1. Recognizing the intrinsic worth of a person is to that person’s like and domain. And that is the same for all humans. Therefore, by doing medical experiments, you undervalue a person’s worth. Each person has an equal duty to not harm a person or put a person in danger. By testing new drugs, that person’s rights are being violated. An example would be testing a drug on person’s who are not fully informed of the possible consequences, and the effects of the drugs. In the United States, There was Henrietta lacks who was badly treated at a hospital down in the South (john Hopkins). Then after she died, without permission from her family or friends, they took cells from her body and began to test them. In this case the doctors violated Henrietta’s rights as an equal person to decide what she wants to do with her own body.
2. Effects of Malaria are fever, chills, headache, sweats, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. Malaria is transmitted when a person is bitten by a mosquito carrying the parasite. The treatment of malaria is a huge human rights issue. In simpler terms, it is a disease that highly effects those who live in poverty. They do not have the money to buy the prevention packets, nor do they have enough to purchase the drug treatments. Wealthier countries, and organization could try to find a treatment for Malaria that is more easily accessible for the poor and a little more affordable.
3. Jury nullification is defined as when a jury gives a “Not Guilty” verdict, to a person that they believe was in violation of a law. In the case of Leroy Reid, he was in violation of a law by possessing an illegal weapon. Although he broke the law, the jury still gave him a “Not guilty”. It was obvious that the man was in violation but they jury used nullification in this specific trial. First, because they saw the man as naive. Second, he had a limited mental capacity. Thirdly, he was arrested by self-decriminalization.
4. In this case, I would view it as a mercy killing. The idea of someone taking this action to heal the one they love and let them leave Earth peacefully is very understandable. However, as a juror in this case, I would not use my power of nullification. The spouse may have had good intentions, but the consequences were bad. Also, when making this decision, I am sure they knew what the result for themselves would be. The case in question could be a good candidate for jury nullification, but there is also an obligation to enforce the rules. So that others will know that this act is not okay and should become publicly acceptable. It is a violation of the law and it will be punishable.
5. In the case of 1983, a seventeen year old boy robbed a farmer that grew marijuana, and murdered him during the process. The judge basically tell the jury that if the defendant is guilty of robbery, then the murder is automatically considered first degree. The jury did not agree with the harshness of that punishment so they wanted to know if there was another way around it. The moral and legal obligation of the judge was to tell the jury what options, including jury nullification. I do not think justice was well served by the judge. The defendant technically did not get a fair trial and if the jury may have known about jury nullification the sentence would have come out differently.
6. One reason jury nullification is objected is because it contradicts the principles of democracy. It violates the right that all persons that go against the law will be punished. Also, it is made by a group of individuals who may not have any background on the topic, and don’t often think of the long term effects. Jury nullification can even be reached by one single juror deciding on it opposed to the rest.
7. Reiman responds to Conrad by saying that it is not actually responding with a wrong,