In the novel, "To kill a Mockingbird" why did Aticus remove his jacket in the courtroom?
369964
I believe it was out of respect for the defendent.  I don't believe the defendent had a jacket on at the trial.  The symbolism throughout the movie was portraying Atticus as a man of higher authority.  The camera angle always was looking up at him.  I think when he took the jacket off he wanted to be thought of as being on the defendents level, not better than everyone else.
947146
Because Scout is being raised as a strong, independent girl instead of a subservient, dress wearing southern girl. Atticus does not punish them with spankings, and he treats them as responsible individuals. Because of this, they respect people who deserve respect because of their actions rather than social status. Alexandra can't see beyond social status and thinks that "fine folks" are ones who have owned land for multiple generations. By her definition, the Ewells are "fine folks". This differs with Atticus's ideas that "fine folks" are "people who do the best they can with what they got". Alexandra believes Atticus is teaching the kids incorrectly by not making them believe that social status is important.
699880
On July 11, 1960 J. B. Lippincott of Philadelphia published To Kill a Mockingbird. It was priced at $3.95. \n\nTo read the full publishing history please visit:\n\nhttp://www.chebucto.ns.ca/culture/mockingbird/publishing.html
206233
He's enquiring -- think of his trip to the shop to buy the forbidden paper notebook and his doomed "research" with the old prole in the pub.  He's something of a dissident, and happy to be drawn into O'Brien's plot.  He's sexually and emotionally starved.  You might say he's cowardly in the end, but Orwell's point is I think that bravery is impossible under a totalitarian system, which will enforce conformity at all costs.  Any help?
985627
Civil cases are more lenient on presenting evidence than the criminal courts. That is why he was convicted in the civil trials; but note, he filed bankruptcy and never paid.\n\nI don't see the problem lying within the court system. I see the problem lying within the public. When you get a group of morons who are easily led by propaganda and soundbytes, (if it doesn't fit then you must acquit in reference to the glove), then you will win everytime.\n\nThe jury had such a low intellect that they really believed a person couldn't crook up their hand and make it look like a glove could barely go on. They ignored blood of the victims in the Bronco floorboard, etc...\n\nClearly, the problem was with the jury system. Maybe we should consider doing away with the jury system and rely only on judges.\n\nI mean seriously... look who the public has elected into TWO terms... we are idiots.
651449
Haha,I just did an essay on it.....\nBut,it's wrong to claim someone else's essay as your own,so I can't write it for you.\nI can give you some pointers,though.\n\nWell,you can write on Tom Robinson(in general), write about Francis's and Aunt Alexandra's reaction to Atticus taking the case,about Cecil Jacob's fight with Scout.You can write about the fact that Negroes and whites sit in different places in the courtroom.\n\nThe whole book is practically all about racism,so it won't be hard AT ALL to find quotes and evidence.Good luck :)
120292
To Kill A Mockingbird?  This is one of the best books ever written.  I seriously suggest reading it.
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.
148013
As flamedragon correctly points out, he didn't win, he lost. Darrow and his clients, Scopes and the ACLU, always knew they would lose the case and that was their intent. They wanted to lose the case and they did lose it.\n\nThe whole intention was for Darrow and Scopes to lose the case so it could be appealed to the Supreme Court and the law it was tried under proved unconstiutional.
892145
i remeber he got it during secret wars and used it for a while......15-20 issues until he found out it(the suit )was a live being that needed a host.  He beat the suit up.  after which it went and found a new host.  The suit is resposible for creating venom and then carnage.
290764
Hi,\nthe evidence you give is OK but there are billions of more examples. Here are some.\n1. Atticus' modesty: read the chapter about the dog shooting again and Jem's final words.\n\n2. Atticus' direct answers to direct questions 'what's rape?'\n\n3. His reasonable strictures: 'leave the Radleys alone'\n\n4. The way he makes Scout read to Miss Dubose and see an example of 'true bravery'\n\n5. 'turning the other cheek' when spat uopn by Ewell\n\nAll these can be reflected against the main event which is of course Tom's trial. \n\nAtticus is a father who gives his children an example in life: a way of life that shows it is wrong to persecute, be prejudiced, and that it is right to be modest, discreet and to stand up against oppression of the underdog, \n\nIn short he shows his children that it is a sin to kill a monckingbird, and no one can ask anymore than that surely as an example?\n\nDan
238426
To kill a Mocking Bird...By Harper Lee
267071
He has killed two men about two months prior. He grew out two dreads in his beard to remind him... one for each man. Their deaths were on his conscience. \n\nBut when he confessed his sin, the guilt was then released. It was more of a Catholic confession / forgiveness analogy. So he could remove the reminder because he was freed from the guilt after confession.\n\nDoes this make sense?
