Based upon my research, the exclusionary rule should not apply to an illegal arrest. The exclusionary rule was a court created deterrent and remedy, to keep law enforcement from violating the Fourth Amendment when conducting searches and seizures ("The Fourth Amendment And The Exclusionary Rule - Findlaw"). It is mainly used to exclude incriminating evidence that was gathered illegally to be introduced into the court as evidence against a person. The rule was developed to give individual’s rights and civil liberties the maximum protection from improper conduct and procedures from law enforcement ("The Fourth Amendment And The Exclusionary Rule - Findlaw"). Even when an illegal arrest occurs does not necessarily mean that all errors will justify invoking the exclusionary rule.
Mr Cowdery, a retired DPP officer said, "judges needed discretion in sentencing to ensure the punishment fitted with the circumstances of the crime and the criminal themselves". Mandatory sentencing poses a large threat to society, due to the limitation on a judge 's ability to sentence in accordance with the severity of the offence, an individual may receive a punishment much harsher than they may
Definition and Description of Procedural Justice Procedural justice is the act involved in decision making. It incorporates the process of involving transparency and fairness in making decisions. The incorporation of justice in this process is equally essential it entails that all parties allowed to give their views before decision are made concerning a given matter. Some theories state that restorative and distributive justice might not be met but for as long as there is a fair and justice procedure, there is always the possibility of having outcomes that are equitable (Jason &Tyler, 2003). The police department in America is one unit that procedural justice needs to apply.
The concept is one of which authority is divided between our national government and the state governments in order to govern a large area sufficiently. While it can complicate the administration of justice, I think it is key to managing the United States as a whole. It becomes complicated in situations such as Obergefell vs Hodges, where the Surpreme Court makes a decision that applies to every
This could cause us to make decisions that may not be good in the future. This acting on impulse without thinking can also lead us to make decisions that we will regret and want to take back, affecting how we are seen as leaders and to those we were known as role models. Be sure to always acknowledge the consequences to your actions while ¨hostile” so they do not come back and ruin your reputation. In conclusion, a good leader should have these qualities such as: being able to follow agreements for everyone 's best interest, not making decisions if you are in a hostile mood, and also not being afraid to be disliked because you are taking charge. Take into account that being a good leader may be hard at times but do not be “in fear of being feared” because if you portray these select few qualities then being a leader will be worth it and become an
I also honestly was a little disappointed by some people’s reactions, but then I looked to Mrs. Vivar’s reaction. The way she took what they said into consideration addressed it the best she could, and then moved on with out attacking back is something that as a leader I struggle with. My leadership style dealing with conflict is very strongly competitive. This can be helpful in some situations, but when we are dealing with a situation that is heavily opinion-orientated it is nearly impossible to “win”. As a true leader I need to understand both extreme sides of a matter like illegal immigration, and work to bring them towards middle
‘’The principle of manipulability refers to the predictable ways in which people act out of rational self-interest and might therefore be dissuaded from committing crimes if the punishment outweighs the benefits of the crime, rendering the crime an illogical choice.’’(http://www.biography.com/people/cesare-beccaria-39630) Beccaria believed that the criminal justice system needed to be changed, he thought the present criminal justice system was ‘barbaric and antiquated’. Beccaria also believed that certain laws should be changed and who they should benefit. He believed the system should establish the appropriate punishment for each crime committed. Unlike many of the other theories ‘’On Crime and Punishment’’ wanted to help and protect the rights of the criminals as well as the rights of the victims, he believes that punishment of the criminals should be that which serves the greatest public good. Beccaria also put forward in his theories the first modern argument against the death penalty.
Moreover, the ability to make objective judgments could be enhanced, for instance by questioning witnesses (Joyce, 2013). In conclusion, the judge should be able to overturn acquittal when jury nullifies, in order to ensure that the innocent is not convicted and the guilty is not acquitted (Hostettler,
This is a crucial step when groups are trying to obtain the rights they want. The executive branch has the power to create and enforce laws. If a group wants things to change, this is the higher order that they would want to please. The executive branch can take a look at the occuring issues and find a way to solve them. The only problem with this is that it could take a while to get an issue resolved, issues don’t get fixed overnight.
It is how the powerful manipulate the powerless in order to fulfil the needs of those with power. What one may have here is a latent conflict, which consists in a contradiction between the interests of those exercising power and the real interests of those they exclude. These latter may not express or even be conscious of their interests, but ... the identification of those interests ultimately always rests on empirically supportable and refutable hypotheses (Lukes 2005). This is a vitally important power source used in politics and is fundamental in order to succeed. This power was even referred to by Lukes (1974) as “insidious” in nature, as it is seen as almost an abuse of power from those in higher positions especially the political elite on those more vulnerable or open to manipulation of working class background in
Plea bargaining- This is also called plea acceptance. It is the process where a defendant may plead guilty to a lesser offence in return for a more serious offence being dropped. This has the advantage of trying to avoid a long and expensive trail that may or may not produce a conviction. By accepting a guilty plea to a lesser charge, time and money could get saved by both the defence and the prosecution. The Judiciary- Judges have an important role within the court system, because they are legal experts of the law if the prosecution and defence are in dispute.
May also occur with events and situations being discussed on trial. Author Veronica Roth stated that “no matter how smart, people usually see what they 're already looking for, that 's all”, and this applies to the justice system in the sense that looking past the biases is and always will be difficult because one tends to ignore evidences because of overwhelming emotions from bias (Roth). It is ideal to have impartial jurors whom will seek to be fair and will endeavor to correct potential bias in the courtroom in themselves, but it is not logical. Secondly, conscious prejudice is strong emotion towards or against, in this case the defendant on
Although it can be seen as a reasonable theory to implement in times of controversy, there are a few issues that still arise from this theory. Some weaknesses include inconsistency, and lack of substantiation, but one of the biggest flaws of living constitutionalism as argued by originalists, is that judges are given too much power, and belittle the power of the legislature and the American people. The main question that arises is how does the public know that judges are the best representatives to comprehend the nations fundamental values? Judges are granted the responsibility to alter the meaning of the constitution based on their own personal motives and beliefs, and they have powers that are far beyond those of legislators, who were structured to ensure representation of the American people. Congress and judges come from different environments, and different motives.
The doctrine states that courts are bound by decisions held in earlier cases. However, I agree with the reasoning in Johnson, a court should be allowed to correct the effects of a prior court ruling if the ruling was badly reasoned and has a negative impact on society. The criminal justice system, which includes the courts, was established to control crime and enforce punishments on those who violated the law. Stare decisis should not apply to a court correcting a prior court decision, which consequences resulted in contradicting the establishment of the criminal justice
The role of the jury in capital cases Capital cases that include the death penalty are carefully analyzed and structured to allow the fairest due process. The selection of the jurors is one of the most crucial parts of the case. Attorneys and judges have to come to an agreement on who will serve on the jury before the case goes to trial. There have been many cases that have argued the selection of the jurors, for example, Uttecht v. Brown, Lockhart v. McCree, and many others. These cases have faced controversy due to the selection of jurors and have set precedents for new and present cases.