thing? I have to say, that I think he murdered his parents. I mean, I could be wrong, but I keep being mislead by other things being told in the story. There was an article, were they said he confessed, but how do I even know if they made that up. There are videos, with him talking and saying he is innocent. What am I supposed to believe here!? I think that the media and press, just twist around other people's opinions and lie.They can or can not be telling the truth. No one will ever know. His rights could have been violated, because they were allowed to interrogate and supress his actions, without taking his rights into action, and also his freedom of speech and the rights of the accused person. On the other hand, because they said he was so young, that they were allowed to do this. Still, I think he should have been allowed to at least speak through his own opinions and not be accused right away. He was pressured and questioned, which I think was the right thing to do, because they wanted to find out the real story. It was the police and detectives job to do this. As for the type of recourse he should have,he had his family and attorneys as protection, and help. His family supported him along the way to prove he was innocent, and he had many attorneys, that were probably provide by the state to help him. Based on the cases from today and yesterday, I think that sometimes, trials are fair and then they are not, because you may never have enough evidence to even back up the true story, which I don't even know for this story.
Anastasia P 903 ;)
1) i think they should have never put him in if the evidence says he didn't do it.
2)i don't know to much on this question but i do know that wasn't a fair trial if the police officer minipulated mr tankleff.
3)i don't really know .....
4)know i do not but i can not base this answer on two cases. but since i must i would have to say no it is not always fair
teila
I'm not sure if i agree, because though he confessed it is said that he was young, inexperienced and the police may have tricked him into saying the confession that isn't entirely true. I really didnt understand the article much but by my understanding his rights weren't violated.A jury trial isn't always fair, they should but they're not always fair and they make mistakes just as well.
Livi Cabrera
period 4
I really dont believe he should be set free.His civil liberties were not violated.The recourse he should have is a friend stating that he is a good person and that he wasnt trying to harm anyone.No i dont think it is always a fair trial.
-Chrissy Thomatos Period 4
1)NO because what if he did something like that again then it would be the peoples fault for letting him loose even though he confessed.
2)Yes
3)They didnt listen to what he had to say.
4)Other people that coud've murdered his parents.
5)No not always because sometimes they assume.
Eirene Skocos
903
1. Yes because he was falsely accused.
2. Yes because he was pressured and his mind was played with when he was in the interrigation room.
3. Mr. Martins 8th amendment rights were violated because he was not trested nicely.
4. He should sue.
5. No because the jury can be racist closed minded and ignorant.
-Nick C.
I do not agree with the dicision to set Mr. Tankleff free. This person not only murdered two human beings, but killed his own parents, AND he admitted to doing so. I do not think that he should be released because what he did was an uncalled for and uncivil action.
I think that his civil liberties might have been violated at the least because of the one phone call. The 'prank' to where the officer that "spoke on the phone" to whoever said his dad was out of the coma, tricked him, but the officer did lie. But still, if Tankleff didn't doit, he wouldn't have confessed.
I think that he should also be retried for this case as well.
Sometimes jury trial isnt always a fair trial, and I say this for many reasons. Some people on the jury might not be able to be trusted. They could be prejudice, or just rude and obnoxious, and just say whatever the want to but not feel.
If we agree that Tankleff shouldn't be set free b/c he confessed to killing his parents, does that mean that police should be allowed to coerce a confession out of you by any means necessary, even lying?
On the other hand, if he didn't do it, how could he have come up with the details of the story?
I am really confused to say the least. There was not enough evidence to support the claim. But, then again he did confess to the crime. Though the question is did he do that because he was like what the heck I'm probably not going to get out of this anyway.
I would say his civil liberties were to an extent. By saying that I mean that they did not find true evidence. They should have given him a couple of people to talk to and see how the story comes out. His rights were a bit violated because of his sentence. Especially when they don't have proof. The right to a fair trial by jury was violated.