708437
I agree.  It's sort of like peer pressure, or just knowing that everyone else thinks it's right.  Like, during the trial, most people thought Tom was guilty, but Atticus still stood strong to defend the case, even though most people were influenced by the society.  I hope this helps.
810197
You don't say who made this request to the Coucil and in what circumstances.  It sounds as though the Council is being gently prodded to think things through and perhaps withdraw an action to recover what is owed on the grounds that the person is somewhat deranged or mentally handicapped.  Those hearing the case can't say such a thing outright, but they can drop loud hints to the effect that if a person isn't in a fit mental state to deal with his financial affairs, it is perhaps not a good thing to bring him to court, especially if he is arguing with deep conviction that he doesn't understand why he is being prosecuted and doesn't feel he owes anything.  Maybe now that we are not allowed to use Latin in court, "moral culpability" is the new "mens rea".
802498
Well, you are probably going to choose the first answer but I'll try anyway.  Perhaps one of the most life changing quotes in the book is on page 30, where Atticus teaches Scout that just because someone's different, you must think about their life before you judge them.  This lesson can be applied throughout the book.  There are a lot of racist times where this lesson is not being followed, especially in the Tom Robinson case.  Good luck!
765407
summary:\n\nScout (Jean Louise) Finch lives with her brother, Jem, and their widowed father, Atticus, in the sleepy Alabama county of Maycomb. Maycomb is suffering through the Great Depression, but Atticus is a prominent lawyer and the Finch family is reasonably well off in comparison to the rest of society. One summer, Jem and Scout befriend a boy named Charles Baker Harris (Dill), who has come to live in their neighborhood for the summer, and the trio acts out stories together. Eventually, Dill becomes fascinated with the spooky house on their street called the Radley Place. The house is owned by Mr. Nathan Radley, whose brother, Arthur (nicknamed Boo), has lived there for years without venturing outside in daylight.\n\nScout goes to school for the first time that fall and detests it. She and Jem find gifts apparently left for them in a knothole of a tree on the Radley property. Dill returns the following summer, and he, Scout, and Jem begin to act out the story of Boo Radley. Atticus puts a stop to their antics, urging the children to try to see life from another person’s perspective before making judgments. But, on Dill’s last night in Maycomb for the summer, the three sneak onto the Radley property, where Nathan Radley shoots at them. Jem loses his pants in the ensuing escape. When he returns for them, he finds them mended and hung over the fence. The next winter, Jem and Scout find more presents in the tree, presumably left by the mysterious Boo. Nathan Radley eventually plugs the knothole with cement.\n\nTo the consternation of Maycomb’s racist white community, Atticus agrees to defend a black man named Tom Robinson, who has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell. Because of Atticus’s decision, Jem and Scout are subjected to abuse from other children, even when they celebrate Christmas at the family compound on Finch’s Landing. Calpurnia, the Finches’ black cook, takes them to the local black church, where the warm and close-knit community largely embraces the children.\n\nAtticus’s sister, Alexandria, comes to live with the Finches the next summer. Dill, who is supposed to live with his “new father” in another town, runs away and comes to Maycomb. Tom Robinson’s trial begins, and when the accused man is placed in the local jail, a mob gathers to lynch him. Atticus faces the mob down the night before the trial. Jem, Dill, and Scout, who snuck out of the house, soon join him. Scout recognizes one of the men, and her polite questioning about his son shames him into dispersing the mob.\n\nAt the trial itself, the children sit in the “colored balcony” with the town’s black citizens. Atticus provides clear evidence that the accusers, Mayella Ewell and her father, Bob, are lying: in fact, Mayella propositioned Tom Robinson, was caught by her father, and then accused Tom of rape to cover her shame and guilt. Atticus provides impressive evidence that the marks on Mayella’s face are from wounds that her father inflicted; upon discovering her with Tom, he called her a whore and beat her. Yet, despite the significant evidence pointing to Tom’s innocence, the all-white jury convicts him. The innocent Tom later tries to escape from prison and is shot to death (though it might be that he tried to escape so he could get shot deliberately because he wanted to die looking like a hero. However, in the book, it is said that he could've escaped if he had two good arms instead of one). In the aftermath of the trial, Jem’s faith in justice is badly shaken, and he lapses into despondency and doubt.\n\nDespite the verdict, Bob Ewell feels that Atticus and the judge have made a fool out of him, and he vows revenge. He menaces Tom Robinson’s widow, tries to break into the judge’s house, and finally attacks Jem and Scout as they walk home from a halloween pageant at their school. Boo Radley intervenes, however, saving the children. Atticus at first believes that Jem fatally stabbed Mr. Ewell in the struggle.