Aarushhh/wikipedia-simple-splitted huggingface dataset:
Unfortunately, the Sixth Amendment only said that people had the right to have a lawyer.  It did not give any more details about this right.  Here are some examples of things it did not say:
 Was any lawyer good enough?  Did he have to be a good lawyer?  If so, how good?
 How could the laws measure whether a lawyer was good enough to give a client a fair trial?
 If a defendant got an unfair trial because of ineffective assistance of counsel, what should happen to the defendant?
Strickland v. Washington
The Supreme Court tried to answer some of these questions in a case called Strickland v. Washington, .  In this case, the court ruled that there were two things a defendant would have to show in order to prove that they had ineffective assistance of counsel.  This became known as the "Strickland test":
 Their lawyer made mistakes that were "so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment."
 The lawyer's mistakes prevented the defendant from having a fair trial.   If the defendant had a competent attorney, the result of their trial would have been different.  They would have been found not guilty and set free, or they would have gotten a sentence less severe than the death penalty
This second part was important.  After Stirickland, the states' appeals courts ruled that convictions were legal even in cases where the defense attorney:
 Fell asleep during the trial
 Was drunk throughout the trial
 Was senile
 Was mentally ill and talking about his delusions during the trial
 Was a convicted felon who was working on writing questions in court as part of his punishment (he had no legal training).

There was an important reason why these cases did not qualify as "ineffective assistance of counsel."  The prisoners who brought the cases to the Supreme Court could not prove the second piece of the "Strickland test."  They could not prove that if they had different lawyers, their trials would have turned out differently.  There was so much evidence against them, and they were so obviously guilty, that the appeals courts decided having a different lawyer would not have made any difference.  No lawyer could have saved these cases, the state courts basically said.
Ineffective counsel & the death penalty

The issue of ineffective counsel is important in the debate over capital punishment in the United States.  The University of Michigan Law School keeps a list of people who have been exonerated from death row.  The list counts "exonerations" as cases where "a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of innocence."

According to the list, between 1989 and 2015, 116 people have been exonerated from death row.  Over one out of every four of these people were exonerated because an appeals court ruled they had received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Related pages
 Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
 Due process
 Appeal court
 Capital punishment in the United States

Notes

References

Criminal justice
United States law
Barisal Sadar () is an Upazila of Barisal District in the Division of Barisal, Bangladesh.

Population
The population of Barisal Sadar Upazila is 527,017. Males are 52.72% of the population, and females 47.28%. The population density is about 1625 people per km².

References

Subdivisions of Bangladesh
Barisal Division
Peristalsis is a process of contraction and relaxation of the muscle around parts of the alimentary canal. Peristalsis is also a series of contractions that pass from the mouth to the stomach.

The most familiar example of this is in the oesophagus. In the oesophagus, peristalsis pushes the ball of food down the oesophagus. The smooth muscle of the oesophagus contracts and relaxes in sequence, and this pushes the ball of food down the oesophagus.

The muscle is worked by a nervous mechanism called the "migrating motor complex". This works in one direction only, and also works in the lower regions of the digestive system.

Digestive system
The Institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace (ISAE-SUPAERO; ) is a renowned graduate engineering school in France. It is in a campus of the University of Toulouse (South France).

Its different curricula lead to the following French & European degrees :
 Ingénieur SUPAERO (SUPAERO Graduate engineer Masters level program)
 Master of Science & Doctorat (PhD doctorate studies )
 Mastères Spécialisés (MS) (In partnership with the French Civil Aviation University)
 Massive Online Open Course

Academic activities and industrial applied research are performed mainly in French and English languages. Students from a lot of nationalities participate to the different curricula at SUPAERO.

Most of the 1600 graduate engineer students at ISAE-SUPAERO live in dedicated residential buildings nearby research labs and metro public transports.
History 
The school results from the École nationale supérieure de l'aéronautique et de l'espace (created In 1909) and the École nationale supérieure d'ingénieurs de construction aéronautique (created in 1946).

Admission 
Admission to the Supaero engineering Programme implemented at ISAE is possible after two/three year scientific undergraduate studies and requires success to either:
 an admission exam for Bachelors of Sciences ;
 a French nationwide selective exam with numerus clausus : concours Mines-Ponts (3-year curriculum including at least 2 years in France)
 a selective application as per Top Industrial Managers for Europe (TIME) double degrees procedures applicable in Europe (2+2-year curriculum, including 2 years in France)

The Supaero Programme typically lasts three years and results in a master's degree, augmented with international experience. Thus undergraduate studies + the Supaero Programme account for more than a cumulated 300 ECTS credits as applicable in the European education system.
However, graduate students enrolled in the TIME double degree procedure are required to spend two-years at ISAE and spend two years in the TIME-partner institute for a total of four years resulting in a double master's degree.

