Perjury by Police Officers essays

Perjury by Police Officers essays The law requires that one who takes the stand in a courtroom under oath tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God. These words are universally understood to mean that once one takes that oath they are expected to adhere to them the entire time they are on the witness stand in a court of law. While it is a wonderful concept and by and large rings true the court system is aware that it does not always happen. Perjury, the act of lying under oath on a witness stand, does occur and the court is charged with deciding who is doing it and what to do about it when it happens. People lie on stands for many reasons but it is usually for the purpose of getting someone out of trouble or keeping themselves out of trouble. There are penalties for this but they are not always pursued. The cost and time involved with seeing a perjury case to the end can be prohibitive. There is one instance however, where no stone should be left unturned, and cost should not be a factor. This is the case of perjury by police officers. While everybody is expected to play by the same rules in a court of law, it is imperative that police officers believe in, uphold and follow the rights set out by the constitution. If police officers are allowed to get away with perjury it starts a very slippery slope as to the ability by citizens to live freely within the guidelines of the United States Constitution. When police officers feel comfortable committing perjury on the stand it takes away the ability of the court system to operate. The officers are the agents who make the arrests, build the cases and present it to the court. While an individual may perjure himself or herself about the limited involvement that they are aware of regarding t...

Character Study of Helmer in Ibsens Famous Play

Character Study of Helmer in Ibsen's Famous Play One of the two main characters in the play, Torvald is the husband whose dolls house is torn apart at the end of the show. His character is far from ideal- but upon seeing a production of Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, audiences are left with an important question: Should we feel sorry for Torvald Helmer? At the plays end  his wife, Nora Helmer, abandons him, leaving behind her three young children. She claims that she doesnt love him. She can no longer be his wife. He begs her to stay, yet Nora denies him, walking off in the middle of the winter night, slamming the door behind her. When the curtain closes upon a pathetic, defeated husband, some viewers find that Torvald has received his comeuppance. Torvalds demeaning personality and his hypocritical actions justify Nora’s harsh decision to leave. Examining Torvald’s Character Flaws Torvald Helmer possesses many obvious character  flaws. For one, he constantly talks down to his wife. Here is a list of his pet names for Nora: â€Å"My little skylark†Ã¢â‚¬Å"My little squirrel†Ã¢â‚¬Å"My little singing bird†Ã¢â‚¬Å"My pretty little pet†Ã¢â‚¬Å"My little sweet-tooth†Ã¢â‚¬Å"My poor little Nora† With every term of endearment, the word â€Å"little† is always included. Torvald views himself as the emotional and intellectual superior of the household. To him, Nora is a â€Å"child-wife,† someone to watch over, to instruct, nurture and censure. He never considers her an equal partner in the relationship. Of course, their marriage is one typical of 1800s Europe, and Ibsen uses his play to challenge this status quo. Perhaps Torvald’s most dislikeable quality is his blatant hypocrisy. Many times throughout the play, Torvald criticizes the morality of other characters. He trashes the reputation of Krogstad, one of his lesser employees (and ironically the loan shark that Nora is indebted to). He speculates that Krogstad’s corruption probably started in the home. Torvald believes that if the mother of a household is dishonest, then surely the children will become morally infected. Torvald also complains about Nora’s late father. When Torvald learns that Nora has committed forgery, he blames her crime on her father’s weak morals. Yet, for all his self-righteousness, Torvald is a hypocrite. In the beginning of Act Three, after dancing and having a merry time at a holiday party, Torvald tells Nora how much he cares for her. He claims to be absolutely devoted her. He even wishes that some calamity would befall them so that he could demonstrate his steadfast, heroic nature. Of course, a moment later, that wished-for conflict arises. Torvald finds the letter revealing how Nora has brought scandal and blackmail into his household. Nora is in trouble, but Torvald, the supposedly shining white knight, fails to come to her rescue. Instead, here is what he yells at her: â€Å"Now you have ruined my entire happiness!†Ã¢â‚¬Å"And it’s all the fault of a featherbrained woman!†Ã¢â‚¬Å"You will not be allowed to bring up the children, I can’t trust you with them.† So much for being Nora’s dependable knight in shining armor! Examining Noras Complicity To Torvald’s credit, Nora is a willing participant in their dysfunctional relationship. She understands that her husband sees her as an innocent, child-like persona, and she struggles to maintain the faà §ade. Nora uses the pet names whenever she tries to persuade her husband: â€Å"If a little squirrel were to ask every so nicely?† Nora also carefully hides her activities from her husband. She puts away her sewing needles and unfinished dress because she knows that her husband does not wish to see a woman toiling away. He wishes to see only the final, beautiful product. In addition, Nora keeps secrets from her husband. She goes behind his back to obtain her ill-gotten loan. Torvald is too stubborn to ever borrow money, even at the cost of his own life. Essentially, Nora saves Torvald by borrowing the money so that they can travel to Italy until her husband’s health improves. Throughout the play, Torvald is oblivious to his wife’s craftiness and her compassion. When he discovers the truth, in the end, he is outraged when he should be humbled. Should We Pity Torvald? Despite his many flaws, some readers and audience members still feel tremendous sympathy for Torvald. In fact, when the play was first performed in Germany and America, the ending was changed. It was believed by some producers that theater-goers would not want to see a mother walk out on her husband and children. So, in several revised versions, â€Å"A Doll’s House† ends with Nora reluctantly deciding to stay. However, in the original, classic version, Ibsen does not spare poor Torvald from humiliation. When Nora calmly says, â€Å"We two have a lot to talk about,† Torvald learns that Nora will no longer be his doll or â€Å"child-wife.† He is astounded by her choice. He asks for a chance to reconcile their differences; he even suggests that they live as â€Å"brother and sister.† Nora refuses. She feels as though Torvald is now a stranger. Desperate, he asks if there is the smallest hope that they might be husband and wife once again. She responds: Nora: Both you and I would have to change to the point where†¦ Oh, Torvald, I don’t believe in miracles any more.Torvald: But I will believe. Name it! Change to the point where†¦?Nora: Where we could make a real marriage of our lives together. Goodbye! Then she promptly leaves. Grief-stricken, Torvald hides his face in his hands. In the next moment, he lifts his head up, somewhat hopeful. â€Å"The miracle of miracles?† he asks himself. His longing to redeem their marriage seems sincere. So perhaps, despite his hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and his demeaning attitude, the audience may feel sympathy for Torvald as the door slams shut on his tear-stained hopes.