How people do things that are not suppost to do Essay

How people do things that are not suppost to do - Essay Example Not only does the apparently unmotivated take on motive; perversely, we become visitors to a prison rather than readers of a philosophical discourse:† â€Å"The speaker denies his madness by calling himself a victim of the principle he has outlined. Yet his language hovers between calculation and illogic. The narrator explains "why I am here . . . wearing these fetters" by reference to a cause that is only a perverse absence of cause. From the standpoint of realistic representation, the perverse narrator betrays his deviance through linguistic peculiarities. â€Å" â€Å"†¦he assumes an understanding of what he has not yet explained. Both fictional speakers break accepted conventions by employing the definite article, where "the idea" and "the murder" have not been previously explicated. If we read these narrators as mimetic characters, their linguistic deviations may be signs of defective mental processes.† â€Å"A rhetorical moment takes the place of all ghosts, when "the imp of the perverse" drives the speaker to confess. "The rabble" would understand his behavior as a symptom of madness, but his perversity turns out to be a reflex inherent in words.† â€Å"The narrator is a man in crisis. His drinking has pushed him to the point where he is capable of violence, even against a wife who, although patient and long-suffering, is incapable of helping her husband. The two cats in this story remind him of better days, before the narrator’s alcoholism produced in his personality â€Å"a radical alteration for the worst† (598). But his substance abuse has provided him with at least one insight. He has learned that â€Å"the spirit of PERVERSENESS,† the self’s â€Å"unfathomable longing to vex itself—to offer violence to its own nature,† is a fundamental aspect of â€Å"the character of Man†Ã¢â‚¬  â€Å"The narrator’s alcoholism, his propensity for violent behavior, his acute isolation, and

Legal brief (Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___ (2011) ) Assignment

Legal brief (Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___ (2011) ) - Assignment Example denied the accused’s indication to suppress the evidence; reason being that exigent circumstances (the need to prevent the elimination of evidence) vindicated the warrantless entrance. The respondent reserved his right to appeal the decision by a lower court. The Court of Appeal of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the Circuit court, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision. Procedural History of the case: the King moved to court and filed an appeal to reverse the decision of the Circuit court which was affirmed by the Kentucky court of Appeals, which had come to a finding that the officers had a reasonable basis to investigate the marijuana odor and that they properly carried out the investigation by firstly knocking on the door of the apartment and anticipating a response .The court also held that the exigent circumstances vindicated the warrantless entry since there was no response from the apartment when the officers knocked and one officer heard movement in the apartment which he thought were people trying to destroy evidence. The respondent was sentenced for 11 years imprisonment. The respondent reserved his right to appeal the decision by a lower court. The Court of Appeal of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the Circuit court, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision. Holding and reasoning of the case: The court held the opinion that the police should have foreseen that their action would have impelled the occupants to purge the evidence. The court determined that the exigent circumstances rule did not apply in this case. The exigent circumstances rule usually applies in circumstances when police fail to create the exigency by engaging themselves in the conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. This amendment (fourth amendment) brings about requirements: all searches and seizure ought to be sensible and the scope of the search should be well set out and a warrant may not be issued unless a justifiable cause is established. The presumption