RSS   Twitter   Sign inLogin or Sign-up

Rehberg v. Paulk olsonaplc

Written by olsonaplc-1a7

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

No one should have natural immunity in court if they are the ones that are guilty. If this was the way it was then this case probably wouldn’t be such a big deal. Even if it would happen to be the president of the United States and he commits a crime they should not receive natural immunity just because of who they are. A lot of times you see this happening with celebrities. The celebrities could commit the same crime a normal person would commit but instead the normal person gets a harsh penalty that they deserve and the celebrity gets off easy. In this case if they lied about false crimes just to get the other one in trouble I think this is wrong and natural immunity should not cover for what they did. Someone should look into the natural immunity thing and see if there is anyway they could change it for the better.


This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!