Essay On Right To Silence

“Time to Assert” contains several opinion based facts within the argument when describing how to deal with crime. Within “Time to Assert,” it comments, “A case like Michael Fay’s is important because it provides a chance to challenge an inhumane practice that ought not to exist anywhere” (Time to Assert 179). This quote from the editorial illustrates no true factual evidence and supports more of a biased argument that is heavily based on the editors opinions. The editorial implies no evidence that effectively helps with supporting the argument.

How does the concept of federalism complicate the administration of criminal justice in the United States? What is your opinion about our current administration of justice? Due to the concept of federalism; criminal justice administration is large and complex. It is however one of the most fundamental principles in the legal and political system.

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine states that evidence acquired illegally must be excluded from trial. This extension of the exclusionary rule is based on the same basis as the exclusionary rule itself, with the main goal of the doctrine to deter illegal police activity and to preserve the integrity of the court. The Supreme Court however, has permitted such evidence to be used in some proceedings (WEAL 2008). The exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine differ because Fruit of

INTRODUCTION As greatly as societies may differ, one cannot deny that they all connect in possessing one factor that is paramount to their stability: The Law. Evidently, one cannot talk about the law without summoning to mind the parties that enforce it. The police, as one may know it nowadays, protect and serve the community from harm and injustice. What happens, however, when said injustice becomes grounds for some policemen’s actions?

The legal premise of the jury instructions was sound. Professor Glanville Williams states, on the basis of both UK and US authority, "To the requirement of actual knowledge there is one strictly limited exception... [The] rule is that if a party has his suspicion aroused but then deliberately omits to make further enquiries, because he wishes to remain in ignorance, he is deemed to have knowledge." The Model Penal Code, Section 2.02(7) states, “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist." In several cases, the Supreme Court has applied the Model Penal Code definition of

Literature Review *Needs Serious Help The literature used for this subject is closely related to one another with key differences between each different articles approach. They all address the concept of police corruption and deviance in general but take different stances on the cause of it and how it’s fundamentally made within a flawed system. The articles to follow suit all provide insight to previous methods of addressing the matter.

Martin Luther King, Jr. explains in his “Letter From Birmingham Jail” that what is going on in the United States is ethically unstable. “ I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends” (7). An author John Patton even chimes in on King 's approach and questions “ Can the plan be ethically justified in line with King’s strong believe that the means for social change are as important as the ends?” (61).

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.

In recent times there has been a major debate over whether law enforcement should be able to use jailhouse informants. The controversy sparked after the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s use of jailhouse informants was called into question. Many people feel that the use of informants in cases against those accused of various crimes is a violation of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. In regards to this topic, The Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination, meaning that those accused of a crime have a right to remain silent. The Sixth Amendment, ensures that anyone accused of a crime has the right to an attorney, if a defendant cannot afford an attorney one will be provided.

She briefly implies her view on it at the very end of the article stating that if the appellants are to re-challenge the law that ‘restricts their right’ there may be a stronger response by the courts which suggests that she is in favour of allowing assisted suicide, but as she does not say much more it takes away from the persuasiveness of the article as it means she is not constantly reinforcing her

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

RICO has advanced the understanding of crime in criminal occupations and has been able to advance their knowledge of illegal behavior. I also believe that in order for someone to be indicted under the RICO act they must have knowledge of crimes they are committing. In order for the defendant to be liable he or she should have mens rea to establish that the crime committed was thought out. This is important because if the defendant had no knowledge of a connection with any sort of conspiracy they cannot be considered as a conspirator. I think another reason for it to be unnecessary is because the individual must have at least two allegations on them of racketeering offenses in order to be qualified to be accused of RICO.

The information derived from those interrogations, under the exclusionary rule as it is applied today, would have been inadmissible due to them being obtained through the use of illegally seized evidence. Weeks v U.S. (1914) set the precedence for the exclusionary rule to be used in federal court cases. Mapp v Ohio (1961) set the precedence for the exclusionary rule to be used in state court cases. This ruling was retroactive for Wolf v. Colorado

There have even been some states which the lower courts have ruled that using fake evidence to obtain confession is a violation of the suspect’s rights (Florida v. Cayward) (Pollock, 2014, p. 156). The other unethical response to telling the suspect that the death penalty will be taken off the table. This is an area that the homicide detective has no control over. Only the prosecutor can give this type of deal with the suspect and his attorney. The benefits in taking the unethical response is getting the confession, however, is this confession an actual true confession or just a confession from fear.

Analysis: The argument that arose before the court was a different legal conception of s.7 than that the prevailing Rodriguez case was deciding. Laws relating to principles of over breadth and gross disproportionality had materially advanced since Rodriguez. The matrix of legislative and social facts in this case also contrasted the evidence before the court in Rodriguez. The evidence proved that assisted suicide does not deprive people who are disabled from s. 15 under equal treatment.