Research labs 
Research activities at ISAE relate to the following topics:
 Aerodynamics, energetics, propulsion
 Mechanics of structure and materials
 Electronics, optronics and signal
 Mathematics, computer science, automatics
 Languages, arts, cultures, societies
 Aeronautics and Space Centre

Notable graduate 
 Guy du Merle, French aerospace engineer, pilot and writer

References

Further reading 

 Official website

Technical colleges and universities in Toulouse
1909 establishments in France
The Libertarian Party (Spanish: Partido Libertario or P-LIB) is a Spanish political party. It was formed in 2009. It is currently led by Juan Pina.

The party believes in classical liberalism and that government should stay out of economics. They also believe in objectivism. They believethat governments should only be able to protect people from violence, theft, fraud, and other actions that go against people's rights. The party is open to some more libertarian and anarcho-capitalism ideas. There are two groups within the party; the Objectivist and Radicals. Most party members aren't involved with these groups.

The party took part in the 2011 Spanish general election in Madrid and Zaragoza. They received about 7,000 votes to the Senate and over 2,000 (0.01 %) to the Congress.

Other websites 
Official website (in Spanish)

References 

Libertarian parties
Political parties in Spain
European Canadians (sometimes called Euro-Canadians) are Canadians with ancestry from Europe. As of 2011, there were 25,186,890 European Canadians in Canada.

The French were the first Europeans to live in Canada permanently. Hélène Desportes was the first "white" person born in New France. She was born in 1620.

In 2006, most European Canadians had English ancestry (21.03%). Other common ancestries were French (15.82%), Scottish (15.11%), Irish (13.94%), German (10.18%) then Italian (4.63%). However, 32.22% of people said they had Canadian ancestry. Because of this, some people think the numbers for the English and French ancestry are too low.

Most European Canadians are Christian. A small number of them are Jews, Deists, Agnostics, Atheists, Muslims, Bahá'ís, Paganists/Wiccas and Unitarian Universalists. Most also speak English and French.

References 

Ethnic groups in Canada
Latin American Canadians are Canadians with ancestry from Latin America. They may also be called "Latino Canadian" and "Latin Canadian". As of 2011, there were 381,280 Latin American Canadians in Canada.

Most Latin American Canadians speak two or more languages. They usually speak Spanish and/or Portuguese along with English and French.

A lot of Latin American Canadians came to Canada in the late 20th century. They came to Canada because it has better economic opportunities than their native country. Some Cubans came to Canada to escape Fidel Castro's regime. Other Latino Americans left their country because Canada offered freedom from war.

In 2011, most Latin American Canadians had Mexican ancestry (18.6%). Other common ancestries were Colombian (16.2%), Salvadoran (11.7%), Peruvian (7.1%), Chilean (6.7%) and Brazilian (6.1%).

Almost all Latino American Canadians are Christian.

References 

Ethnic groups in Canada
Roper v. Simmons, , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court.  The Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute a person for crimes they committed before they were 18 years old. This decision affected 25 states in the country, which still allowed executions of children under age 18.  Also, the decision reversed the Court's past ruling in Stanford v. Kentucky, , which had said that executions of children ages 1618 were sometimes legal.

History
The first known juvenile (child under the age of 18) to be executed in America was Thomas Granger.  In 1642, he was executed at age 16 or 17 for sodomy.  Between 1642 and 2016, 364 juveniles have been executed in the United States.
Until 1988, the Supreme Court had put no limits on how old a person had to be in order to be executed.  This meant each state could set their own rules.  In some states, the minimum age for execution was as low as 14.  For example, in 1944, South Carolina executed a 14-year-old boy named George Stinney in the electric chair.  Stinney was the youngest person in the United States to be convicted and executed during the 20th century.

Juvenile executions were much more common earlier on.  However, between 1976 and 2005, twenty-two juveniles were executed.

The Supreme Court started to set some limits on juvenile executions in the late 1980s.  In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled in Thompson v. Oklahoma that children under the age of sixteen could not be executed.  However, the next year, in Stanford v. Kentucky, the Court ruled that juveniles ages 16 and 17 could be given the death penalty.

