Business and Corporate Laws: Ms. Anderson and McEnroe

Business and Corporate Laws

Business and corporate laws are critical because they safeguard the rights and freedoms of individuals in many diverse ways. For example, they make people responsible for their actions, thereby promoting independence and a life free from fear. They also ensure that justice prevails in all people’s undertakings. Finally, business and corporate laws punish lawbreakers like in the Ms. Anderson's aggravated first-degree murder case where she was accused of murdering her family members.

Summary of the Case and other Developing Stories

The case that involved the King County Attorney Dan Satterberg on the issue of state and Michele Anderson was quite tricky. Anderson was taken to court and charged with the murder of six family members during the Christmas celebrations in the year 2007. The case was filed by Ms. Anderson given the fact that she was alluded to have committed a felony. In the opinion of most legal experts, killing six people, including two innocent children, warrants any individual who stays within the borders of King County to be called the worst and most dangerous criminals. It is also wrong to have the thinking that the legal team representing the two sides of the case should have considered the option of state's ultimate punishment (Satterberg, 2015). Slaying three generations for no good reason deserves extremely high penalties.

The team of the jury that was trying to accuse Michele Anderson were given enough time by the judge who was presiding over the case and the evidence they gave implicated the defendant in all ways. It was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Ms. Anderson was guilty of killings six members of her family. However, the evidence presented before the court made it clear that McEnroe, Anderson’s accomplice, fired the death shots in five of the six murders. According to the evidence adduced, Judy and Wayne Anderson were shot dead by McEnroe as they were preparing for the holiday. To make the matters worse, he took the responsibility of hiding the two corpses and set another trap for other four victims. Immediately after the arrival of the two expected visitors one hour later after the deadly shooting, McEnroe succeeded in killing Erica Anderson with numerous gunshots in her head and the entire body. Scott Anderson did not escape as McEnroe made many attempts to shoot him only to realize later that he had been shot by Michele (Satterberg, 2015). According to the proceedings of the case, it came out that McEnroe made a decision to kill the children, Olivia and Nathan Anderson (aged 5 and 3), which is one of the worst criminal offenses ever committed across the state.

Because of the gravity of the matter, the jury disagreed on what kind of punishment McEnroe would be given. One of the options was to impose the death penalty. Another option that the jury had was to imprison McEnroe for life without any possible parole (Satterberg, 2015). It is one of the penalties that is often imposed on criminals, especially murderers, who have been tried in the US and UK justice systems. The team of judges in the case became impartial to the extent that they passed a judgement that sent the culprit to prison for life.

With respect to the decision, some experts in law argue that the outcome of the proceedings should be reconciled and the death penalty option should be removed. They argue based on the point that subjecting Ms. Anderson to such penalties that had been passed against McEnroe does not serve the interest of justice. In the US judicial system, the judges tasked with particular suits are required to administer justice in a way that is fair even if the case involves a murder. However, from the outcome of the proceedings based on the evidence given, it is evident that Ms. Anderson was responsible for killing two young family members because she turned the gun to shoot them. Many defense lawyers have quoted and argued that the death penalty is too powerful and, therefore, it should not be used as a plea bargaining chip.

Expectations

In my view, both Ms. Anderson and McEnroe deserve equal treatment under the law because they both participated in the killing of six family members. It is a crime and, in fact, a big crime to kill. On the other hand, it is also a crime to conceal information about the murder. After the killing of six family members of Anderson, Michele and McEnroe took an initiative to hide the bodies. In two days, a time friend and a coworker of Judy Anderson discovered the incidence. To make the situation worse, the two murderers tried to flee to Las Vegas in vain. It is condemned by law to commit a crime and fail to give an information of what transpired (Satterberg, 2015). In the interview done separately, both Ms. Anderson and McEnroe confessed their acts, a fact that made them consequently arrested. Following the development of the case, I totally believe in justice and fairness that would make the two face the same judgement of either death or life imprisonment.

Following my thoughts, even before getting into the courtroom, my expectations were that both Ms. Anderson and McEnroe would be charged with murder and jailed. In my opinion, they are on the wrong side of the law and hence should suffer the consequences. I feel that no murder victim should be set free as doing so would encourage other silent murderers in the society. Additionally, I expect the judge to expose them to heavy punishment and a life sentence but not a death penalty. Therefore, my expectation is that they will both be convicted of murder and jailed for nothing less than a lifetime.

Comparison between US and Taiwan Court Systems

The US and Taiwan court systems have some similarities and differences in how their judicial systems are arranged and how they dispense legal services to the people, as explained by Hume (2016). The court system of Taiwan has subdivisions regarding scope. In the United States, on the other hand, some states have their laws, court systems, and bar associations. In America, unlike Taiwan, the federal laws and the judgements passed by courts are much more superior to the laws of the states and decisions made at the state level. The powers that are not given to the federal courts in the United States are instead given and reserved for the states, which is clearly explained in the Constitution. However, in Taiwan, the powers bestowed upon the courts are universal, and they apply uniformly irrespective of where one comes from but with the recognition of the 3-tier hierarchy.

According to Hume (2016), another big difference between Taiwan and US court systems is that America does not recognize a Tribunal System to solve certain disputes that may need consensus and agreement outside the court, unlike Taiwan. However, America has ad hoc tribunals described as niche courts which resolve special conflicts, for instance, bankruptcy. In most cases, unlike Taiwan, America encourages the use of arbitration and mediation as an alternative dispute resolution. It is not expensive, and it also brings the two conflicting parties together to talk at the individual level, thereby streamlining and avoiding adverse comments, hence concluding the conflict in a peaceful manner.

Despite the few differences, the court systems in both the United States and Taiwan are quite the same. Small offenses, for example, civil disputes, are comprehensively looked into by special magistrate courts that are mandated to do so. In the United States, civil disputes are handled exclusively by the state courts. However, significant cases that involve murder, for example, are dealt with by the federal courts which are equivalent to state courts in Taiwan. In both nations, serious crimes and cases of civil nature are handled through a three-court tier hierarchy. First, cases are filed in the lower courts that are district court in the case of the United States and crown courts in Taiwan. If the cases are not exhausted in the named level, they can be moved to the court of appeal. In the case of further disagreement on the degree of justice being rendered, the case can be finally resolved by a single Supreme Court, which is the highest in the hierarchy (Hume, 2016).

It is also important to mention that the role of lawyers, jury and attorneys are the same despite the mere difference in nomenclature in the two nations. However, in the United States, unlike in Taiwan, the law terminologies "barrister" and "solicitor" are rare to use. To clarify the matter, court-going barristers are described as "litigators" in the United States, and solicitors are called "corporate" or "transactional" attorneys. As such, this is no culture and tradition in Taiwan where solicitors and barristers are part of mainstream litigations.

Conclusion

The courts of Taiwan just like those in the United States primarily rely on precedents or past judgements to resolve litigation. In my opinion, the case for McEnroe could have been decided the same way had it been solved in Taiwan because both Constitutions of the two nations condemn murder in the strongest terms possible. According to the precedents of both countries, people who have been found guilty of murder cases often face life imprisonment or death sentence.

Buy Business Papers from us and be sure of receiving immaculate papers!