Illustration

New Delhi, It is tragic! A teenager was killed and burned alive in Nawada district, India. Cause, boys aged 17 years was amajor witness rape his mother.

Youth named Chintu Kumar died horribly from being burned alive in the village Garabigha on Sunday (13/5) local time. Perpetrators of this heinous act was his mother’s rapist.

Chintu is known that the mother was raped by five men took turns in the year 2006 in the same village. A few moments later, Chintu often received threats that he withdraw the case in the police report. Chintu also threatened not to appear as witnesses in court.

“Chintu is scheduled to testify in court cases related to the mother,” said a local police officeras reported by The Times of India, Monday (14/05/2012).

According to witnesses, the offender forced entry into a house inhabited by Chintu on Monday afternoon. Moments later, the perpetrator Chintu burn alive inside their homes.

Police said the perpetrators of rape are still on the run since the incident in 2006.

Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson’s former brother-in-law was convicted of murdering her brother, nephew, and mother on May 11, 2012. On plenty of cases we see juries take pity on criminals, be it due to a convincing testimony or their situation, but not this time. The jurors all agreed that there were too many facts and evidence outweighing William Balfour’s adamant denial. They also didn’t let the fact that Jennifer Hudson was a celebrity stop them from convicting Balfour of three accounts of first degree murder. 

A trial about a case from 2008 is sure to have many difficulties in the courtroom, so although the public never hears all that really goes on, it’s probably true that a lot of people in the court didn’t know the whole true story either. And when a celebrity is involved, people are definitely going to think a little bit differently. It basically goes like this: Balfour couldn’t handle his emotions when seeing is ex with a new man, and snapped when seeing a gift from Julia Hudson’s new guy, so he shot Jennifer’s mother, brother, and nephew.

While plenty of evidence proved this true, Jennifer’s testimony did nothing to influence the verdict. Also surprising, Jennifer, although having several breakdowns on the witness stand, didn’t have any of the pity-on-your-undeniably-guilty-family-member crap. Unfortunately, this had no real evidence to move the trial along, and the jury was left to listen to 82 other witnesses to reach a verdict. 

When the jurors finally found Balfour guilty, some family members weren’t too happy with the outcome, but to be honest, no matter how much you love someone, if they’ve done something to earn that spot in jail, isn’t it better for everyone’s safety that they’re not out on the street? 

2 Indian fisherman, were indulged in fishing for earning livelihood. They were continuing their activity peacefully, then suddenly they entered the foreign soil. They were innocent and did not have any idea that foreign soil can be so disastrous that they will have to sacrifice their lives. They had entered the Italian territory, don’t know how. But they were fishing in an Italian territory. Italian soldiers. guarding their territory against any foul play found something mysteries in the form of these 2 fisherman, considered them as the agents of enemy or terrorism for harming their country they considered it best to kill them for safeguarding the interest of their nation and people. Without giving any second thought to what they are going to do, the 2 soldiers prepared their guns and fired them on these fisher mans, who were innocent just like the waters. The soldiers celebrated after hitting the bulls eye(killing the 2 people), assuming it as the betterment of safeguarding. Later on, it was found by Indian Government that 2 fisher mans were missing and mean while the 2 people killed by Italian soldiers were identified as innocent fisherman by Italian Government. Italians described everything to Indian Government. The families of these fisherman had lost their sole bread earner and they had 2 children, getting education in school and about to enter college. But now they find it hard to manage their livelihood and bread butter and difficult to continue the education of their children. A case was filled by families of these fisherman, for the enforcement of justice and award of sentence to those soldiers. Now the Italian Government wants them to withdraw the criminal court case as they have agreed to arrive at settlement for grant of Rupees 10 million to family of each victims. 10 millions is actually a big amount, and more than enough for managing the livelihood as well as education of children of 7 generation. They earlier used to live in poverty now they will become rich from this amount. Though the loss is irreparable, but nobody is stable and everyone has to leave one day or the other but these fisherman left after bestowing such blessings of 10 million to their family. They are the real soldiers and i would like to give them a salute.

