Much of the Assyrian law concept of justice is comparable to the Babylonian law because both had many very harsh punishments. For instance, if someone were murdered, the family of the person who was murdered could decide how the murderer was to die. This concept of justice was, again, based upon revenge (Reilly, 2012). This concept could be applied in the present-day society so that it can discourage offenders from committing the crime. Ultimately, it would keep people from committing crimes in
In the United States, a Supreme Court decision is binding on all lower federal courts. State courts are only subject to follow a Supreme Court decision when it decides an issue of federal law, such as fundamental individual rights. Thus, one can say that Supreme Court decisions serve as de jure precedent for these courts. However, because no state can guarantee less protection than that granted by the Constitution of the United States, Supreme Court decisions also serve as de facto precedent by guiding the state legislature in drafting legislation in accordance with the Federal Constitution. Also, state court judges may use Supreme Court decisions are persuasive precedent in order to avoid getting overturned; this is part of the fear I was previously referring to, and it is a reason why it is so important that the institution reviewing constitutional issues be part of the judiciary hierarchy.
As such, equality law seeks to remedy a problem through imposing certain injunctions in order to solve a problem. However, one important aspect of the 7th amendment is that it bars the judges from overruling the findings of a jury unless there was such a violation of a common law; hence, in all but a few cases, the ruling of the jury will be regarded as a violation of the 7th amendment. Further, the 7th amendment makes specifications that the jury has to be unanimous in all civil cases. Therefore, in my own view, the 7th amendment is beneficial since it protects people from the rights that are abused by the government. It achieves this by ensuring that the government cannot simply lock people up in jails or prions; hence by doing so it protects the citizens from unnecessary tyranny by the government.
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
My perception of the court system has stayed the same. I have respect for the system due to the impartial sentencing and the structure of the court system to deliver justice. The court system allows an accused person to appeal a decision imposed by a lower court due to errors. The court systems must change over time due to issues arising concerning violation of current laws and citizen rights, the government must make changes to correct the systems or make new laws. For instance, the United States Supreme Court, the supreme law of the land make changes to laws that will affect the nation.
New Jersey and author the 5-4 opinion in Blakely v. Washington, which generally hold that facts that increase the maximum punishment to which the defendant is subject must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury and not a judge. These rulings paved the way for Booker v. United States, which made the federal sentencing guidelines (open to choice synonym) discretionary, rather than mandatory. This has worked a profound shift in how criminal prosecutions operate on a day-to-day basis. Similarly, Justice Scalia can be seen to have sided with the defendants when the criminal law in question was found to have been written too vaguely to provide (adequate synonym) sufficient notice of the conduct the law
Safeguards that may be employed to reduce the quantity of false confessions include exercising Miranda rights and videotaping interrogations in full to prevent selective disclosure of confessions, thereby increasing accountability and ethics. There is no substitute for true justice; therefore, these safeguards are paramount to the beneficence of the legal system on every
We as people of decision should in fact be held responsible for our actions because although the quote "The crazy things I'd do for love" is used as a statement of expression, we all have our own mind. Whether or not one has been taught right from wrong, everyone has their own perspective of love but the law is the top priority so even if you feel it's right or wrong to take extreme measures, the law decides for you. The example given in the third paragraph of Diane Ackerman's "Love's Vocabulary" where she states that in some countries, outrageous crimes are excused if it was an act of passion. This statement is disagreeable because of the fact that an act of passion does not excuse murder nor does it excuse any other extreme crime such as
Execution is the act of carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person. This is carried out either by lethal injection or electrocution. Execution despite its barbaric nature has survived in many legal system and will continue to because it: reinforces a state of security of the general public, detters other individuals from committing such crimes, and enforces the concept of cause and effect within the legal system. In the text “The Penalty of Death” H.L. Mencken discusses not only why he supports executions, but also the ripple effects this action has on a society.
Haag (2007) writes that the death penalty is feared more than imprisonment because of its finality in that the person is excommunicated from the living. As such, it is a more effective and necessary form of punishment. Berns (1996) writes that the law must be “inspiring or commanding ‘profound respect or reverential fear’” for it to be effective in deterring criminals. However, people in favor of abolishing the death penalty can argue that despite its deterrence benefits, the life of the murderer is important. This means that the victim’s life is less important even though the offender is the one who has committed a crime.