The Constitution of the United States is the concrete platform that the nation is built upon which contains fundamental principles in which our nation is governed by. However, much of the Constitution is very ambiguous which leads to controversy in the court room. For example, the Eighth Amendment which states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Baltzell). The first part of the Eighth Amendment protects accused citizens of the United States from unreasonable and extreme amounts of bail that would prevent them from being released from pretrial containment and it also limits the amount of a fine that can be given to a convicted person (8th Amendment)(Kurt). The
“Time to Assert” contains several opinion based facts within the argument when describing how to deal with crime. Within “Time to Assert,” it comments, “A case like Michael Fay’s is important because it provides a chance to challenge an inhumane practice that ought not to exist anywhere” (Time to Assert 179). This quote from the editorial illustrates no true factual evidence and supports more of a biased argument that is heavily based on the editors opinions. The editorial implies no evidence that effectively helps with supporting the argument.
Innocent defendants who are risk averse cannot be willing to risk going to trial and receiving harsh sentences and instead choose to plead guilty to ensure the receive lenient sentences. It undermines the integrity of the justice system as it allows the government to evade the rigorous standards required by the due process. It allows the prosecutor to take the role of a judge and jury in determining the guilt of the defendant. It also allows the defendant to escape the full punishment for their misconduct by giving them lenient sentences. Lenient sentences offered to those who plea bargain in contrast to harsher sentences for those who are convicted after a full trial lead to disparities in individuals convicted of similar offences.
1. Gideon’s sixth amendment under the constitution was violated which stated that requires the state courts to provide attorneys to criminals who cannot afford their own. The Supreme Court ruled that Gideon’s amendment was violated. Though his offense was serious he was still supposed to be allowed to have someone to defend him it was one of his rights. The Court stated that the states were to follow the sixth amendment of someone because under the fourteenth amendment “Due Process Clause” applies the main points of the bill of
After finding some torture tactics, it helped me research about the negative effects of torture. In his article, “Torture is a Crime”, Curt Goering listed the negative effects of torture. He argues that torture is illegal, ineffective, immoral and makes those around us unsafe. Curt uses ethos in his piece to back up his main argument. For example, he mentions that in 1984, the UN adopted the Convention against torture and it was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1990.
Her central thesis is that mass incarceration is “The New Jim Crow,” or the new system of control used by the government to uphold racial class in the U.S. This book will be helpful to my research because it directly discusses the topic of race and the criminal justice system. Amnesty International. (2003). United States of America: Death by discrimination
In this case, we would have to go through every applicable law in the United States and prove that a person has not broken a single one of those laws to be truly innocent. This isn't only unreasonable, but almost impossible to go through every condition necessary to verify that a person is innocent. And with this reasoning, every person in the United States would be classified as "guilty," and we would almost never be able to prove otherwise. This analysis is very similar to how Karl Popper proposes we solve the problem of induction.
Provision 20 of the Magna Carta states that citizens should only be charged and punished in proportion to the severity of the offence. This provision later influences the English Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. One of the main provisions in the English Bill of Rights is that “excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects; And excessive fines have been imposed; And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;” This fundamental principle included in both the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights influences the founders of The United States of America to create the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures that citizens are receiving the appropriate and fair punishment in relation to the severity of the crime.
This happens so that no group will dominate over another group and to keep the stronger groups from combining. If the stronger groups combine with each other and began to form against the weaker small groups, liberty will be lost within the system of government and as a whole. Madison basically reiterates what he said in federalist number 10 by showing conflicts of interest when people join various groups. His main focus was to identify how he can decrease the risk. “But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense.
It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our policy is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. Therefore, we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses, but the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to our capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are capable of moral responsibility.
In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the court extended the exclusionary rule to the states. Also, the cases illustrated the process of selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Tom Clark held that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter illegally obtaining evidence and to compel respect for the constitutional guarantee in the only effective manner. He also said that a federal prosecutor may make no use of illegally obtained evidence, but a state prosecutor can, but he must operate under the enforceable prohibition of the same Amendment. Justice Tom Clark also said, if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law (FindLaw, 2017).
However if the judge does not grand the motion than a jury will have to decide on the issue. It is important to note that if the judge denied the motion and the jury has issued a verdict the losing party can ask for JMLO again as long as the request for
“The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree but in kind. It is unique in its rejection of rehabilitation of the convict as a basic purpose of criminal justice. And it is unique, finally, in its absolute renunciation of all that is embodied in our concept of humanity.” (Potter
This is how I interpreted after I read what he actually said, “There is here no need of declamatory vehemence; we live in an age of commerce and computation; let us therefore coolly enquire what is the sum of evil which the imprisonment of debtors bring upon our country.” Johnson also uses his analysis that he has done his research on as he is concluding his final statement to this letter to the lawmaker. There are two parts to this of what he is trying to get the lawmaker to realize about these people that he is ruining there lives. Johnson says, “According to the rule generally received, which supposes that one in thirty dies yearly, the race of man may be said to be renewed at the end of thirty years.” In this last paragraph, Johnson finishes off his argument about how everyone is to be treated the same whether or not of how much money they own to their name.
United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones should have had the same outcome from the Supreme Court. Both, former President 's violated the law and wanted to use presidential privileges to dismiss their cases. In the United States v. Nixon, the Court had the right to order the President to relinquish the tapes to Congress to use as evidence for the trial against the seven members held accountable. Those accused were owed a duty by the Court to be given a fair and speedy trial. In the Clinton v. Jones case, the Court should have not granted the former President Clinton immunity because the general public needs to realize that not even the President can violate the law and get away with it.