Background
Background

Crime and trial
The Simmons case started in Missouri in 1993.  Christopher Simmons, who was 17, made a plan to murder a woman named Shirley Crook.  He brought two younger friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, into the plan. They planned to break into Crook's house, steal things, tie Crook up, and throw her off a bridge.  Tessmer dropped out of the plan at the last minute.  However, Simmons and Benjamin broke into Crook's home, drove her to a state park, and threw her off a bridge.

Simmons and Benjamin were caught and put on trial.  There was a lot of evidence of what they had done.  Simmons had admitted to the murder.  Tessmer testifid against Simmons and said Simmons had planned the crime ahead of time.  (In American law, thinking about killing someone ahead of time makes the killing first degree murder.)  The jury found Simmons guilty, and recommended a death sentence.  The judge agreed.

Appeals
Appeals

Simmons appealed his conviction.  Each appeals court which heard his case agreed with the original jury's death sentence.  Then the United States Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304 (2002) that executing people with intellectual disabilities was unconstitutional.  Encouraged, Simmons filed a new petition to the Supreme Court of Missouri.  That court decided that "a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders," meaning that across the country, most Americans disagreed with executing juveniles.  The court ruled that executing juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment, which violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  They changed Simmons' sentence from death to life in prison.

The State of Missouri appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.  The Court agreed to hear the case.
Decision
This case divided the Supreme Court.  In a vote of 5-4, they ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute people who were juveniles when they committed their crimes.  This means that executing these people is against the Eighth Amendment, and is unconstitutional.  This decision made it illegal for any state in the country to execute someone who was under the age of 18 when they committed their crime.

The Court had a few reasons for making this decision.  First, they argued that juveniles are not as mature as adults.  They wrote that there is a lot of research showing that:
 Teenagers are more reckless and more likely to make decisions without thinking them through
 Teenagers have less control over their behavior
 Teenagers are more likely to do things because of peer pressure, not because they want to

The Court pointed out that most states realized these things, which is why they kept teenagers from voting, being on juries, or getting married without their parents' approval.
The Court also agreed with the Missouri Supreme Court that there was a "national consensus" against executing people who committed their crimes as juveniles.

Finally, the Court looked at what other countries in the world did.  They wrote that:
 Only 7 countries other than the United States had ever executed juvenile offenders: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and China
 However, since 1990, each of these 7 countries had stopped using the death penalty for juvenile offenders
 The United States was the only country left in the world that executed juvenile offenders

Effects

Effects on other death row prisoners
When the Supreme Court decided Roper, there were 72 other prisoners in the United States who were on death row because of crimes they committed as juveniles:

These people were not set free.  However, their death sentences were automatically cancelled and they were sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison instead.
Related pages
 Capital punishment in the United States

References

2005 in the United States
Capital punishment in the United States
2000s in Missouri
United States Supreme Court cases
Peremptory vs for cause 
To insure an impartial jury, during voir dire, prospective jurors are questioned by the lawyers and the court. Either lawyer may challenge a juror for cause. Reasons may include the prospective juror's opinions on issues, personal knowledge of the case, their occupation or any reason to believe the juror may not be able to be fair. Unlike peremptory challenges, challenges for cause may not be limited to a certain number in most jurisdictions. The reason for either type of challenge is that each lawyer is trying to find jurors who are sympathetic to their case.
History 
The peremptory challenge has its roots in Roman law. Both parties would propose up to 100 prospective jurors, then each could strike 50. This left a total of 100 jurors on the jury. In English common law, a prosecutor had an unlimited number of peremptory challenges while the defendant has 35. In 1305, the Parliament of England eliminated all peremptory challenges for the prosecution. In 1988, Parliament eliminated all peremptory challenges for the defense. Peremptory challenges came to the United States with the colonists and Common Law. Peremptory challenges remained much the same until the late 20th century.

Peremptory challenges and the Supreme Court 
The following observation is attributed to Mark Twain:
While the right to use peremptory challenges is not guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, The Supreme Court has held peremptory challenges are "to assure the parties that the jurors before whom they try the case will decide on the basis of the evidence placed before them, and not otherwise."

Three Supreme Court decisions have shaped the modern peremptory challenge:
 In Turner v. Murray, , the Court held that in "special circumstances" judges must question potential jurors about racial prejudice to prevent a biased jury.
 In Batson v. Kentucky, , prosecutors may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race as it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 In Tanner v. United States, , the Court held that a jury verdict would not be overturned even when the jury had been consuming copious amounts of alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during the trial and deliberations.

