Annotated Bibliography Draft Student name : Haider Zafaryab Student number: 2360526 Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society. Source 1: Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996). Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 87(1), 1. doi:10.2307/1143970 This article was written by Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers.
1. Gideon’s sixth amendment under the constitution was violated which stated that requires the state courts to provide attorneys to criminals who cannot afford their own. The Supreme Court ruled that Gideon’s amendment was violated. Though his offense was serious he was still supposed to be allowed to have someone to defend him it was one of his rights. The Court stated that the states were to follow the sixth amendment of someone because under the fourteenth amendment “Due Process Clause” applies the main points of the bill of
In the United States, habitual offender laws, are statutes enacted by state governments which mandates the courts to impose harsher sentences on those convicted of an offense if they have been previously convicted of two prior serious criminal offenses. What this means is that people that have been put in prison 3 times will get a harsher punishment going from whatever they 're consequence is to life in prison. I am against this law, for reasons I will talk about later. The origin of the three strikes law came from article 2 section 28 of the Montana constitution in 1998, which states the three strikes law. At first Montana just picked up the law to see if that would help the crime rate in local neighborhoods.
To prove libel of a public official, the official must prove the defendant published information with the knowledge of its falsity or out of reckless disregard. Three court cases furthered the Sullivan decision. Getz V. Robert Welch, Inc. established the public can express their opinion. Herbert V. Lando established a public figure can use the discovery process to determine a reporter’s state of mind. Masson V. New York furthered defined the definition of
Today I will discuss the history and argumentation of assisted suicide. Assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, is a hot-button issue that was brought into the light by Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Dr. Kevorkian was a controversial activist who tried to legalize assisted suicide under the argument that every- one deserves a humane death. There had been much debate on the issue, and our legislatures have explored what the practice entails and the moral implications of assisted suicide. However, it is still illegal in all of the United States.
Submission 3 Should the U.S Congress Repeal the Second Chance Act? Argument 1 - Privilege: that privilege was abundant and as such defeat the purpose of serving one’s actual sentence for the ills committed Analysis of Argumentation The question here is that what is the type of prisoner you want to return on the streets? Should he be the same person who came in and continue to do the crimes or should he be the person who would have been changed for good? The underlying difference here is that the person who is good is a subjective question. Before custody: From a research conducted, we know that 52% of male offenders and 71% of female offenders have no qualifications whatsoever.
Brynne DeRosier Washington v. Glucksberg The Supreme Court case between the state of Washington and Dr. Harold Glucksberg, considering the decision to prohibit physician-assisted suicide, took place in 1997. Dr. Harold Glucksberg and four other physicians decided to challenge the state of Washington 's ban on physician-assisted suicide. The state of Washington had labeled it a crime to promote suicide attempts by those who "knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide." Glucksberg claimed that Washington 's ban was unconstitutional. Following a District Court ruling in favor of Glucksberg and other petitioners, the Ninth Circuit confirmed and the Supreme Court granted the state of Washington certiorari.
Furthermore, policymakers implemented administrative decisions in attempts to reduce the crimes and health risks associated with these drugs, but those decisions lead to negative consequences. Overall, the rhetoric behind the War on Terror and the War on Drugs in the United States greatly influences how the public views crimes as social problems by depicting and focusing on the stereotypes of crime and criminals. The rhetoric connected to both the War on Terror and the War on Drugs describe crimes that involve large public reactions. For example, the War on Terror emerged from terrorist acts; such as those acts committed on September 11, 2001 or during the Boston Marathon in 2013. Terrorism leads to moral panic because of the five stages of social problem actors.
The Supreme Court Decision On several occasions, the Supreme Court has stated its view that ERISA jurisprudence is derived from the common law of trusts. The Supreme Court faulted the Ninth Circuit for failing to adequately consider principles of trust law when it rejected the Employees’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the mutual funds added in 1999. Not only is there a duty of “prudence” to select appropriate investment choices at the outset, but the Court held that there is a “continuing duty” to monitor those investment selections to “remove imprudent ones.” The Supreme Court held that the “continuing duty” is separate from the initial duty to choose investments carefully; violation of the “continuing duty” counts as a breach of the fiduciary duty under ERISA. As long as the breach of the “continuing duty” occurred within six years of the filing of the lawsuit, ERISA’s statute of repose does not bar the
Profiling and US Amendments Gabriel Anthony Farias Fresno State University Just what is the difference between criminal and racial profiling? Is there a difference? In this essay, I will define and give a brief comparison between the two. I will also define and discuss possible violations of the fourth and fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. At the end, the reader should understand the difference between the two distinct types of profiling, and acknowledge that specific circumstances may cause a violation to one amendment, without directly affecting another.
The district court found that the Washington law violated both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. 4. Issue Three terminal ill patients and four doctors brought forth a case challenging Washington State’s position on assisted suicide. Was this an issue over Dr Glucksberg bringing suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Washington state law violated a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
On the other hand, 67% of the surveyed people think that police should not be allowed to search through a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant. I believe that public opinion has a strong effect on the decision-making process of our courts. Professor Barry Friedman of New York University School of Law thinks that “we the people” influence the decision of the U.S Supreme Courts. So, Prof. Friedman states that “the Justices will bend to the will of the people because the Courts requires public support to remain an efficacious branch of government”. However, political scientists are not so sure that public opinion has a direct influence on courts; nor they have found concrete evidence that support this
This week’s assignment was to write an essay based on the questions presented in this week’s case study, “Minority Set-Asides” from Moral Issues in Business. which is based on the Supreme Court case, City of Richmond v. Croson (1989). The case involves the aspiration to mandate set-asides in government procurement, however, it was reversed on the basis of constraint to use as a “remedy for previous discrimination”. As Shaw and Barry (2001) explain, in 1989, the Supreme Court, in a 6-to-3 decision, ruled that the Richmond plan was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (p. 1). Furthermore, described by Shaw and Barry (2001), “in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, Justice O’Connor argued that Richmond had not supported its plan with sufficient evidence of past discrimination in the city 's construction industry” (p.1).
Those labs that do seek out accreditation do so through the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB), the primary certifying body for crime labs. In 1996, Peter Neufeld the cofounder of the Innocence Project remarked that there is no rational as why crime laboratories, which habitually make decisions that have life and death outcome for an indicted individual, should be less managed than a clinical laboratory operating alike tests. In addition to this The NAS Report commented on the lack of standards for lab management and administration. For example, it argues that ‘There is no uniformity in the certification of forensic practitioners, or in the accreditation of crime laboratories. Indeed, most jurisdictions do not require forensic practitioners to be certified, and most forensic science disciplines have no mandatory certification programs.
Hildwin reaffirms what Spaziano held, “Accordingly, the Sixth Amendment does not require that the specific findings authorizing the imposition of the sentence of death be made by the jury.” Id at 640-41. Just a year after Hildwin, Walton v. Arizona was decided. 497 U.S. 639 (1990). Walton upheld the Arizona sentencing scheme that allowed the judge to determine the death sentence based on additional facts. Id at 647-48.