The court denied him a lawyer because at the time Florida State law said that only criminals charged with capital offenses could request a lawyer. Gideon went to court without a lawyer. He acted as his own defense. Gideon did his best, bringing forward all the evidence and witnesses he could. Despite his best efforts, Gideon lost the trial and was sentenced to five years in prison (the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2014).
In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6-3), in favor of Mapp, that the evidence collected is deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court stated the proof could not be used against the person in state courts and that Dollree Mapp could not be convicted. Mapp was released and her case helped to strengthen the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The matter also limited police power. I agree with the final outcome of the case.
He was indicted within one day by the grand jury. Mexicans had the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to stay in the United States and become American Citizens. At this time the only people that could become American Citizens were Anglos. Pedro Hernandez was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. The most important thing about the case of Hernandez v. Texas was that it helped end racial discrimination in the judicial system, and provides equal protection of the laws for all Americans.
Does rationality actually lead individuals to this conclusion, though? If it doesn’t, it seems as though Locke’s entire foundation of natural rights falls apart, bringing down the tower of the social contract with it. The most obvious counter to the idea that rationality would lead to a preservation of “life, health, liberty, and possessions” is that it may not actually be rational for every individual to respect these foundational right. In a world of David and Goliath (negating the religious connotations from the story), it may be entirely rational for a Goliath-type figure to trample upon Locke’s foundational rights. Someone bigger and stronger than the rest of men can take anything he wants.
The idea of civil disobedience is to make yourself more “free” by purposely disobeying the government, who Thoreau believes, “is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it,” (Thoreau, On the duty of civil disobedience 3). From this quote, we can see Thoreau believes by doing these acts of disobedience the individual will become one with itself, and be able to break free of society’s grip. However, Thoreau fails to grasp the benefits of being a part of a society, which include receiving aid from the government if you are struggling, having low cost healthcare, and being active with others. These things can be essential to life. As in a transcendental utopian society, there is no way to seek out medical help, as you are out by yourself, with whatever you need as a necessity.
To begin with, sentence reforming needs to take place because people are getting way to many years for petty crimes they didn't commit. For example, "we are not moving nearly fast enough to reduce incarceration. Over 2 million Americans live caged behind bars, a 550 percent increase in the last 40 years." Thus, this shows that due to us still following the old system to many people are in jail for crimes that don’t deserve that crime. Another example is shown in article 2, line 2 "One in 35 American adults is under
Freedom is something that we all want, we are all born with it. Yet there are places where freedom is not a born right, but a privilege. In the United States we have the freedom to do whatever we want as long as it stays within the law. However not all nations have this privilege like China where the government controls the internet and Russia where the news is controlled by the government. When we see and hear the amount of freedom people from other nations get, we speak to the T.Vs and the radios, saying “someone should help them”, “that’s not right”, “I could never live like that”, and yet we take our freedom for granted.
Many inmates experience mental disorders when they get sentence to long period of time in an overcrowded prison. Prison population keeps increasing not equaling to the space provided to the inmates. According to the article, Prison Health Aare and The Extent of Prison Overcrowding, about 70% of prisons around the globe are surpassing the prison’s capacity. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, recommends for each inmate in prison to have at least 4 meters of space, but 14 prisons in Europe give inmates only 2 to 3.5 meters of space. They get very limited space making it easier to pass infections or diseases along each individual in the cell.
Yet, we continue to call it the juvenile justice system. Where is the justice in a system that allows juveniles to be made into victims of heinous crimes while not providing these children with necessary rehabilitation? Adult prisons are terrible environments for rehabilitation of juvenile criminals. Juveniles are at high risk for sexual abuse and suicide in prison. “Congressional findings in the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 posited that juveniles were five times as likely to be sexually assaulted in adult rather than in juvenile facilities - often within their first 48 hours of incarceration.
The Impact of Miranda V. Arizona When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession during trial because the police had failed to inform the suspect of his right to have an attorney present and that he did not have to incriminate himself, the impact the ruling would have on the entire U.S. judicial system was only beginning to become clear. The court said that police are compelled by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments to make sure suspects know they are not compelled to be a witness against him or herself, and that they have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning (McBride, 2006). The Court further held that ‘without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures
Very few criminals really get deterred by the death penalty. A Bristol prison chaplain says that, “...out of 167 condemned criminals whom he had interviewed, only three had not witnessed an execution” (Weil 2013). The criminals sentenced to death row were not deterred by the death penalty, even though almost all of them have witnessed a hanging. Capital punishment is not an effective way to deter criminals, since the prospect of spending one’s entire life behind bars sounds even worse. The criminals who think they can get away with their crimes, also think that they will not be executed if convicted.
2- By removing its causes and controlling its effects are the two main ways, they could also by destroying the liberty and by giving every citizen the same opinion passions and interests. Obviously the last two would not work because liberty is essential to have in a government. Also all people do not have the same opinions and passions and interests, in a free nation we are entitled to have our own ideas and passions and such. The only effective way would be to control effects and to try and remove the causes. The main problem would be since people have opinions the causes would be almost impossible to