Notes

References 

Legal terms
Batson v. Kentucky, , was a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges in a criminal case may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge. This is based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Later  decisions have resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases. For example, in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, the Court allowed private litigants to use this challenge. The Supreme Court also allowed it in cases are excluded on the basis of gender as in J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B..
 
The principle had been established previously by several state courts, including the California Supreme Court in 1978, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1979 and the Florida Supreme Court in 1984.
Background
James Kirkland Batson was an African American man convicted of burglary and receipt of stolen goods in a Louisville, Kentucky circuit court by a jury composed entirely of white jurors. The key part of his appeal was based on the voir dire (jury selection) phase of the trial. During this phase potential jurors are examined by the Court, the prosecution, and the defense, to determine their competence, willingness, and suitability to hear, deliberate and decide a case put to them in order to render a verdict. During voir dire the judge can dismiss jurors and both the prosecution and the defense have a limited number of peremptory challenges which they use to excuse any juror for any reason. Each side does this to help their case. Each side also may dismiss jurors for cause (for example, bias).
In Batson, the judge dismissed several potential jurors for various causes. The defense peremptorily challenged nine potential jurors and the prosecution peremptorily challenged six, including all four black persons. As a result, only white persons were selected. The defense counsel moved to discharge the whole jury on the ground that the prosecutor's removal of the black jurors violated petitioner's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community, and under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws. Without expressly ruling on petitioner's request for a Hearing, the trial judge denied the motion, and the jury ultimately convicted the defendant.
The defendant appealed his conviction to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. That court cited Swain v. Alabama, and held that a defendant claiming lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the panel of prospective jurors. That is, the defendant had to show that not just in his case, but as a process, juries in his community did not represent a cross section of that community. Batson continued his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to decide whether petitioner was tried "in violation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing the defendant an impartial jury and a jury composed of persons representing a fair cross section of the community."
The Supreme Court's decision
In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Lewis Powell, the Supreme Court ruled in Batson's favor. The court overruled Swain v. Alabama by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must meet to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. In Swain, the Court had recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause", but that the defendant had the burden of proving a systematic striking of black jurors throughout the county, that is, that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted. In Batson the court ruled that the defendant could make a prima facie case for purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record only in his own case. The Court explained:
The Court also held that:
 A State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposely excluded;
 A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors
 The peremptory challenge occupies an important position in trial procedures.

Justice Marshall, concurring with the majority, called the decision "historic" but added: "The decision today will not end the racial discrimination that peremptories inject into the jury-selection process. That goal can be accomplished only by eliminating peremptory challenges entirely."
Dissents
In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger argued that the court's decision in Batson "sets aside the peremptory challenge, a procedure which has been part of the common law for many centuries and part of our jury system for nearly 200 years". He believed the majority was replacing peremptory challenges with something very similar to challenge for cause, but was unclear in explaining the standard to be applied. "I am at a loss to discern the governing principles here," he wrote. "I join my colleagues in wishing the nation's judges well as they struggle to grasp how to implement today's holding."
Justice Rehnquist wrote that the majority misapplied equal protection doctrine: "In my view, there is simply nothing 'unequal' about the state using its peremptory challenges to strike blacks from the jury in cases involving black defendants, so long as such challenges are also used to exclude whites in cases involving white defendants, Hispanics in cases involving Hispanic defendants, Asians in cases involving Asian defendants, and so on."

Impact
Whether the principles of Batson applied retroactively to anyone convicted previously by juries whose racial composition was influenced by peremptory challenges not consistent with this opinion was for a time uncertain. In Allen v. Hardy (1986), the Court held that it did not apply retroactively to collateral review of final convictions. In Griffith v. Kentucky (1987), it decided it would apply it in cases on direct review.
Batson challenge
The term Batson challenge describes an objection to opposing counsel's use of a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror from the jury pool based on criteria the courts have found disqualifying, as race was the sole rationale for exclusion in Batson.

In some cases, parties have appealed a verdict or judgment and asked it be made invalid because one or more peremptory challenges excluded a recognizable group from the jury. Though the Batson decision addressed jury selection in criminal trials, in 1991 the Supreme Court later extended the same rule to civil trials in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company. In 1994, in  J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.., the Court held that peremptory challenges based on sex alone violated the standard established in Batson as well.

Notes

References

Other websites 
SmithKline v. Abbott

1986 in the United States
20th century in Kentucky
United States Supreme Court cases
1980s in law
Polearms were long sticks that had a blade on the side. They were similar to an axe, but much longer. They were also used by women in ancient Japan.

