The Red Badge of Courage - A Literary Critique essays

The Red Badge of Courage - A Literary Critique essays The Red Badge of Courage begins with the Youth (Henry) preparing to leave to war. He has fabulous ideas concocted in his mind about victory and heroism. The Youth soon finds that victory and heroism are a small part in the splendor of war. The Youth's mind soon becomes burdened with thoughts of death and running away from a battle. Sure enough, in the midst of battle, the Youth flees the battlefield. The Youth must learn to deal with the shame he feels on deserting his comrades. When he returns to his camp he lies and says that he was separated during combat and was shot. The Youth is given another chance to fight and prove he is not a coward. As the book progresses, the Youth learns to deal with his shame by feeling honored for being a hero.In the end, the Youth becomes a man. He learns that the most important lessons in life can be seen by opening his eyes. I personally was attracted to the Youth. All his thoughts and wild imagination impressed me. He would describe death as a being that could swallow him whole, and ramble on about wonderful sunsets. The Youth was also a very troubled soul. He worried a lot over things he might do and not the things he would do. For instance, on page 34, he questions others in hope that their answers would comfort him. He feels disassociated from others, "The Youth, considering himself separated from the others..." (p29). Page 35 quotes, "He was a mental outcast." He lacked self -confidence and "continually tried to measure himself by his comrades." (p22). Despite his sorrow, the Youth was creative and compared ideas and objects to other ideas and objects. "The battle was like the grinding of an immense and terrible machine." I believe that the Youth brought the book to life through his life. At times I would find myself thinking, "I've thought that too!" For example on page 127, the Youth announces that his life should be lived to his expectations and not everyone else's. I strongly agree wit...

Appellate Jurisdiction in the US Court System

Appellate Jurisdiction in the US Court System The term â€Å"appellate jurisdiction† refers to the authority of a court to hear appeals to cases decided by lower courts. Courts that have such authority are called â€Å"appellate courts.† The appellate courts have the power to reverse or modify the lower court’s decision. Key Takeaways: Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and decide appeals to decisions made by lower courts.In the United States federal court system, cases originally decided in the district courts can be appealed only to the circuit courts of appeals, while decisions of the circuit courts can be appealed only to the U.S. Supreme Court. Decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be further appealed.The right to appeal is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Instead, the appellant must â€Å"show cause† by convincing the appeals court that the trial court had failed to properly apply the laws involved or to follow proper legal procedures.The standards by which an appeals court decides the correctness of a lower court’s decision is base whether the appeal was based on a question of substantive facts of the case or on an incorrect or improper application of the legal process resulting in the denial of due process of law.   While the right to appeal is not bestowed by any law or the Constitution, it is generally considered to be embodied in general tenets of law prescribed by the English Magna Carta of 1215. Under the federal hierarchical dual court system of the United States, the circuit courts have appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by the district courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the circuit courts. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to create courts under the Supreme Court and to determine the number and location of courts with appellate jurisdiction. Currently, the lower federal court system is made up of 12 geographically located regional circuit courts of appeal which have appellate jurisdiction over 94 district trial courts. The 12 appellate courts also have jurisdiction over specialized cases in involving the federal government agencies, and cases dealing with patent law. In the 12 appellate courts, appeals are heard and decided by three-judge panels. Juries are not used in the appeals courts. Typically, cases decided by the 94 district courts can be appealed to a circuit court of appeals and decisions for the circuit courts can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also has â€Å"original jurisdiction† to hear certain types of cases that may be allowed to bypass the often lengthy standard appellate process. From about 25% to 33% of all appeals heard by federal appellate courts involve criminal convictions. The Right to Appeal Must be Proven Unlike other legal rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the right to appeal is not absolute. Instead, the party asking for the appeal called the â€Å"appellant,† must convince the appellate jurisdiction court that the lower court had incorrectly applied a law or failed to follow proper legal procedures during the trial. The process of proving such errors by the lower courts is called â€Å"showing cause.† The appellate jurisdiction courts will not consider an appeal unless cause has been shown. In other words, the right to appeal is not required as part of â€Å"due process of law.† While always applied in practice, the requirement to show cause in order to gain the right to appeal was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1894. In deciding the case of McKane v. Durston, the justices wrote, â€Å"An appeal from a judgment of conviction is not a matter of absolute right, independently of constitutional or statutory provisions allowing such appeal.† The court continued, â€Å"A review by an appellate court of the final judgment in a criminal case, however, grave the offense of which the accused is convicted, was not at common law and is not now a necessary element of due process of law. It is wholly within the discretion of the state to allow or not to allow such a review.† The way in which appeals are dealt with, including determining whether or not the appellant has proven the right to appeal, can vary from state to state. Standards by Which Appeals are Judged The standards by which a court of appeals judges the validity of a lower court’s decision depends on whether the appeal was based on a question of facts presented during the trial or on an incorrect application or interpretation of a law by the lower court. In judging appeals based on facts presented at trial, the court of appeals judges must weigh the facts of the case based on their own firsthand review of the evidence and observation of witness testimony. Unless a clear error in the way the facts of the case were represented to or interpreted by the lower court can be found, the appeals court will generally deny the appeal and allow the decision of the lower court to stand. When reviewing issues of law, the court of appeals may reverse or modify the lower court’s decision if the judges find the lower court wrongly applied or misinterpreted the law or laws involved in the case. The court of appeals may also review â€Å"discretionary† decisions or rulings made by the lower court judge during the trial. For example, the appeals court might find that the trial judge improperly disallowed evidence that should have been seen by the jury or failed to grant a new trial due to circumstances that arose during the trial. Sources and Further Reference â€Å"Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.† Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law SchoolAbout U.S. Federal Courts.† United States Courts