When Judge Matusick arraigned him on the murder charges, there was an order of protection in favor of the two minor children and also the woman who is taking care of those children. The allegation is that he engaged in some conduct, which lead to communication with those folks. Therefore he violated the courts order, which is new charge criminal contempt in the second
Police officers should under no circumstances physically harm anyone for any reason. Officers have also in the past used informants as bait and put their lives in danger just to try and catch a criminal. We as citizens should be able to put our trust in these officer, but sadly that trust has been broken too many times. Officers that misuse informants can also with-hold evidence such as drugs or money for themselves and just continue this cycle and then put the blame on the informant that is more than likely already facing jail time. We should all make sure that police officers remain in check and that they do not receive too much power, because things like this happen.
1. prevent others from committing similar offences. Jeremy Bentham’s theory states that deterrence should be the main purpose of punishment. Since individual deterrence deals with the concept of preventing the same individual from committing another offense, an example that can be used is a DWI. Individuals who are convicted of a DWI face consequences that include jail time, loss of license, and excessive fines which ultimately may make them rethink committing this crime or any crime with similar consequences.
The possible outcome of this scenario maybe that, if the mediator is so meticulous and calculated, no potential consequence could be caused In other case, if the party get caught by the police and finally found guilty and imprisoned, the respective party might reveal to the court about why the mediation process. Then, the worst outcome to the mediator would be that important evidence is upheld for further legal actions towards the mediator. 6. Conclusion
The Court held that in arresting and convicting the students, South Carolina infringed upon the student’s freedom of speech and freedom of assembly rights. The above cases have helped create the theory and jurisprudence of the heckler’s veto. Through these cases, the Court that unpopular messages and speakers are protected under the First Amendment. Also, it is important to note that although their message is offensive to some groups, people who agree with their message have First Amendment rights to listen.
In the article “Why Released Felons Should Be Allowed to Vote”, author Steve Chapman addresses the concerns of societal members who are worrisome about a released felon’s right to vote. The basis of the article is focused on whether or not those who were once accused of a felony, should be granted voting rights after being released into society after imprisonment or the proportionate punishment has been served. The author’s thesis is that previously convicted felons who have been reformed through rehabilitation or incarceration should receive voting rights after being released into society, and should not be subject to the inquiry of society based on their prior actions. The main argument made by Chapman is those who are against voting
This of course resulted in anger and outrage causing protests, vandalism, and more unnecessary crimes and violence. There being a possibility that race did play a factor in the outcome of these trials the point that I rather focus on is how even if there was no racial factor to consider the verdicts should have still gone the other way. Deadly force is an act that can’t later be reversed or rectified if misused so unless a police officer is put in a life threatening situation deadly force should not come into play. In the Eric Garner and Mike Brown encounters there were specific moments where the deaths of the two victims could have been avoided. Choking or shooting an unarmed suspect should never be considered reasonable force.
Due to this amendment in the constitution the adult criminal can get relief before they are proved guilty. The judges in the criminal justice are neutral compared to any other staff and they look for witnesses or evidence before punishing the accused. There are instances where law enforcement officers may take advantage of their positional power to harass the people in the
This isn 't great on the grounds that with cops speculation like that it gives them to some degree a need to overstep the law. They essentially feel that with the end goal them should implement the law they need to break some. Cops hone this unwritten manage all over the place, particularly Los Angeles ' CRASH unit. Debasement was so basic in the CRASH unit that they had standard systems to cover it up if something turned out badly. In general, the LAPD didn 't have the solid bolster it required from the group.
because Lopez wasn't able to defend himself and wasn't able to having a hearing and his family wasn't notified either. If the court did not try to stop this it would have affected him and everyone else as well. If you think about it everyone had the right to be heard and the court bringing up that it affected the 14th amendment was a good way to protect the right to a hearing, because using liberty and property (property being education) challenged the court and made a different viewpoint on how the case was projected. Now we’re able to have court ruling for suspensions. which is a good thing and also sinces i'm a student i think it's fair that court hearing is given because without it how would a student be able to defend themselves without anyone to make the decisions if they are right or wrong.
The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.
The fourth and final test requires the Judge to weight the negative effects of accepting the legislation and the positive outcomes that the legislation brings (R v Oakes, 1986). The Judge believed that the keeping the legislation in effects would outweigh the negative effects that is associated with it. So despite the fact that the legislation would be curtail an individual 's right to expression, something that has great value in a free and democratic society, the positive effects of the legislation would be protecting groups that are more susceptible to social discrimination. As well, by using section one of the Charter to save section 14(1)(b) of the code, we are preventing these protected groups from any harm to allow them to gain more equality with other groups (Saskatchewan v. Whatcott, 2013).
The police actions were unjustifiable and unwarranted in this situation. In the court care of Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court ruled that, “deadly force may not be used unless there is a reasonable cause to believe there is a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others exists” (Hendrix, 2013, page 194). The use of physical force should not be used in the manner of vindictiveness, retaliation, or punishment purposes. This display of action is unprofessional and is against the code of conduct. The suspect’s actions of getting out of her vehicle warranted the use of force, because she approached the officer in a threating manner.
On May 23, 1957, police officers showed up to a house in Cleveland and demanded to be let inside. They believed a man who was recently involved in a bombing was hiding inside. Dollree Mapp, the woman who lived in the home refused to let them in. Ms. Mapp explained to the officers that she needed to see a search warrant before letting them enter the home. They were unable to provide one, so they left.
I do agree with Justice Scalia’s principal argument for not using the exclusionary rule to the knock-and announce violations. I think in some cases that knocking on the suspect door can give them time to prepare themselves and maybe hide evidence. Yes, the rule is set to reduce property damage, but in some cases, officers can get shot if the people inside the house are aware that they are committing crime. For instance, if a person is a drug dealer, he sure knows that its illegal. So, having the officer knocking on his door, he probably won’t open or will open with a gun point out.