Weapons
Citizenship in the United States means being a citizen of the United States.  A person who has citizenship is called a citizen. Citizenship does not just mean that a person lives in the United States. United States citizenship gives people many rights, many protections, and also some duties.

Types of citizenship
There are two ways that people can become citizens of the United States.

The first is called "birthright citizenship."  Anybody who is born in the United States automatically becomes a United States citizen.

The second is called "naturalization."  This is for people who were born outside the United States.  A person becomes a naturalized citizen if they apply for citizenship and are approved.

Once a person is a naturalized citizen, they have all of the same rights, protections, and duties as a person who was born in the United States.

What it means to be a citizen

Rights
Being a United States citizen gives a person many rights.  Here is a list of some of these rights.
Freedom to live and work in the United States.  Once a person is a citizen, nobody can take away their right to live in the United States.  Nobody can make them leave the country.  The government cannot deport a citizen, like it can with non-citizens.
 Freedom to enter and leave the United States.  Citizens can leave the United States for any amount of time they want to.  They can always come back.
 Freedom to choose the government by voting.  Voting is free and secret.  Nobody can be told they cannot vote because of their race, ethnicity, skin color, home country, disability, age, gender, or the language they speak.  Citizens do not have to vote.
Duties
Citizenship also comes with duties.  Here are some of those duties.
 Jury duty.  Only citizens can serve on juries.
 Military participation (if needed). Citizens do not have to serve in the United States military.  As of 2016, the United States has an all-volunteer military.  However, in the past, the United States has used "a draft" to call people up to serve as soldiers.  This has not happened since the Vietnam War.  Still, male United States citizens have to sign up with the Selective Service System so they could be called up if there were a draft in the future.
 Taxes. All American citizens, including those who live in other countries permanently, must file a federal income tax report (called a "return"), even if they do not live in the United States.  United States citizens are taxed on their income no matter where in the world they live or earn that money.
Laws and loyalty. When a person becomes a United States citizen, they take an oath that says they promise they will be loyal to the United States; follow the laws of the United States; and obey the Constitution.
Benefits and protections
 Consular protection while traveling in other countries. The United States has consulates, or embassies, in most other countries.  Their job is to help American citizens who have problems in those countries.  If a citizen is traveling in another country and gets arrested, they can ask to speak to someone from the U.S. Embassy.  The Embassy can give advice and may be able to help.
 It is easier to sponsor relatives who want to come to the United States: To get some types of immigrant visas (called IR and F visas), a person must be related to a U.S. citizen.
 Citizens' children become citizens even if they are born in other countries. Usually, if both parents are United States citizens, and their child is born in another country, the child automatically becomes a United States citizen.  If only one parent is a U.S. citizen, it depends on how long that parent has been in the United States.
Protection from deportation. Once a person becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen, they cannot be deported.
 Protection from losing citizenship.  Once a person has United States citizenship, no one (including the United States government) can take it away from them, unless the person asks to give up their citizenship or gained naturalization illegally.
Renouncement of citizenship
Americans are permitted to formally abandon their citizenship, even if they do not possess another citizenship and become stateless as a result. Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was an American citizen because he was born there.  He renounced his American citizenship in 2016.  5411 other Americans renounced their citizenship in the same year.

References

Other websites
 10 Steps to Naturalization: Understanding the Process of Becoming a U.S. Citizen (in Simple English)
 United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (official website about citizenship and naturalization issues)
United States law
Citizenship
Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974), was a landmark case decided by a United States federal court called the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The case had to do with the rights of prisoners at Mississippi State Penitentiary (usually called "Parchman").

Gates v. Collier is a very important case for prisoners' rights.  It was the first case to rule that many types of physical punishment against prisoners are cruel and unusual punishment, and are against the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  It was also the first time that the Supreme Court started supervising how the country's prisons were being run.

Background

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution says that the state cannot give cruel and unusual punishments to anyone.

Parchman opened in 1903.  At the prison, there was a program called the "trusty system."  This was a system where some prisoners had more rights and freedoms than others.  They also had power over the other inmates.
The Governor of Mississippi, James K. Vardaman, said the prison was run “like an efficient slave plantation.”  Trusties had guns and were allowed to shoot at prisoners who stepped out of line.  Other punishments were painful and severe.  The prison also segregated (separated) black and white prisoners.  