The reopening of the case of Natalie Wood, 30 years after her mysterious death, reminds us that many movie stars disappearances sealed under the ambiguous phrase “under mysterious circumstances’.

Wood, who never hid his fear of water, shocked the world by appearing, on November 29, 1981, drowned in the vicinity of Santa Catalina Island in California. She spent the weekend with her husband Robert Wagner and actor Christopher Walken.

She created a legend centered on a crime of passion. Proponents of this theory has never believed the police report that he considered his death as an accident. New information, which led to reverting to the case, give rise to a new set of reflections.

OTHER CASES

Almost a year later, Grace Kelly was killed in a traffic accident on the roads of Monte Carlo when he was in the car with her daughter Stephanie. The most popular version is that he was the youngest of the Grimaldi who was driving the car.

Marilyn Monroe and Romy Schneider, two icons of film with tortured lives, died from a combination of alcohol and drugs, opening the door to speculation about possible suicide. In the first were known emotional instability, hers relations with the Mafia and the Kennedys. All this was the perfect material for the conspiracy theory.

The second was struck by the tragic death of her son, who was pierced accidentally by the gate of his house while trying to climb it, so it never cleared up if too much medicine was voluntary or not.

Recently, the drugs also ended the life of Heath Ledger, found dead in his apartment in New York in 2008, just before releasing the film that won the Oscar, “The Dark Knight.”

Suicide was ruled out. The same happened in the case of Brittany Murphy, who died in December 2009. The causes of death of the young were a mixture of pneumonia and anemia, but died shortly after her widower, Simon Monjack, it was rumored that the cause was the toxic effect of a fungus caused by the humidity in your home. Never could be demonstrated.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.”

Because I agree with: Abraham Lincoln, I stand in affirmation in today’s resolved which is: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

My value in today’s debate is the Categorical Imperative which states that anything that is rationally considered immoral, should be considered immoral by every rational person. This value achieves the resolved because as I will prove, there are things humans ought not do to animals because they are immoral, and therefore animals should have the moral entitlement to not having those things done to them. When humans are doing things they ought not to do, Justice is being violated. If animals had no rights at all, humans would be admitting that there is no abuse toward an animal worthy of their consideration, and in-turn state that it is impossible to be immoral towards an animal.

My criterion in this round shall be Protection from Immorality, because my value can will be achieved when I rationally prove that abusing animals is wrong.

I will now move on to discuss some vital definitions and later proceed to discuss some of the current harms being done to animals that are definitely immoral and deserve action.

Definitions: (Oxford Dictionaries):
Right – A moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way:

Animal – a living organism that feeds on organic matter , typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli:

Justice – The quality of being fair and reasonable.

I, in my following contentions, will prove that animals deserve some moral entitlements as the definition of rights requires.

1: Animals Deserve the Right to Not be Treated As They Are in Factory Farms

Farm factories are vast areas where farm animals are brutally harvested for their body parts. These factories don’t care about their animals or the environment they are harming around them. For example, we can examine the treatment of chickens in these farm factories. According to farmsanctuary.org Male chicks are not worth anything because they don’t produce eggs. To dispose of these male chicks, they are either chucked in a can to die there slowly, or ground up alive and put in fertilizer. Sometimes they are not killed immediately in these grinding situations, and they experience unspeakable horrors because of it. Different situations, just as extreme, occur towards pigs, cows and sheep. In addition to the ridiculous methods of disposal of unworthy farm animals, these animals are also treated with terrible breeding methods, constant painful disease, tortuously small spaces, constant bleeding and bruising from sharp wire cages, and severe mental conditions from unnatural living.

The harmful treatment of animals in factory farms is horrid and therefore is not just by any means, because causing pain and suffering in that way not just. I believe chickens deserve the right to a less painful death, and pigs; cows deserve to live in a non-disease ridden environment. To argue that animals don’t deserve rights at all would be to argue that it is okay for them to be ground up in vats or shoved into a cage too small to move in and which cuts into their skin. Even if they get these minimal rights, which would be the moral thing to do, we can have justice.

