Scott V. Sanford

The case Scott Vs Sanford was about a slave Dred Scott who believed he should have been free because of the fact that his owner brought him into the free state of Wisconsin where there was no slavery. In our Moot Court in class the honorable Judge Smith ruled in favor of Sanford. In 1857 the ruling was the same Scott did not win his case to become free.

Both sides gave very convincing arguments in Moot Court. There were very strong points on both sides of the court room. The team arguing for Scott's freedom used different court cases such as Winny versus Whitesides in 1824 and the 1787 Northwest Ordinance. The Northwest Ordinance was put into place for the Northwest Territories which were slowly becoming states. The Northwest Ordinance stated that any state over the 38th Parallel was a free state while any state below the 38th Parallel had the option of being a free state or a slave state. 

Winny vs Whitesides was a case used in Scott's Moot Court. Winny a slave filed a civil suit to become free because slavery was not aloud in the Indiana Territory. Winny ended up winning this case and got her freedom however Dred Scott was not as lucky. 

Scott's litigation team in Moot Court also argued points such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Scott's litigation team also used the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in favor of Sanford just as the honorable Judge Smith of our Moot Court did as well. Sanford's litigation team came out on top. I believe the case was over almost instantly because one of the main points brought up by the litigation team was that Scott was not a citizen of the United States therefor he could not sue. Sanford argued the fact that because Scott was not a citizen there was nothing the court could do. 

Other points brought about included the fact that Scott was purchased. Sanford was not reimbursed which is an illegal way to go about obtaining property or in Scott's case freedom. This is illegal because of the Fifth Amendment which states it is illegal to take property without compensation. Other points that were argued include the fact that slavery was still legal under the constitution of 1789. There was no way for Scott to appeal to the court because slaves and African Americans were not viewed as citizens.

State V. Mann

Today's Moot Court was the case of State versus Mann. In the court of our class room John Mann came out of the case victorious not only in Moot Court but in real life through the Supreme Court of North Carolina. There were very convincing arguments to both sides however Mann had the stronger better argument out of the two teams facing off in this case.

The Winners(Mann) won very easily in my eyes. According to the facts it was easily determined that Mann should not have to pay the $10 fine for shooting his slave in the back. The Winners used sources such as The Bible The Constitution and various laws in North Carolina. These laws along with the facts of the case helped the judge of our Moot Court make an easy ruling. The Winners gave arguments such as it was Mann's duty to return the slave and the only way to do so was by shooting her. The Winners also gave arguments of how the case should be a civil case between Mann and the original slave owner. Other arguments include common law and that of religion.

State vs Mann was a big topic of the time period as seen to the left there were many reasons why Mann did not have to pay the fine.

The losing side of the argument was that of the State. In our court room many points were brought up and some of the main points were for the State. The State used documents such as The Bible. The State also tried to appeal to the judges emotions by saying how inhumane and awful it was that Mann shot his slave. However the judge stood strong and ruled not based on emotion but law, Mann did not have to pay the $10 fine.

Pepper Spray of Justice

Ever since I was little I have always been interested in controversial cases that I see in the news and online. One case that came to mind when i was thinking of what I should blog about this week. In my hometown of Saratoga Springs there was a very odd case that was something I have never seen before. Adam Rupeka a man from Troy New York decided to drive past the Saratoga police station and give an officer the finger as he drove by. 

In this video Nathan Baker a member of the Saratoga Springs Police Department sprays pepper spray into Adam Rupeka's eyes. Rupeka decided that he wanted to test his first amendment right by giving Baker the finger while driving by. I personally think that after researching this incident and watching this video that Rupeka absolutely deserved it. But in his defense through the first amendment he had every right to do it. After his decision to give the finger to Baker he refused to comply in anyway eventually forcing Baker to pepper spray him.

The Huffington Post published an article after the fact giving a summary of what happened. The Saratoga Police Department ended up paying Rupeka $50000 for being arrested and pepper sprayed unconstitutionally.

Solitary Confinement for Juveniles

In late January President Obama passed new laws banning the use of solitary confinement on juveniles. Before the ban of solitary confinement some juveniles were spending time alone in their cells usually without any contact for over twenty hours a day sometimes more. According to Washingtonpost.com Obama tells of the possible devastating psychological consequences that these juveniles face when put in solitary confinement for long periods of time. Some effects of solitary confinement on juveniles according to American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) include anxiety, rage and insomnia among many others.


I agree with with President Obama on banning solitary confinement for juveniles. Through the articles I have read it is clear that there is not a real need for it and it can have crippling effects on the person which are not needed. In the article Growing Up Locked Down by the ACLU there are many interviews with juveniles who were once in solitary confinement. Many of these young men and women do things to relieve their pain including self-harm and suicide attempts. Others have trouble with the small space they have saying they feel trapped which they are. According to the ACLU most suicides are while the inmate is in solitary confinement.

Many juveniles have been in solitary confinement for many different reasons but not only me, others also believe that confinement does more harm than good. Many states even before the banning of solitary confinement for juveniles had begun to regulate and completely stop the solitary confinement for people under eighteen.