For the Application of the Criminal Justice System project of the Criminal Justice course, I chose the arrest of John Burke. This case is about the arrest and sentencing of John Burke who had shot and killed Joseph Ronan. Twenty-five year old John Burke agreed to meet with 22 year old Joseph Ronan at Ronans home, in Reading, Massachusetts on Monday, August 15, 2011 around 1pm, with the intent of purchasing Percocet pills. (Boston.com, 2013) However, shortly after entering Ronans home, Burke opened fire (News, 2011), and after shooting Joseph Ronan several times, with the belief that Ronan was involved in a robbery at Burkes apartment in April 2011 (Boston.com, 2013), fled the home. Ronans grandfather (Daniel, 2011), who had been in the home …show more content…
His sentence is changed from manslaughter and he has now been sentenced to 18-20 years in prison for manslaughter, followed by four to five years in prison for illegal possession of a firearm. (Ryan, 2013) During a trial, the evidence is again presented to a court of law or a jury. Being sentenced to Capital Punishment is very unlikely to happen for Burke, as the state of Massachusetts has abolished Capital Punishment and only uses it in very severe cases where the suspect is tried federally (McCarthy, 2014) instead of regionally, like the Boston Bomber Case. Burke most likely got this sentence, because he pleaded guilty, possibly after enough evidence was gathered to prove his guilt and thereby “has taken responsibility for shooting the victim, resulting in his death, over what appears to have been a dispute about money” (Boston.com, 2013) Burke is most likely to receive this sentence, because it is exactly the crime he committed. He committed manslaughter which was proven by the messages on the phone and apparently other evidence that has been found. None of the news reports however, have not stated what the exactly additional evidence found, to prove Burkes guilt, were. If they found the murder weapon with John Burkes fingerprints on them or gun residue on Burke, as well as his clothing he was wearing while committing the crime had blood stains on them. All this evidence would certainly prove that Burke …show more content…
More people get incarcerated for non-violent crimes and crimes caused by mental illnesses or drug abuse (Webb, 2009) and because these people get put in regular prisons, instead of in mental health facilities or facilities to help against drug addiction, where they could be treated to further prevent crimes driven by their illness (Webb, 2009), the prisons get overfilled and cannot hold the more ‘important’ prisoners that needed to be locked away from the public. A strong link of the criminal justice process is that the system tries to keep it fair for everyone. Every defendant has the right to an attorney so they can be defended properly and fairly and “Only judges who are adequately informed about a case can effectively control the proceedings and examine evidence” (Tochilovsky, 2002) It is also important for the criminal justice system that those involved show discretion and although this is not always the case, discretion by the judges, police, etc. further ensure proper treatment of the
In the beginning, McKinney and Henderson were arrested and charged with attempted murder, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. However, after Shepard’s death, the charges were amended from attempted murder to murder in the first degree. Later on November 10th, a preliminary hearing was held for McKinney and Henderson and a full trial was set to begin on October 11th, which was ironically one day before the anniversary of Matthew’s death. Then on April 5, 1999, Henderson reached a pre-trial agreement and pleaded guilty to murder and kidnapping in which he received two consecutive life sentences. He also agreed to testify against McKinney in order to avoid the death
golf. Since the disappearance of Laci Peterson the police were constantly tracking him. At the time of his arrest, he was carrying $15,000 in cash, had four cell phones, camping equipment, a gun, a map to Frey's work place that had been printed the day before, the driver's license for John Edward Peterson (his brother), 12 tablets of Viagra, and many other "odd" items. His hair and goatee had been bleached blonde. The police took this as an indication that he had planned to flee, possibly to Mexico.
Larry will be charged with two counts of first-degree murder for the shooting of his girlfriend and his classmate Moe, one count of manslaughter for the cause of the UH Hilo security guards death, and the illegal use of firearm. The fact that Larry had these grudges against Moe for making him fail his AJ101 class and for going out with his girlfriend behind his back, he planned to kill both of them using the 9mm handgun he bought from a guy named Curly for $500. Based on these facts, Larry had committed a willful and premeditated two counts of murder in the first-degree and these will be considered probable cause for his arrest. Also Larry hit the UH Hilo security guard with the butt end of the handgun and because of his pre-existing heart condition, he dies from a heart attack because of that scuffle, he will be charged with Manslaughter for recklessly causing the death of the security. Larry didn’t know about the security’s heart condition and didn’t intend on killing him, but probably just to hurt him so that he can run away from the crime scene before he even calls the Police.