2: Animals Deserve Moral Entitlements Simply by Sharing Similar Characteristics to Humans

According to Animal Planet,  Chimpanzees can make and use tools, hunt collectively, and are capable of advanced problem-solving. They are also able to learn sign language to communicate with humans and can remember the name sign for individuals they have not seen for several years. Does this sound like a mindless creature to you? Chimpanzees are self-aware and are able to love and make decisions which makes them the slightly dumbed down version of humans. Simply because we have better brain power makes us slightly better at surviving, but it doesn’t make it right to hurt the lesser species. For instance, if a more advanced species came along than humans, it would not be okay to start killing us off. The same should go for chimpanzees who are simply a less advanced version of humans. Furthermore, chimpanzees use their intellectual gifts to maintain their complex social groups, where they form strong bonds and observe elaborate hierarchical structure. Strong bonds mean they develop friendships and have emotional connections to each other, which to sever would be immoral.

Chimpanzees are not the only animal that deserves rights because they have all of the characteristics that make humans worthwhile, because according to Animal Planet,  dolphins are extremely social animals. Schools of dolphins can be observed in the world’s oceans surfing, racing, leaping, spinning, whistling and otherwise enjoying themselves. They also have a sophisticated “language,” though humans have only begun to unravel it. Furthermore, dolphins use tools in their natural environment.

Obviously, many animals have qualities that merit moral entitlement simply because they share some of the characteristics that humans value.

Conclusion:
It is because of my belief that no animal should be treated as those mentioned in factory farms, and that it would be  immoral to deny moral entitlements all animals that I stand in firm affirmation in today’s debate.

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Value: Justice because the resolved gives us what we are trying to accomplish in today’s debate which is Justice, my case will be focused on accomplishing the resolved, and therefore I must choose Justice as my value which means the quality of being fair and reasonable.

Criteria: Utilitarianism which refers to the most good for the most living creatures. When it comes to matters of the treatment of all living creatures, it is important to make a choice based on the option that is the most fair and reasonable, which can be determined by utilitarianism.

Definitions according to Oxford Dictionaries:
Require – specify as compulsory.
Recognition – acknowledgment of somethings existence, validity, or legality.

and my final definition which may be the most vital in today’s debate is:

Animal Rights – Rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans.

If you put this all together, to affirm this resolved is to say that all humans should be legally obliged to not hunt animals or use them for medical research. I will tell you why this is wrong in my following contentions

1: We Must Test on Animals for Medical Purposes
Sub Point 1:
If we were to require the recognition of animal rights, multiple human lives would be lost because medicine would not be tested. Since diseases are constantly evolving, not producing new medicine would mean a new pandemic every time a new strain of disease comes into existence. It is a small exchange to hurt a few animals to protect millions of human lives from even worse suffering. According to the National Academies Press, “By infecting animals with certain microbes, Koch, Pasteur, and other researchers were able to identify the germs causing anthrax, rabies, diphtheria, and plague. These discoveries have allowed scientists to develop vaccines for animals and people made from weakened germs. “ These tests gave way to the salvation of millions of people.

Sub Point 2:
Furthermore, many surgical advancements arise from the testing on animals. According to the NAP, Organ transplants and coronary artery bypasses require that blood vessels be sewn together. The technique of sewing blood vessels together was developed through surgeries on dogs and cats by Alexis Carrel, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1912. Carrel tested on dogs and cats because these organs had a chance of being rejected and the animals had a chance of dying. The whole world, knowing the consequences of the testing on those dogs and cats tested on, decided that Carrel’s research was worthy of a Nobel Prize.

