Free Tom Randall’s Halloween Party Essay Example

A1. A negative perception of Thomas Randall and his friends may have shaped Helen Brook’s perceptual lens. She lives downstairs from the defendant and they continually bother her with her parties; she says they “tend to be noisy and keep late hours”. The day of the incident, they were having one of these parties and she alleges the ceiling was shaking, not allowing her to rest.
All of this may lower her credibility, as her perception is obviously not objective. She might have resentment from past disputes, as well as differing with her neighbors about how to live their lives. Furthermore, her different lifestyle does not allow her to be a completely appropriate judge of whether Helen Brooks was drunk or not, as she alleges.
A2. William Doyle makes states many facts and inferences in his testimony, as most people do when narrating a past event. Some of these are more relevant than others. The more relevant facts are that he went to the party, where many people were drinking and generally having a good time. Furthermore, he says that Thomas Randall was encouraging people to drink; he puts special emphasis on Kelly, who the witness said Thomas Randall “was forcing” to drink. However, then there are some important inferences, like that Kelly did not seem willing to drink. Plus, he blames this series of events on the accident, which is not necessarily true.
These are somewhat important to the case, as they help determine the setting of the party and the conditions under which Kelly was drinking. They also establish that Thomas Randall did provide Kelly with liquor even though she was underage. Not only did he allow her to drink and provide her alcohol, but he pressured her to take the drinks as well, regardless of whether she wanted to or not.
A3. Wendy Duvall has a very positive impression of Tom Thomas Randall. They are obviously very good friends and she does not even say one negative thing about him. Furthermore, she sees underage drinking as completely normal, instead of the illegal activity that it is. This obviously has a detrimental effect on her credibility, as she paints him as an angel and what was happening in the party as completely normal. This should cause the jurors to not take her into account too seriously because they know she is seeing everything in the best way possible, maybe even covering for his bad actions.
A4. In a typical defendant testimony, Tom Thomas Randall gives his impression of what happened in the party stating many facts and inferences. Most of his testimony is facts; of these, him buying the drinks and making them available are some of the most important ones, as they are obviously disreputable behavior. He reiterates that there were many people at the party and that this was a normal celebration. He also states that Kelly “seemed in reasonably” good shape, which one could see as a fact about an inference he makes in the past. He says that Kelly was drinking beer and that he brought her “one or two”.
As one already knows the main events of the case, Thomas Randall’s testimony is not too interesting or relevant. However, it is important to note that he confesses to buying the drinks and making them available in a place where he knew there would be many people under age. Furthermore, he deliberately served drinks to Kelly, even though she was not twenty-one. Finally, one should note that Thomas Randall did take into account whether she was in good shape or not, even though he says that he should have paid more attention.
B1.If I were the defense lawyer, among many other questions, I would ask Helen Brooks would be: “Why did you not help Kelly Greene if, according to your testimony, ‘it was obvious she was drunk’?” The intention of this question would be to determine the actual state of Kelly Greene’s conscience. Even though Brooks states that she was inebriated, she did not do anything to help her either. As the witness has a low-credibility perceptual lens, this would maybe discredit her in front of the jury. Furthermore, it might lead her to say that, in fact, Green was not that bad and that this was the reason why she did not help her.
B2. If I were the prosecutor, I think the most important question I would as would be: “Did you say anything to Kelly Greene when you gave her the beers?” This is evidently very important as it would establish the degree of pressure that he was putting on her. Part of the alleged responsibility that Thomas Randall had was having forced her into drinking, but this testimony was given by a person who greatly appreciated Kelly Greene. It is also a soft, innocent-looking question that would open the way to more difficult and incriminating queries.
C1. I do not believe Thomas Randall was aware that Kelly Greene was intoxicated when she left the party. He states in his testimony that Kelly “was planning to drive”, so he was completely aware of the fact when he allowed her to leave. He states that he said goodbye to her and paid attention to her state, even though he says that maybe he should have been more cautious because he might have come to an incorrect conclusion. Furthermore, he was probably not in the best state himself. He probably had started drinking relatively early and was not sober by the time she left, not allowing him to properly gauge her condition.
