To Be Confronted with the Witnesses Against Him

By

I was absolutely disgusted when reading Scalia's argument about the Sixth Amendment on pages 43 and 44, and that doesn't happen often when I read something. There are many things I could say about this, but I'll keep my comments brief. I understand that the 6th amendment gives rights to the accused, but not all rights can be viewed in a vacuum. They must be viewed in the context they are being referenced and with regard to other rights. If the child effectively cannot testify in front of the witness, does that not defeat the purpose of the trial?

A better argument is simply viewing the text of the 6th Amendment. Scalia says, "There is no doubt what confrontation meant—or indeed means today. It means face-to-face, not watching from another room" (43, 44). But is that what confrontation means? I think that confront (given the context of the full amendment) means being able to know who is accusing you and maybe even questioning them. The framers had no understanding of recordings or live streams, so "confront" of course implied in person then. But with modern technology, that right can be protected even when the defendant is not in person. This is especially true when one remembers that the defense's counsel is there representing the defendant. Scalia would have an argument if the defendant was representing themself in the trial. In fact, I would agree with him if this were the case. However, it is not. There is no reason to subject a child to that kind of treatment, especially when we know that they won't be able to testify in front of the offender. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Global Racial Empire vs Materlialism (marxism)

By Anonymous
In reading Taiwo's Reconsidering Reparations  I was reminded quickly of reading about materialism in Marx's The German Ideology . Marx built a framework that viewed nearly every aspect of society, from basic family dynamics to tools to language to industry as a result of humans fulfilling their material needs. Taiwo cites author Charles Mills who argued for a framework of "global white supremacy" as a political system  that results from the fact that "the world has been foundationally shaped for the past five hundred years by the gradual consolidation of global white supremacy" (25). Taiwo goes on to say that his book agrees with this theory.  I do not object the the fact that global white supremacy has affected nearly the entire world. It has been a phenomenon that has shaped the global power structure, allowed those in power to gain wealth, and subjugated millions of people.  Though, I do think an important nuance could be clarified. I notice that subjugat...
Read more

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more