1. On December 18, 1791, a 12-year old Philadelphia apprentice, Dillon, was arrested for burning down several stables containing hay and other goods. He was told by his minister, his boss and others to confess for the good of his “body and soul” but he insisted he was innocent. He was then taken to the dungeon where he was shown the horror of what he would experience if he did not confess. He was told he would be confined in this dungeon, dark and cold and hungry. But if he confessed, he would be well given a nice room, fire, food, and may expect to receive pity from the court. Dillon continued to say he was innocent, but after he was kept in the dungeon for 2 days without heat, food, or water, he confessed. Dillon’s attorney said this confession was unreliable and illegal. Why would he argue this? Do you think Dillion’s rights were violated? Explain.

Dillion's rights were definitely violated. First of all, Dillion was a 12-year old boy, he was not even an adult. Second of all, Dillion was confined in an unhuman and dark place, suffering from cold, hunger, and thirst, and then was forced to confess. Even if he was guilty, his confession cannot be used against him because he was forced to do so. Third of all, the crime he was accused of was for burning stables and some other goods, he didn't murder someone. Dillion was tortured to make a confession, and therefore, his confession was a violation to his rights and cannot be valid.

mass production/ assembly line production

he believed that congress would be better not dealing with "lobbyists", or people who seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue, since historically, they had problems with these kinds of people. he thought lobbying produces benefits, but should be carefully monitored.