D1. Dr. Elizabeth Gonzalez is a poorly chosen witness. Not only is her testimony largely irrelevant, but it ends up favoring the defendant. She speaks very generally about underage drinking at college, but does not give any precise insights into this case in particular. Her main argument is that college creates an environment that creates peer pressure for students to ingest alcohol prematurely and at inappropriate levels. However, as she makes clear, Thomas Randall was not the only person that would have pressured Kelly Greene at the party, as she blames the culture, friends and fellow students as important influences into the world of alcohol.
D2. Although more relevant than Dr. Gonzalez’s testimony, Dr. Richard Cutler also states general information about substance abuse without providing information specific to the case either. However, he dispels the myth that college is a haven for drinking, and even that drinking is due to peer pressure. For him, family history, advertising and personal responsibility are more important. This is probably the most significant section of his testimony, as he questions Kelly Greene drinking and after choosing to drive. He believes that these factors are more important than social pressure, diminishing the culpability of the defendant, or at least putting it into doubt.
D3. Dr. Richard Cutler’s testimony seems more convincing because it is less emotionally-charged and it is more in tune to what one commonly experiences in real life. Dr. Gonzalez’s testimony seems very biased and one can see that she is largely speaking out of her own sentiments. She uses inflammatory words, such as “corrupted” and “personal tragedy”; even if these are appropriate, they are not in sync with the objectivity that one demands from a scientist. She seems resentful, while Dr. Cutler analyzes the facts more coolly, giving different possible scenarios.
These scenarios are also more credible, as they take into account different factors, being more in tune to experience. In psychological matters, it is very difficult to rely on just one factor as the cause, as characteristics are usually due to more than one cause. One can see this in real life, with people with a difficult family history typically drinking more than those whose environment was calmer when they were a child. It is also easy to see advertising’s influence, especially because they keep putting out commercials that cost millions; if these did not produce profit, they would improbably keep making them. Finally, the argument for Kelly Greene’s autonomy is very important, as it was her, after all, who chose to make these decisions that affected other’s lives. Thus, by choosing to take a multifactor approach, his argument seems more convincing, as it seems closer to what happens in real life.
E1. One key argument in the prosecution’s summation is that Thomas Randall’s irresponsibility directly led to this accident. The reasons are that he provided her liquor and encouraged her to drink.
E2. This argument has some strength due to its reason, yet it does not completely follow logically. It would be difficult to find evidence that Thomas Randall did not provide Kelly Greene alcohol; he even said so in his testimony. Furthermore, there is testimony that he encouraged her to drink, almost as if by force. While he did not confirm this, Thomas Randall did give her some beers, which is against the law, and this could be construed as a type of pressure itself.
However, the conclusion that the prosecution arrives to does not follow logically from the premises, as there is no necessary link between a person providing and offering alcohol and a car accident that kills a person. For starters, one could put many examples of times when this has not happened, be it from personal experience or from other sources, like the news. Furthermore, as one can read above, giving a person alcohol does not force them to drink it or to then get into the driver’s seat. It is a personal choice to do these activities, even if one is offered liquor.
The decision that Thomas Randall took, providing alcohol and cheering her on to drink, was not the direct cause of the accident, as Green could have countered this series of events with a choice of her own, be it not to drink at all or not to drive afterwards. One could go so far back as to say it was Kelly Greene’s fault for going to the party, where she knew there would be alcohol and she would have to drive. Labeling Thomas Randall’s actions as the cause is only the choosing of a stopping point in this nefarious series of events.
E3. One key argument that the defense used in their summation was that Thomas Randall was completely free from guilt because all he did was throw a party like any other one in every other college in the country.
E4. This is faulty both in its reasons and the logic it follows. The main flaw is that just because everybody does something does not mean it is correct, nor does it exempt a person from personal guilt. Personal opinions aside, one cannot state that an action is acceptable just because it is popularly supported, no matter what the particular action is. It could be a completely good action, but it would be so for another reason, not due to this argument. Furthermore, it is also unreasonable to think that he is not responsible for doing this action just because he is not the only one. Responsibility does diffuse just because other people are doing the same thing. The fact that people murder other human beings every day does not make the act less heinous. Thus, even if the reasons were correct, this faulty logic would easily make the argument crumble on its own.
