Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana.
?This should be on the first line of the page, and if you used a page break that would solve the problem.
The Texas versus Johnson case is a case where the state of Texas is arguing that Johnson should be charged and reconvicted. Johnson was a criminal, and he was wrong in his actions. Texas understands that, and they are going to argue the side of justice. Johnson should’ve turned himself over while he had the chance, but he decided to fight his side of the case. He has those rights. Johnson should be charged and found guilty for his violation of Texas state law.
Supreme Court heard and ruled 7 to 2 decision it was unconstitutional to impose a death punishment on someone for rape. The court reasoned that punishments violate the Eighth Amendment of the are “excessive in relation to the crime committed”, that determination about excessiveness are properly informed by the “country’s present Judgement” and that the Georgia law could not survive this type of inquiry because no other state subjected persons convicted of the rape of an adult woman to execution. Moreover the Court explained the Eighth Amendment bars not only those punishments that are “barbaric” but also those that are “excessive” and unconstitutional if it makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering, or is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime (pp. 433 U.S. 591-592). ‘The death is disproportionate penalty for rape is strongly indicated by the objective evidence of present public judgement, as represented by the attitude of state legislatures and sentencing juries, concerning the acceptability of such a penalty, it only State authorizing the death sentence, it appearing that Georgia is currently the only state authorizing the death sentence for rape of an adult woman, that it is authorized for rape in only two other states, but only when the victim is a child, and that in vast majority of rape convictions in Georgia
Johnson v. McIntosh was a title dispute over acres of land in present-day Illinois. The case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall in 1823, turned on the question of whether or not Native Americans had the right to transfer land title by sale to private citizens. Like many cases that determined the rights of Native Americans, the litigants were non-native whites. The inquiry “therefore, is in a great measure, confined to the power of Indians to give, and of private individuals to receive, a title which can be sustained in the Courts of this country” (pg. 13). In finding for the defendant McIntosh, the court ruled that the nature of Indian title is such that Indians can only transfer title to the federal government.
Randy DeShaney, father of Joshua DeShaney, spent more time beating his four-year-old son than he did in prison. (Reidinger 49) Joshua’s mother, Melody DeShaney, sued the Winnebago County Department of Social Services alleging that they had deprived her son of his Fourteenth Amendment right. In order to understand the DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services Supreme Court case one must establish the history, examine the case, and explain the future impacts.
Supreme Court cases can shape our national laws; it can shape an American citizen’s future. Without them, the Bill of Rights could be left up for our own interpretation. This could cause unfair laws and create havoc. In 1966, a court case named Kent vs United Sates took place. This case could create the ability to shape a juvenile's life forever.
Capote used qualitative research methods to write one of the greatest American books called In Cold Blood. The movie shows how Capote obtained information from people who were connected to the murder of a family in a rural setting to write this award winning book. Post at least two salient points regarding the ethics (or lack or ethics) that you gleaned about obtaining the information for the book from the movie in your discussion post.
Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.
Issue: Should constitutionally protected individual interest be weighed against State’s interest of preserving human life?
Facts of the case: In 1924, the state of Virginia passed the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which banned the marriage between a white person and a person of color. The law only targeted interracial marriages that consisted of a white person and a non-white person. The act had additional provisions that penalized the travel out of state for purposes of marriage between a white person and person of color; upon return to Virginia, the marriage would be subject to Virginian law. The punishment for the marriage was one to five years incarceration, and the marriage would be void “without any judicial proceeding.” Aware of the Racial Integrity Act, Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, traveled
A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money. Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance.
A late time of mass incarceration has prompted incredible rates of detainment in the United States, especially among probably the most helpless and minimized groups. Given the rising social and financial expenses of detainment and firm open spending plans, this pattern is starting to switch (Petersilia and Cullen, 2014). Toward the commencement of the 21st century, the United States ends up confronting the huge test of decarcerating America, which is in the meantime an enormous open door. Through decarceration, the lives of a vast number of individuals can be immensely enhanced, and the country all in all can desert this limited and dishonorable time of mass detainment. Be that as it may, in what capacity will this be expert, and
Judge Daughtrey wrote a concurring opinion at the end of the court document. Judge Daughtrey states that statutory modifications need to occur to redefine the class of individuals who are protected
Hawaii and Tennessee are liberal and conservative states respectively because the former has a strong stand on equity among individuals while the later strongly believes in good morals. The criminal victims’ rights were founded in the 1970s due to victim marginalization that existed for a long period (Caplan 224). Montaldo argues that all the fifty states have rules to protect victims during the trial process (“How to Write” 2). These rights ensure the victims are treated fairly during the prosecution process. The criminal victims’ rights of these two states have both similarities and differences, and the states consider themselves liberal and conservative respectively due to their different belief in the role of the government.