For years, there were protests over civil rights abuses at Parchman.  Eventually, civil rights lawyer Roy Haber began to collect evidence of the abuse.  With Haber as their lawyer, four prisoners filed a lawsuit in federal court, saying that conditions at the prison were cruel and unusual.  They said that prison trusties and guards punished and tortured prisoners in ways that were painful and humiliating on purpose.

Lower court decision
The prisoners' lawsuit, Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881 (1972), went first  to a federal court called the United States District Court N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division.  This court ruled strongly in favor of the prisoners
The court found that Parchman's trusties and guards gave many cruel and unusual punishments, including:  
 Beatings
 Shooting at or around prisoners, sometimes hitting them
 Taking away prisoners' clothes
 Turning fans on prisoners while they were naked and wet
 Not giving inmates food, mattresses, or items for hygiene
 Handcuffing prisoners to fences or bars
 Using a cattle prod on prisoners
 Forcing prisoners to stand for long periods of time
 Putting inmates in stress positions (positions that are painful)
The court ruled that the prison had violated the prisoner's rights under the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.  The court ordered the prison to make many different changes to fix these abuses.  It also ordered the prison to end the trusty system.

Fifth Circuit decision
The state of Mississippi appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  However, the Fifth Circuit also agreed with the lower court's earlier decision.  Federal Judge William C. Keady wrote that Parchman Farm had violated "modern standards of decency".  He ordered an immediate end to all unconstitutional conditions and practices.

The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that Parchman was using cruel and unusual punishments on its prisoners.  It was violating their rights to be protected by the laws  which apply to prisoners, too.

Effects
After the court decision, Parchman had to end its trusty system.  It also stopped segregating its prisoners.
After the court decision, other states that used the trusty system had to stop using it too.  These states included Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas.

This decision also set some important precedents.  One is that even prisoners have the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment.  Americans' constitutional rights do not all stop when a person goes to prison.  It also limited the type of punishments that prisons can use.

Notes

Related pages
 Cruel and unusual punishment

References

1974 in the United States
American civil rights
1970s in Mississippi
Human rights abuses in the United States
1970s in law
Sher-e-Bangla Medical College (SBMC), is a government medical school in  Bangladesh, established in 1968. It is located in Barisal.

History
Construction began on the college on 6 November 1964, at that time it was known as Barisal Medical College.

Campus
There are three hostels for male students and two for the female students. Both male and female intern doctors have each one hostel for them.

Photo Gallery

References

Barisal
1968 establishments
Colleges and universities in Bangladesh
Medical education
The diaeresis (plural: diaereses) is also spelled diæresis or dieresis. It is a diacritical mark: two dots ( ¨ ) put over a letter, usually a vowel.

It is most often used in this way:

With a diacritic, one vowel is sounded separately from its neighbour. So, in the word zöology, it is pronounced as a long 'o' followed by a short 'o'. Without the diaeresis, it might be pronounced like the word 'zoo'. It is sometimes described as "two vowel sounds occurring in adjacent syllables". It is often used in names where the last vowel is sounded, as in Chloë or Brontë.

Umlauts: A diacritic above a vowel can mark a sound shift, forming a new letter (Ä, Ö, Ü).

Notes 

Punctuation
The Château de Saint Cloud was a château in Paris, France. It was sometimes called the Palace of Saint Cloud. It was burned down during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. It was once a private property of Queen Marie Antoinette. Since December 2006, there has been a movement to rebuild the Château de Saint-Cloud.

Early history

The building was originally called the "he Hôtel d'Aulnay". In the 16h century, it was expanded into a château by the Gondi banking family. The estate was in the hands of the Gondi family till 1658. At that time it was bought by Philippe of France, Duke of Orléans, the only brother of Louis XIV of France. The estate remained the personal property of the descendants of Philippe of France. It was a country residence, as opposed to the Palais Royal in the center of Paris.
Queen Marie Antoinette
After negotiating for a long time, the Château de Saint-Cloud was bought in 1785 by Louis XVI. He bought it for Marie Antoinette. She thought that the air of Saint-Cloud would be good for her children. Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans, who had not visited the château since his morganatic marriage to his mistress Madame de Montesson, sold it for 6,000,000 livres. Marie Antoinette started changing Saint-Cloud in 1787-1788. She used her preferred architect Richard Mique. He had also decorated parts of the Palace of Versailles for the queen.

Emperor Napoléon III

During the Second Empire, Emperor Napoléon III and Empress Eugénie held their imperial court at Saint-Cloud during the spring and the autumn. There was also a reception for Queen Victoria in honour of her 1855 visit to France. In 1859, a model railway was built in the private park. It was built for Napoléon, Prince Imperial, the 3-year-old son of emperor Napoléon III,.