Nevertheless, the reasons are also inept, as Thomas Randall unequivocally broke the law. He bought the drinks and provided them for his guests, a large number of which he knew that would be underage. Furthermore, he proceeded to personally provide them with liquor, not only violating the law himself, but also leading them to do it as well. While it is true that he should not be held personally responsible for the actions of Kelly Greene, one can also not paint him as an angel; he clearly committed some illegal acts himself. Even if one can find these actions not to be unethical, they are penalized by the law.
F1.After reasonably examining the evidence, one should not conclude that Thomas Randall is guilty of this crime. It would be unreasonable to expect that he would have been able to foresee the likely nefarious consequences of his actions. Although one can clearly see that the defendant did many incorrect actions, it would not be fair to punish him for the final accident. Even though there are many different definitions and interpretations of different concepts in this decision, the main point is that it would be absurd to think that this outcome would have been probable. In addition, to declare him guilty, one would need to clearly determine that his actions produced the terrible consequences; sometimes, there are holes in the argument or discrepancies between the different stories that do not allow for one to make this distinction.
First, although it is almost certain that he encouraged Kelly Greene to drink, it is not clear whether this was excessive or not. Both the defendant himself and one of the key witnesses confirm that he led the woman to drink in some manner. William Doyle states that this was explicit, while one could also construe him taking her the alcohol as an enticement to consume liquor. In William Doyle’s version, Thomas Randall was almost forcing her to drink, even though she refused. However, the defendant alleges that this was only an attempt to be a good host. Furthermore, he says that he took her a limited number of drinks, while the witness states that he gave her special attention, talking to her constantly. While it would be foolish to take into account only the defendant’s point of view, the witness’ testimony does not lead to a clear conclusion that his version is the correct one. Even though Thomas Randall should not have been serving alcohol to minors, this does not make him responsible for the accident that occurred that night.
Another important aspect is whether or not Thomas Randall should have allowed Kelly Greene to drive in her state of inebriation. To begin, one must take into account that this is not certain data, as there is no conclusive evidence as to her state of consciousness. The police officer alleges that she had some signs of being drunk, however, her case is still pending and there was no toxicological test that would determine whether, in fact, she had consumed a disproportionate quantity of alcohol. She may have just fallen asleep or be a hazardous driver, even while sober. Nevertheless, even if she was intoxicated, this would not necessarily have been Thomas Randall’s fault. On one hand, he might have been in an indisposed state himself, not being able to clearly judge whether the woman was able to drive or not. Furthermore, sometimes one cannot clearly tell whether the other person will be able to get home safely or not. Even though he testified that he knew she would be driving that night, he judged her to be “in reasonably good shape”, so he allowed her to go. However, this means that he did ponder this over in his head; that he made an incorrect conclusion is secondary.
Furthermore, there is a difficulty that is intrinsic to any causal chain of events: there are so many factors that intervene in the human world that one cannot predict without a shadow of a doubt what will come. Principally, one cannot know how people will react. Human beings are very complicated and it is virtually impossible to predict their behavior due to their consciousness and free will. Thus, it is always important to take into account that Kelly Greene could have chosen not to drink or not to drive after having done so.
On the other hand, the car accident was not the likely outcome for this series of events. As many people alleged during the trial, this was a typical college party, with the exception that there was a final, horrible event. However, there are many other parties like it around the whole nation that do not have the same outcome. Thus, on probabilistic terms, one cannot say that Thomas Randall could have foreseen this as the likely outcome. Was it reasonable when one takes into account the dangers of drunk driving? Of course; yet, this does not mean that it was the only possible or even the probable course. In fact, he testified that he saw her to see if she was all right, determining that she was able to drive. He saw that this was a reasonable consequence; however, he probably did not judge it as likely because many people do the same weekly without having the same effect.
Therefore, he should be found innocent. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that he was guilty of irresponsible behavior that was likely to result in harm. Even though he should be held responsible for his actions, for example, for having bought and given liquor to minors, the car accident was not a likely consequence. Even though it is reasonable to think that a vehicular catastrophe can happen when one is under the influence of alcohol, this is not what happens most of the time when a person drives after drinking. Thus, even though he did commit some actions that went against the law, he should be acquitted from this charge because the evidence does not indicate it beyond a shadow of a doubt.