2: The affirming of this resolved would eliminate animal services such as the police K-9 unit.  
This is because the definition of animal rights includes living free from other services to humans, and therefore the K-9 sector of our executive branch would be nullified.
According to the the El Dorado California Police Department and agreed upon by Police Departments across the US, Police service dogs are currently being used nationwide for high risk searches for suspects hiding in buildings or areas, tracking, search and rescue locating victims, jail/prison systems officer protection and cell extraction of inmates, evidence detection, narcotic detection, explosive detection, accelerant detection, disaster search locating victims, human remains detection, locating victims of avalanches, locating suspects for Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and lately, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detection.
As you can see, these K-9’s entire lives are spent as a service to humans, but it is completely worth it.

3: The affirmation of this resolved would eliminate hunting, causing societal chaos.
In almost every society, meat is used as a source of food. In some, meat is necessary for survival, especially in areas of harsh climate where plants don’t grow abundantly. These societies would be forced to abandon their hunting and move to a less extreme climate, causing overpopulation and unnecessary conflict. Furthermore, societies which contain a population of people who’s economy is based around the meat industry would be crushed because an entire sector of the economy would be eliminated at once. Farmers would be out of luck, and all of the people involved with the production and transportation of meat would be forced to find a new lively hood.

It is vital, in order to be fair and reasonable, for people to be able to hunt, use animals for law enforcement and transportation, and above all to be used for medical testing. For all these reasons I stand in firm NEGATION of today’s resolved.

Facts: Samuel Worcester was a resident of the state of Vermont sent to The Cherokee Nation as a missionary. Yet the state of Georgia does not permit U.S citizens to enter The Cherokee Nation unless they receive a passport from the governor. Worcester argued that this Georgia law broke Indian sovereignty treaties, which are held at a federal level. Worcester was convicted by the state of Georgia and sentence to four years hard labor at a penitentiary.

Issue: Wether the act of legislature of Georgia, under which the plaintiff in error has been prosecuted and condemned, be consistent with, or repugnant to, the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States.

Held: No.

Rationale: The court ruled that only the United States had the authority to make treaties and regulations with Native Americans. Georgia has absolutely no authority in the matter, the plaintiff was on tribal land. All treaties offer a federal jurisdiction. However, treaties made with The Cherokee Nation promise “the benefit and comfort” and “prevention of injuries and oppression” of these Indians, yet the United States still has control over their trading regulations and regulation of all affairs. Therefore the treaty is hypocritical considering that the articles state that The Cherokee are capable of governing themselves, and may ascertain boundaries between themselves and the United States. Thus the treaty has been renewed several times, and specific pledges have been added. Such as allowing The Cherokee Nation to punish citizens whom are unlawfully in their land. The United States has also pledged to recognize Indian Nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries. States only have jurisdiction over Native lands if they are being invaded.

Bhutto, the first female prime minister in the Muslim world, was killed in a gun and suicide attack in 2007 in one of the most shocking events in Pakistan’s turbulent history.

An anti-terrorism court indicted the seven men in a hearing held behind closed door in the city of Rawalpindi for security reasons.

“They have been charged with conspiracy as well as abetment in the murder,” Chaudhry Zulfiqar Ali, a government prosecutor, told Reuters.

The charismatic Bhutto was killed on December 27, 2007 as she waved to a crowd through the sunroof of a sports utility vehicle following an election rally in Rawalpindi weeks after she returned to Pakistan from a self-imposed exile after striking a deal with then military ruler Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf’s government had blamed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud for the killing. Mehsud was killed in a U.S. drone strike near the Afghan border in 2009.

The five Taliban militants were charged with “criminal conspiracy” for bringing the suicide bomber from the tribal belt in the northwest to Rawalpindi where he carried out the attack, another prosecutor Mohammad Azhar said.

The police officers, including Saud Aziz, who was then Rawalpindi police chief, were charged with breach of security by “changing the security plan for BB (Benazir Bhutto),” he added.

Musharraf, who lives in exile in Dubai and London, also faces accusations of failing to provide adequate security to Bhutto.

The anti-terrorism court in February issued an arrest warrant for him and later declared him fugitive of law after he failed to respond to these accusations.