Other websites
Other websites

Napoléon III et la reine Victoria. Une visite à l’Exposition Universelle de 1855
 Official site of the Domaine National de Saint-Cloud

Buildings and structures in Paris
Saint-Cloud
An essential oil is a liquid from a plant. Essential oils contain chemical compounds that are useful for their scent. They are used in aromatherapy. Perfumes are made with essential oils.

Around the world, essential oils are being studied in modern clinical trials to test ancient claims of healing. They are being studied for their effectiveness as antibacterial agents, fungicides, insecticides, pain relief, stress reduction, and skin problems.

Name

The name essential oil comes from theories in the Middle Ages of a fifth element. People than believed that there were four basic elements that everything was made of: fire, water, air and earth. The elusive "soul" of things was called the quintessential element or the fifth element. Over time, quintessential was shortened to essential. Alchemists said that this element could change iron to gold. Some believed it held the planets in their orbits.
Producing the essential oil
Most essential oils today are steam distilled. This process separates out the aromatic essential oils from the solid plant matter. With steam distillation, it can take thousands of pounds of plant matter to create just one liter of essential oil.

Other methods include expelling and solvent extraction. Expelling is using pressure to squeeze the essential oil out of the plant. This method is generally used for citrus oils. Solvent extraction uses substances such as carbon dioxide to extract the essential oil. This method is used for delicate plants such as rose and jasmine, which can be too fragile to go through the distillation process.

Plants
Chemicals
Oils
A birch tree is a thinleaved deciduous hardwood tree of the genus Betula. They are in the family Betulaceae, which also includes alders, hazels, and hornbeams.

Betula contains 30 to 60 species of which 11 are on the IUCN 2011 Green List of Threatened Species. They are usually rather short-lived pioneer species widespread in the Northern Hemisphere.

References 

Trees
Betulaceae
Brown v. Board of Education II (often called Brown II) was a Supreme Court case decided in 1955.  The year before, the Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education, which made racial segregation in schools illegal.  However, many all-white schools in the United States had not followed this ruling and still had not integrated (allowed black children into) their schools.  In Brown II, the Court ordered them to integrate their schools "with all deliberate speed."  

In Brown II, the Supreme Court also set out rules about what schools needed to do to de-segregate.  Finally, it explained how the United States government would make sure the schools did de-segregate.

Background
Background

After the Supreme Court decided the original Brown case, it planned to hear arguments during its next court session about just how school de-segregation was going to happen.  Segregation in United States schools had existed for centuries.  The Court understood that it would not be easy to get the states to follow its ruling and de-segregate their schools.  

Also, in its ruling in Brown, the Court had not given the states any instructions for how to end school segregation.  The Court had also not given the states a deadline for when they needed to de-segregate their schools.  These were all details that the Supreme Court needed to decide in Brown II.
Combined cases
When it decided the original Brown case in 1954, the Supreme Court had combined Brown with four other cases.  The Court decided all five cases together as one, which it called Brown v. Board of Education.  This meant that in Brown II, the Court was again deciding about five different cases.  These were:
 Brown v. Board of Education
 Bolling v. Sharp (filed in Washington, D.C.)
 Briggs v. Elliot (filed in South Carolina)
 Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (filed in Virginia)
 Gebhart v. Belton (filed in Delaware)

Legal issues
There were a few legal questions that the Supreme Court had to decide in Brown II.  For example:
 What rules should the Court set to make sure schools de-segregated?
 What rules should the Court set about when schools had to de-segregate?
 If the schools had violated black students' rights by not following the original Brown decision, what should be done?  What relief should the students get?  (What could the Court do to fix the problem?)

Arguments
Arguments

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), whose lawyers had won Brown, argued that school de-segregation should begin right away.  The states argued back that this would be too difficult and too expensive, and that they needed more time to de-segregate.

Decision
In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ordered the states to start trying to obey the Brown decision and de-segregate their schools.  It ordered the states to start making plans about how they were going to integrate their schools.

However, the Court refused to order the schools to integrate right away, like the NAACP had wanted.  It also did not set any clear deadline for when schools needed to be de-segregated.  In the Court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the states should integrate "with all deliberate speed."
To many people, it was not clear exactly what this meant.  It also meant that the Court was denying relief to the black students in the Brown lawsuits.  As constitutional law scholar Steven Emanuel explains:

Instead of ordering the states to de-segregate right away, the Court created a slower plan.  It gave federal district courts the power to look after whether schools were de-segregating.  Justice Warren wrote: "[These] courts will [make sure] that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start" toward obeying Brown.

