They had the sheriff protecting them. Another piece of evidence is when Harper Lee writes that Mayella did not want to cooperate even though she eventually has to answer Atticus’s question. (pg 205) Victoria from the Scottsboro trial also didn’t want to answer some questions and she was kind of shady like Mayella was. Another strong piece of evidence is that they are both accused of rape in both instances; the difference is that in To Kill a Mockingbird there is only one accused man. Clearly she used this case as the foundation for Tom’s case in her
Justice Douglas wrote the opinion. “The decision by the court was to overturn the officers ' convictions based upon the finding that they were coerced under the threat of the loss of their positions as public employees, specifically as police officers. The officers had a vested interest in their jobs, as it was their livelihood. The decision, needless to say, put public entities on notice that, although they have the right to compel employees to give a truthful statement to authorities about their actions as public servants, they could not also use the statement against them in a criminal action. The officers were entitled to immunity, as is any public servant.” The Garrity warning is a protection that is utilized by many law enforcement officers each year.
In such cases, it is immaterial whether the attacker has committed a serious felony, a misdemeanor, or any crime at all” (Katzenbach et al., 1967). Although this appears to be a sound example of a good policy set forth in the report, it is too opened ended and appears to go against other detailed guidelines that the report states, such as the outlines that specifically say when a weapon can and cannot be used. As we know, many times the usage of a firearm is unwarranted by police (Katzenbach et al., 1967) therefore, can the idea stated above, which outlines that police are supposed to make a choice about what kind of force they should make, undoubtedly in the heat of moment, truly offer protection if we know that the decision often made is unwarranted? Through the Report’s guideline no one can be safe because of the variation and differing degrees of safety that it
The exclusionary rule is “based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, that incriminating information must be seized according to constitutional specifications of due process or it will not be allowed as evidence in a criminal trial.” This corresponds with the fourth amendment because it protects us from unreasonable search and seizure from police. So, if police would find something incriminating evidence during an unreasonable search and seizure, it would not go through in the court of law hence the word “Exclusionary rule.”
So our opposition clearly wants to make the situation worse by ignorantly indicting police officers without a grand jury? This proposition means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.
In the case of Floyd v New York City when David Floyd an African American man was unfairly frisked and accused by the police for breaking and entering in to his own family building. The court ruled in favor of Floyd saying that Frisking policy violated the fourth amendment because it over bares and violates personal space Yes GPS surveillance on a suspects vehicle without suspects knowledge should always require a warrant as long as the suspect is not suspected for murder. A suspect shouldn’t have his or her private property searched because the
W. Bush said “Law enforcement officials cannot place themselves above the law that they are sworn to defend.” OTHER - The police are, and always haves been, the protectors of our freedoms- we need non corrupt officers to be able to do that - It is such a big issue, that October 22 has been named the National Anti Police Brutality Day - Some policy officers take advantage of the power/authority they have - In many cases citizens have not taken legal action against the corrupted police which is necessary for an overall end to the brutality to be achieved - The law states that we are innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent - Cops receive an unfair favorable treatment when it comes to not getting indicted - Police generally believe and act as if they are above the law COUNTERS - Counter argument 1: but the police are our authority and they are just trying to protect us? They are using excessive force when it is unnecessary and this is more harmful than
Evan Vipond (2015) states that the law “ignores the historical and systemic forms of oppression that are enforced through state and civil acts of violence” (16). It was this issue of history that was missing in Steven Tyler Kummerfield and Alexander Dennis Ternowetsky trial and as such it is important to acknowledge that George became objectified and personified as indignant, deviant and deserving of the rape and murder she endured. In Justice Malone’s instructions to the jury, he informed them that it would be “dangerous” for the jury to return a guilty verdict, presumably on the basis of the precedence that it would set, however, this instead reveals a larger problem of the Canadian legal system seen from the perspective of the ongoing legacy and presence of colonialism and how it continues to both shape and form through case laws. Today, there remains an urgent need to explore how intersections of race, gender, and class in prostitution exist in
The concept of criminal failure to act is an interesting one in that in the one hand it tries to make persons to be orally and ethically responsible for the common good, on the other hand it attempts to restrict or stop criminal liability in situations in which the defendants have no control over (Sistare, 1989). The concept advocates for the understanding that the failure by someone to act in a particular situation results in the cat tagged as omission. In the case of the Sandusky rape case at the Penn State University; there have been debates on whether or not the Assist Coach McQuery was justified not take action by preventing his senior, Sandusky form molesting r raping the boy (Sistare, 1989). However, as the debate rages on, it is critical
Due process is based on the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, the constitutional amendments are to make sure that a person cannot be accused of a crime without a grand jury investigation, they have the right to an attorney and a person should not be deprived of life. For example if a person was being accused of robbery but there was no evidence that this person did the crime he/she would need to be represented by an attorney to plead their innocence than the case would be taken in front of a jury for them to deliberate on whether this person should be found guilty