Mr Catalano Charge for Involuntary Manslaughter You basically just responding to the student post what you felt enlightening and compelling. You agree or disagree with the response
Student paper down below:
Mr. Catalano was charged with involuntary manslaughter. Mr. Catalano, if judged by the last name, would appear to be Italian or Hispanic descent, and described as either white or Hispanic, most likely white. Mr. Catalano appears to be more “white collar” as he works in banking. His current charges do not seem a continuation of previous charges. Mr. Catalano appears to have money for good lawyer which equals more interaction between the prosecutor and the defense attorney and the likelihood of more court filings, appeals, delays, and deals. Mr. Catalano was sentenced by Judge Shoreman to ten years of probation with the stipulation that if probation is violated, the remainder of the sentence will be served in state prison. Mr. Jabari was charged with distribution of a controlled substance. Mr. Jabari, if judged by the last name, would appear to be middle-eastern descent, and described as an Arab or Muslim. Mr. Jabari’s employment is considered “blue collar” in that he works with his hands as a chef. His current charges can be viewed as a continuation or escalation of behavior as he has been previously convicted of possession of narcotics. Mr. Jabari has a court-appointed attorney which is likely to mean limited interactions between the prosecutor, defense attorney, and the court. Mr. Jabari has the support of the Muslim community that has demonstrated at the courthouse. Mr. Jabari was sentenced to seven years in state prison without the possibility of good time. Judge Shoreman’s sentencing decisions were not likely influenced by the family situations as both men were similar to wife and children.
Mr Catalano Charge for Involuntary Manslaughter
The employment differences likely did have influence in the sentencing factor as a society and therefore the courts still consider white collar wage earners “better” or “higher” or “more powerful” that blue-collar wage earners. The ethnicity of Mr. Jabari and the community support enjoyed by Mr. Jabari could have resulted in a negative prejudice by Judge Shoreman which resulted in discrimination in the sentencing of Mr. Jabari by Judge Shoreman. This observation is based on the current societal trend to be prejudicial to Muslims in the U.S. since 9/11, and the current discriminatory actions being enacted by the government in regard to immigration and border security. Judge Shoreman could easily support his decisions by pointing to federal sentencing guidelines and the risk of harm to society by the charges. Involuntary manslaughter is not likely to be a continuing behavior and is somewhat forgivable, “accidents happen”, type of offense. Intent to distribute causes obvious continuous harm to society as evident by the opioid addition discussed in the news today and therefore is seen as a much more serious crime that needs much harsher sentencing. Is Judge Shoreman guilty of showing any type of bias? Maybe. Ethnicity, social status as judged by wealth, and the amount of harm to society caused by the charges were all underlying factors that subconsciously or consciously could have influenced Judge Shoreman in his decision making processes used to decide the sentencing of Mr. Catalano and Mr. Jabari. A recent example of minorities being sentenced unfairly is the case of Timothy Foster. Mr. Foster was originally sentenced almost thirty years ago for murdering an elderly white woman.
Mr Catalano Charge for Involuntary Manslaughter
The Supreme Court just threw out his death sentence because, in the original trial, prosecutors deliberately excluded all African-Americans from being selected as jury members based strictly on race thus showing racial discrimination. While this decision by the Supreme Court is fair, the initial jury selection decision was grossly biased, prejudicial, and discriminatory.
Another case the Supreme Court decided to deal with racial gerrymandering. Minority voters in Virginia sued to claim that redistricting had “diluted their votes by packing them into one district. They won their case in a lower court but certain U.S. House of Representatives appealed the decision. The Supreme Court threw out the appeal challenge because “the House members had no legal standing to sue” and had not shown any evidence of suffering any injury. I believe this sentence is fair because, as stated in the article, “The decision leaves in place the lower court ruling and a redistricting map that spreads minority voters over more congressional districts, allowing these voters greater influence in more areas.”
