This is such an interesting story. Bill Cosby is a well-known public figure and I strongly belief that because of his high profile he is being exploited and taken advantage of right now. After all, he was never found guilty or formally charged for any of things that he is being accused of doing. Judge Robero said "it is not about the Defendant 's status as a public person by virtue of the exercise of his trade as a televised or comedic personality. Rather, the defendant has donned the mantle of public moralist and mounted the proverbial electronic or print soap box to volunteer his views on, among other things, childrearing, family life, education, and crime."
The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, the right of any person accused of a crime to not testify against himself. This amendment has been a part of the U.S. Constitution since 1791. However, it was not until the 1960s that law enforcement were forced to really take this Constitutional Right seriously. In 1963 a man named Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrest for robbery.
Article III of the United States Constitution delineates the role of our Judicial Branch of Government to afford justice to all people. Indeed, ”To the letter of the law” leaves many in the legal system scratching their heads over their obligations to translate, as well as, deliver justice. Unfortunately, as society evolves, the parameters of any written laws may be construed differently and our judicial system is put to task in arbitrating the rights and restrictions of citizens. One such case, McDonald v. Chicago, captivated the nation in 2010 regarding the 2nd Amendment to the constitution. Clearly stated, the 2nd Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
The film Dear Zachary, directed by Kurt Kuenne, makes an argument in response to a very specific situation: the murder of Kuenne’s best friend Andrew Bagby and Bagby’s son Zachary, both killed by Andrew’s ex-girlfriend Shirley Turner. Kuenne argues that bail should be denied to anybody accused of a serious crime who also has custody of a child. While this argument is reasonable, it only provides a solution for very narrow circumstances. For the greater protection of society as a whole, an expanded version of Kuenne’s stance on bail laws is necessary. Bail should be denied not only to people accused of a serious crime who have custody of a child, but also to anybody suspect of a violent crime.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT False Imprisonment can be characterized as an activity of any individual that causes unlawful control of some other individual. To constitute the tort of false detainment, certain variables, for example, evident reason for detainment, data of the offended party for the tort, expectation of the respondent amid the season of bringing on detainment and time of imprisonment matters. Detainment (from detain Old French, from Latin prensio which means capture) is the control of a man's freedom, for any reason at all, whether by power of the administration, or by a man acting without such sort of power. In the recent case it is called as "false detainment". A man turns into a detainee, where on earth he may be, by the basic word or touch of an appropriately approved officer coordinated to that end.
Reginald Rose, the author of Twelve Angry Men, uses characters and their actions to show how the Judicial branch of the government isn’t always fair. The Judicial branch itself may be set up to be fair, but the people in charge of a case may not always put effort into it. The fifth amendment states that a person is innocent until proven guilty, they also do not have to say anything in court, this is set up so the law would have to find him/her guilty. With all this taken in, the jurors decide if the defendant is guilty or not, however if some of the jurors were rushing or biased the “fair” system wouldn’t matter. In the script; eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty without giving much thought.
Charles Manson is a serial killer that was put in prison. He killed 35 people that did nothing to him. Do you think he should be executed? Amendment 8 of the Constitution states that he can not be executed, therefore he will continue to live in a prison where he gets 3 hot meals a day, a comfortable cot to sleep on, free time outside, and possibly television. I think amendment 8 should be changed from no cruel and unusual punishment to, a person shall be punished how the court see´s fit.
INTRO There has been 7 public inquires held by the provinces in the last 20 years that have examined wrongful convictions The justice system is organized with many rules and procedures that make it supposedly difficult for a wrongful conviction to occur -recognition of the falibiulity of the Canadian criminal justice system -serious implication -trust in the justice system erodes and innocent people suffer. Commission names The Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution The Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin The Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow
In every system there are flaws. The criminal justice system is no exception. A major flaw that occurs is the problem of wrongful convictions. Around the world, innocent people are incarcerated and sometimes even executed for crimes that they didn’t commit. The United States of America is known for its high number of overturned cases due to actual innocence.
In England, the press has a certain amount of freedom, but must adhere to the decisions of a separate entity which can decide on its own if the paper has erred. This entity, the Press Complaints Commission, has the power to decide if a newspaper did something it shouldn 't have, and can write the adjudication or apology for the paper. In order to fully comply, the newspaper must actually print the adjudication in the exact size and manner stipulated by the PCC. The Press Complaints Commission of PCC is a self-governing body which is maintained with the sole purpose of fielding complaints from the public about newspaper and magazine content.
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.
Hi Nakia, I totally agree with your statement about the fifth amendment. The fifth amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights that protects the rights of anyone accused of a crime and secure life, liberty and property. It requires that a citizen cannot be accused of a serious crime without a grand jury investigation. As well, it also forbids double jeopardy as you said the act of of bringing a person to trail a second time for the same crime. Fifth amendment really changed many people’s lives.
From believing that the freedom of speech and press was protection against previous regulations to believing that it to be protection against unnecessary harm to the general public, Holmes changes positions between Patterson v. Colorado and Schenck v. United States. In Patterson v. Colorado, Patterson was fined for publishing a cartoon about an active case of the Supreme Court of Colorado. Believing that his rights protected by the 14th Amendment were infringed, Patterson turned to the Supreme Court to repeal his punishment. Holmes argued that the cartoon was an obstruction of justice.
All clauses are adapted to the needs of the country at the present time. Change is always necessary to explore better and newer options. The double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment hasn’t significantly changed since the constitution was ratified, but rather the way viewed. The Supreme Court's rulings in Palko v. Connecticut, Benton v. Maryland and Heath v. Alabama show that there has been a noticeable trend towards various interpretations of the same clause over the last hundred years.