Effects

Brown II did make it clear that schools in the United States would have to de-segregate.  It also set out a process for making sure schools integrated, by giving federal district courts the power to supervise the schools, control how long they could have to de-segregate, and punish them if they refused to integrate.
However, many states, especially in the South, were able to avoid integrating their schools for years because Brown II did not set a specific deadline for integration.  Justice Warren's ruling that schools needed to de-segregate "with all deliberate speed" was vague and could have many different meanings.  States and schools that did not want to integrate chose meanings that gave them excuses not to let black students into their schools.

The Griffin case

For example, based on the Brown II ruling, a federal district court ruled that Prince Edward County, Virginia, did not have to de-segregate its schools right away.  Several years later, in 1959, a federal court of appeals ordered the county to start de-segregating its schools.  Prince Edward County responded by refusing to fund (give any money to) the county's schools.  With no money, the schools had to close.  They stayed closed for five years, from 1959 to 1964.
Prince Edward County helped white students go to white-only private schools.  Black students could not go to school at all, unless they moved to a different county.  

Finally, in 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that what Prince Edward County was doing was unconstitutional, and ordered the schools to re-open  without segregation.

Related pages
 Brown v. Board of Education
 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (makes school segregation illegal)
 Racial segregation in the United States

Notes

References

1955 in the United States
American civil rights
Topeka, Kansas
United States law
United States Supreme Court cases
1950s in law
Joseph Weizenbaum (8 January 1923 - 5 March 2008) was a German-American mathematician and computer scientist. He was born in Berlin. He became famous for writing the program ELIZA, which simulated a doctor, in the 1960s. He also became well-known for having a critical attitude to what computers can and should do. Weizenbaum died of a stroke at age 85, in 2008.

1923 births
2005 deaths
German mathematicians
Scientists from Berlin
Benjamin Franklin Tilley (March 29, 1848 in Bristol, Rhode Island – March 18, 1907 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) was an admiral in the US Navy who served in the American Civil War and the Spanish-American War. He was also governor of American Samoa.

1848 births
1907 deaths
American admirals
American military personnel of the Spanish-American War
Governors of American Samoa
Military personnel of the American Civil War
Politicians from Rhode Island
Military people from Rhode Island
The Black Hills are a small mountain range from the Great Plains of North America in South Dakota.

Native Americans have a long history in the Black Hills. After conquering the Cheyenne in 1776, the Lakota took over the territory of the Black Hills. 

In 1868, the U.S. government signed the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. This exempted the Black Hills from all white settlement forever. 

But, when European Americans discovered gold there in 1874, miners swept into the area in a gold rush. The US government reassigned the Lakota, against their wishes, to other reservations in western South Dakota. Unlike most of South Dakota, the Black Hills were settled by European Americans from population centers to the west and south. Miners flocked there from earlier gold boom places in Colorado and Montana.
As the economy shifted from mining and logging, the tourism industry has grown. The Black Hills have two areas: "The Southern Hills" and "The Northern Hills". The Southern Hills is home to Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument, Harney Peak (the highest point in the United States east of the Rockies), Custer State Park (the largest state park in South Dakota, and one of the largest in the US), the Crazy Horse Memorial (the largest Mountain sculpture in the world), and the Mammoth Site in Hot Springs, the world’s largest mammoth research facility.

Mountain ranges of the United States
Mountains of the United States
The Corn Palace is an arena in Mitchell, South Dakota. The designs on the buildings are covered in corn and other grains.

The Corn Palace has concerts, sports events, exhibits and other community events. Each year, the Corn Palace is celebrated with a citywide festival, the Corn Palace Festival. Historically it was held at harvest time in September, but now it happens in August. Other popular annual events include the Corn Palace Stampede Rodeo in July and the Corn Palace Polka Festival in September. It is also where the Dakota Wesleyan University Tigers and the Mitchell High School Kernels basketball teams play their games.

References

Other websites 

 Corn Palace Convention & Visitors Bureau
 Corn Palace Stampede Rodeo
 Corn Palace Fan Site

South Dakota
Buildings and structures in the United States
The Chaplain-Medic massacre was a crime in the Korean War. It happened on a mountain in South Korea. Thirty unarmed, and critically wounded United States Army soldiers and an unarmed chaplain were killed by people of the North Korean army during the Battle of Taejon.

Korean War