Posted: June 22nd, 2022

U.S. V. Bradley Dissent

Homework help – Write a one page dissent (approximately 500 words) to the U.S. v. Bradley decision. A dissent disagrees with the majorities controlling opinion. Identify the elements of the crime that are most vulnerable to arguing the other side and then provide facts from the case that support the argument counter to the Judge’s ruling.
—

U.S. V. Bradley Dissent
Your Name
Your Institution

U.S. V. Bradley Dissent
The majority ruling opinion convicted Timothy Bradley and Kathleen O’Dell for forcing their workers to work for tem against their will. The two defendants appeals against the ruling through claims of the court interpreting the instructions wrongly. Both Bradley and O’Dell deserve a different ruling since there was no evidence of forced labor, the employees were paid above the minimum wage, and it was hard to determine if the defendants were just abusive employers.
For the issue of forced labor, it is true that the law prohibits anyone to knowingly obtain labor from any unwilling individuals but the definitions against the act cover a wide scope of understanding. Forced labor can be done under threats where the victim is made to believe that they will face “any consequences” if they did not perform as instructed. Also, forced labor may be carried out through the use of restraints and immediate threats of harm. The fact that the sentencing court used the term dire consequences shows that there is a contradiction between the meaning of the term and the meaning in the districts court’s definition. There also wasn’t any evidence available to show that the victims were held against their will through the use of locked doors or handcuffs.
It is also important to consider the fact that the employees were paid above the minimum wage. It is believed that the employees stayed at the workplace because of the pay rather than the threats. This shows that they had other interests that made them remain at Bradley’s workplace and not because they had fear. The district court’s instruction states that: “Whether a person is paid a salary or a wage is not determinative of the question of whether that person has been held in forced labor. In other words, if a person is compelled to labor against his will by any one of the means prohibited by the forced labor statute, such service is forced, even if he is paid or compensated for the work”. Since it was not possible to prove that the labor was forced, then it is possible to say that the employees were motivated by the pay. When Clarke fled, Wilson could have fled with him as well but he chose to remain. One can be forced to say that Wilson was okay with the pay and did not see the need for fleeing. He ended up remaining at work until his Visa expired and then left at his own will.
It is also unclear to determine whether Bradley and O’Dell were abusive employers or they had intention of forced labor. This is because they did not inflict any serious bodily harm or carry out the threats they issued. They probably may have intended to show their workers that they were strict employers who did not like mistakes. The defendants claim that the threats they made were “innocent” which is true if all threats made by employers are regarded. Every now and then, an employer may threaten an employee due to poor performance but it does not necessarily mean that they will execute the threat.
In conclusion, due to the difficulty in proving forced labor through execution of threats to remain at work or enforcement of restraints, it is not clear whether the defendants were after forced labor. They therefore deserve different results in the ruling.

References

Order | Check Discount

Tags: U.S. V. Bradley Dissent