I would believe he has friends and family. And a lawyer he should have been provided with to fall back on.
No, I do not think a jury trial is always a fair trial because they may not have correct information. It could have been a set up on a person. And then someone who is not guilty may serve time up to 50 years for no reason.
Joshua Howard
Class:901
I think it was fair to et Mr.Tankleff free.The evidence given was to little.They didn't have any other proof than the witnesses who wanted the Tankleffs dead in the first place.Mr. Tinkleff's rights were violated.His right to free spech and the protection from cruel and unusual punishment.However,although he confessed to the murder the case had to little evidence.Having a jury trial makes the case somewhat fair at times but it could also affect the case negatively if the jurrors aren't to bright.
Billy Poulos
class 902
i think that the verdict in the tanklrff trail was correct becuase they didnt have enough evidence to hold anything against him in prison and his rights were violated becuase they took him in and didnt have enough information to hold him in. his rights were protected under the bill of rights, stating that any cruel and unushual punishment had been violated.
By:Danny Thakurdyal
Class:901
They decided to let Mr.Tankleff free was a good decision because they didnt have sunbstancial evidence to keep him in jail. Mr.Tankleff rights were violated because under the bill of rights they protect people from cruel and unusual punishment.
Kristofer Diaz
No I do not agree with the decision to set Mr. Tankleff free, even though he confessed to the murder of his parents because even if he did confess that he killed his parents that wont bring back their lives. I dont think that his civil liberties were violated because he confessed of the murder of his parents. I think that the type of recourse that Martin Tankleff should have in this case is to not be given any rights at all even if he did confess. Based on this case and the case yesterday, I think that a jury trial is always a fair trial because the police or whoever could have made a mistake of accusing someone of doing something that they didn't to and that person goes to jail. I dont think that that would be right in any kind of way.
Maria A period: 7
I can't wait for the Law and Order episode.
I dont think that im sure if i agree, because he had confessed it and said that he was young, and inexperienced and the police may have tricked him into saying the confession that isn't entirely true. I really didnt understand the article much but by my understanding his rights weren't violated.A jury trial isn't always fair, they should but they're not always fair and they make mistakes just as well.
Desirae
La Furno class 903 mr.tesler
I do not agree with releasing Tankleff because he was originally sentenced to 50 years to life in prison originally in 1988 but he apparently only ended up serving only 17 of these years. I don't think his rights were violated because he slit his parents throats plus he smashed their heads in many times. That it is a enough evidence to arrest someone and sentence them to jail. This is most definitely a fair trial without a doubt, yesterday's trail has justifications to it, this case has no excuses a all. Jason k 902
1. Do you agree with the decision to set Mr. Tankleff free, even though he confessed to the murder of his parents?t may be ok to let him free, because he spent more than half of his life in jail, whether he deserved it or not.
2. Were Martin Tankleff's civil liberties violated? How?they were violated because he was brainwashed into confessing for a crime that he may not have commited.
3. Which of Martin Tankleff's rights were violated?
his rights as in the 5th amendment
4. What type of recourse should
Martin Tankleff have in this case? appealing to the court again.
5. Based on this case, and the case yesterday, do you think a jury trial is always a fair trial? not always fair so cases should get a chance to go before the Supreme Court
i think they should have left him in there since he did confess of killing his parents.i think they were violated.i think they were violated becouse maybe the cops forced him to say that he did just so they woudld stop asking him questions.
omar a
1. Do you agree with the decision to set Mr. Tankleff free, even though he confessed to the murder of his parents?no,he murder his own parents who would do such a thing his should have the deafth penatly
2. Were Martin Tankleff's civil liberties violated?yes How?they were oppsing his 1 amedent
3. Which of Martin Tankleff's rights were violated?1 & 5
4. What type of recourse should Martin Tankleff have in this case?no idea
5. Based on this case, and the case yesterday, do you think a jury trial is always a fair trial?no
Post a Comment