The "punishment" he had to pay was excessive. So excessive it took his life. He could have been let go with a warning or something like that since it wasn't a huge crime. Over all it wasn't a harmful crime. So it shouldn't have had a harmful punishment.
According to a portion of the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Otherwise meaning, any and all witnesses must be present for the trial to be considered fair and just. In the Supreme Court Case of Bryant v. Michigan, Bryant committed a crime, with the only witness being Anthony Covington. Bryant uses the Sixth Amendment as an aid in his trial.
William Furman was in the process of robbing a home and when he was searching around the house the homeowner woke up. Furman tried to run out of the house but he fell and when he fell his gun discharged and ended up killing the homeowner. As a result, Furman was convicted of robbery and murder. He was sentenced to death. Georgia law explained that because the murder happened during a robbery, Furman was eligible to be executed if the court found him guilty of the murder.
If the offender is found guilty for the charge they will receive the harsher sentence, it is all about being honest within the federal courts, on determining the offenders
Georgia, it was decided that the death penalty could only be inflicted on certain crimes that resulted in death of an individual, making Gregg’s death sentence constitutional. Furman v. Georgia argued that the death penalty as it was currently being given out violated the eighth amendment (“Furman v. Georgia (1972)”). Congress then changed the death penalty restrictions, limiting it to crimes “of air piracy that resulted in death” (Vile). This means that not every crime that was previously issued the death penalty was given it anymore, making the death penalty have a higher meaning. Gregg not only robbed Simmons and Moore but he killed them to.
There are many early legal systems although one that should have played a role in this verdict was mosaic law. Mosaic law is one of the greatest influences on Canadian law and it is fixated in the bible and can also be known as the ten commandments. One of the mosaic laws that relates to this case is, “Thou shalt not kill”. Under the mosaic law, it was forbidden to commit murder and those who did would receive a punishment. The Sammy Yatim case should be the same and the charges should follow the mosaic law.
The Case of Ronald Cotton Sol Ridgeway University of North Texas The Case of Ronald Cotton 10 years in prison, is what Ronald Cotton had to endure for a crime he didn’t commit. Jennifer Thompson in 1984 was a college student making great grades and feeling really good about her future. While sleeping in her bed one night, she heard something in her bedroom and when awoke, saw a man crouched by her bed. The man jumped on top of her, put a knife to her neck, and began to rape.
The newsman states that he never killed four people in cold blood, to which the prosecutor replies that “hanging the bastard” is “pretty goddamn cold-blooded too” (Capote 306). In this statement, the prosecutor expresses his belief that it is not morally correct to hang a murderer who has had such a traumatic past without testing for any sign of mental illness or
Martin Bryant was sentenced with 35 life sentences and 1035 years imprisonment, for various charges including murder, attempted murder, inflicting grievous bodily harm. Therefore, Martin Bryant is undoubtedly guilty for the murder of 35 people along with 20 people injured as though he initially denied having anything to do with it, he later confessed at the court hearing, and admitted his
Years later McVeigh was on trial “in courtroom C-204 in the United States Courthouse in Denver” (Morganthou). He was facing capital punishment. Timothy McVeigh receiving the death penalty was the correct punishment for the crime he committed. Timothy McVeigh was not always a cold blooded killer. McVeigh’s mom “left him when he was 10, moving away to Texas and then Florida” (Evan).
I believe that if this was tried again that David Goodreau would still be found guilty. Only because when he confessed he knew certain things about the crime that ordinary people wouldn't known. There were defiantly problems with the investigation, Starting with the fact that the police didn't even peruse the murders of the two girls. Another problem with the investigation was that the police never really looked or found any evidence at the crime scenes. David Goodreau was sentenced to life in prison with out parole.
The judge declares the “Murder in the first degree—premeditated homicide—is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused … then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.