Criminal Justice Case Analysis

Roth was defeated in a 6 - 3 vote. The court announced that the obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment. “The Court noted that the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form of expression, such as materials that were "utterly without redeeming social importance. "(“Roth”).The court said the first Amendment was not planned to protect statements like Roth’s. The problem is the First Amendment does not specify what kind of speech is protected or not.

I will conclude

Eyewitness misidentification is a major problem that has an effect on adequate policing. One major goal and priority of law enforcement is justice. They should focus on prosecuting the correct person because if they are prosecuting the wrong person they are ruining an innocent persons life and justice is not being served. Many problems can arise from misidentification. It often leads to an innocent persons rights being infringed on.

Dr. King’s way of speech in “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” starts off with, “My Dear fellow Clergymen,” which seems oddly reserved. He had learned that Birmingham clergymen had issued a declaration critiquing him and flattering the city’s narrow-minded police influence, when Dr. King had been in solitary quarantine. Due to this, anyone could agree that Dr. King had every right to write an enraged letter. However, his topic was not to go off on this matter, but to explain himself. Thus, Dr. King starts his letter with “fellow clergymen,” which depicts the main idea of his argument, which is “brotherhood.”

Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty. " In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal.

It is further any motions not previously ruled upon by the Court are DENIED. The court found that originally rule of was not applied having considered the findings and conclusions set forth above and the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the Courts find, sua sponte, that a certificate of appealability should not issue, as Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

I do agree that companies who create such products that easily cause harm to people should have some sort of action taken against their use but to that extent, I say that the companies also have to specify how much to use and when the consumption of their products becomes too much. However, the precedences for more positive descriptions of that side of the topic are a lot more complicated to explain and as such my view starts to hit a wall and I will now talk about how I disagree with Coffman 's claims. First off, Coffman makes it seem that the companies who produce legal but harmful products, which in its own right can be taken multiple ways, should pay settlements for the problems caused by their products. The problem with claims like this is that when a company makes a product they have normally created it for a specific purpose and have set in place guidelines to prevent potential harm, an example of a type of product like this would be aspirin which is commonly used as a pain reliever in the form of pills but can cause harm if too many are

He strongly suggests that this country needs a change and could be only done by a mass of citizens. He states key points of corruption seen in the text, “And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn 't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have sensors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.” He supports his statement by relating to a historical event of Guy Fawkes, simultaneously relating his actions, and further blames people which gives the citizens of London the atmosphere of guilt.

In this

Trippett’s theory on the bust of our societal foundation and structure is the most perceptible aspect of information in his stance on the deteriorating strength of constructional law that is expressed in his passage. Trippett carefully exposes the source of this phenonem, it’s actually those who blame the failing reigns of law-and-order by the violence of others, and yet choose to break the law then most convenient to them.

The court held that delay in trial is an infringement of his fundamental right to speedy and expeditious criminal trial. In necessary cases, the Court must exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings to

The Supreme Court recently began hearing oral arguments in a case, where two men were convicted of bribery by a jury. However, that conviction was overturned by an appeal because the jury had been improperly instructed as to what constitutes a guilty verdict. The attorney for the defense, Lisa Blatt said, “The government should bear the consequences when overlapping charges produce split verdicts of acquittals and invalid convictions.” This quote identifies with one of the fundamental principles of the American legal system, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. While Blatt continues to argue that the vacated conviction is worthless.

Australia believes that your rights are protected if you’re on the wrong and right side of the law. However, it wasn’t in the Dietrich v. The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 case. Dietrich was a criminal who had a past of committing many crimes.