In August, the court ordered the confiscation of all property and the freezing of Musharraf’s bank accounts in Pakistan after he again failed to respond.

The prosecutor Ali said the court would deal with Musharraf’s issue later.

A report by a U.N. commission of inquiry released last year said any credible investigation should not rule out the possibility that members of Pakistan’s military and security establishment were involved in the killing, though it did not say who it believed was guilty.

It heavily criticized Pakistani authorities, saying they had “severely hampered” the investigation.

Musharraf has denied suggestions that he or his security agencies had any role in Bhutto’s murder.

After her death, Bhutto’s party won general elections in 2008 by riding a wave of public sympathy and ultimately forced Musharraf to step down.

Bhutto widower, Asif Ali Zardari, has been the president of the country since then.

(Reporting by Zeeshan Haider; Editing by Ed Lane)

Mosley said Murray never would have founded the clinic if he had been greedy, as prosecutors have previously suggested.

“When you went to the doctor, in his office, you did not see a sign when you walked in that (said), ‘Pay at the time that services rendered’,” Mosley said. “You did not see a sign that said present ID or your insurance card … You saw the doctor first.”

Last of five character witnesses

Murray continued to wipe his eyes for several moments after Mosley left the witness stand. She was the last of five character witnesses that Murray’s attorneys called during the doctor’s involuntary manslaughter trial. He has pleaded not guilty.

The trial recessed for the day after Mosley’s testimony and was expected to resume today with Murray’s final witnesses – a pair of medical experts.

Authorities contend Murray gave Jackson a fatal dose of the anaesthetic propofol in the singer’s bedroom on June 25, 2009. Defence attorneys claim the singer gave himself the fatal dose.

Gerry Causey, of Cedar City, Utah, said Murray treated him for a heart attack 11 years ago, and the cardiologist remains his best friend.

Compassionate doctor

Causey said he was not put to sleep at his request while Murray implanted a stent after fully explaining the procedure to him.

“I know his love, his compassion, his feelings for his patients,” Causey said. “He’s the best doctor I’ve ever been to.”

Murray, 58, last treated Causey in 2008. Causey said the doctor didn’t charge him his deductible for office visits.

“I just don’t think he did what he’s been accused of,” Causey said.

Another witness, Dennis Hix of Banning, California, said Murray performed a stent procedure for him for free.

Murray agreed to become Jackson’s personal physician for US$150,000 a month but was never paid because the singer died before the contract was signed.

Prosecutors have contended that Murray was heavily in debt and initially sought $5 million to treat Jackson as he prepared for a series of lucrative comeback concerts.

Another character witness, Andrew Guest, echoed Causey’s comments about Murray’s skill and care.

“He makes sure you’re OK, during the procedure, after the procedure,” said Guest, a locksmith at a casino in Las Vegas. “I’m alive today because of that man.”

Dr Murray’s team presented a 42-page document in court yesterday aimed at suggesting Jackson was under financial pressure to pull off a number of concerts in London, causing him to inject himself with the anaesthetic Propofol in an attempt to sleep, but Judge Pastor denied using it as evidence.

“It involves the fact finder getting taken on a side tour of accounting principles and law school. This is not a contractual dispute, this is a homicide case.”

The decision came after Deputy District Attorney David Walgren urged it be denied.

He said: “At every turn Conrad Murray, through his attorneys, have put the blame for his failures on Michael Jackson and this is just another attempt to do the same.”

Jackson ‘fearful’

Michael’s former physician Dr Allan Metzger has also claimed theThriller hitmaker was “fearful” about his concert responsibilities and had requested something intravenous to help him sleep as oral medication was no longer working.

Although he did not ask for a specific drug, Dr Metzger said Michael wanted “some form of anaesthetic”, later adding, “I think he used the word juice.”

However, he added, he would never have given in to his request, no matter how much money he was offered.

Dr Murray – who denies involuntary manslaughter – could face up to four years in jail if found guilty.