This sentencing goal is critical due to the fact that different state has different sentencing laws. These are issues the American society deals with when a court sanctioned a cruel and unreasonable punishment. Structured Sentencing The public opinion of social justice wanted a different sentencing model that will determine fair justice to convicted criminals. Through criticism of its methods, the
It is therefore, justified that Mr. Dents is mentally unstable and should receive psychiatric care rather than go to prison (Ciolino, 2000). If the presented evidence show doubts about an individual’s sanity, then there is a need to establish sanity to the accused individual (Cole, 2008). The burden of proof is used to prove to the defense with clear and convincing evidence. Defendants
The Batson doctrine holds that: Answer | | peremptory challenges based on race by the defense are unconstitutional | | | prosecutorial peremptory challenges based on race are unconstitutional | | | the use of 'content' questions is unconstitutional | | | peremptory challenges may not be limited to less than five by state statute | 1 points Question 4 1. When a right is granted in a case by the Supreme Court it is usually referred to as a(n): Answer | | landmark decision. | | | issuance of legalis. | | | writ of certiorari. | | | mandate of precedence.
Though their brains are still developing they are still held liable for their actions. The Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional the imposition of the death penalty on those who committed their offense while under the age of 18 in its 2005 decision, Roper v. Simmons. The 5-4 decision was based on clear scientific evidence that fundamental differences exist between the brains of juveniles and adults; differences which make it much more difficult for young people to make informed decisions and understand the consequences of violent actions. The Court subsequently outlawed the imposition of mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles. (Williamson,
Trident University Criminal Justice System Procedures (CJA 502) Summer 2010 Module 1 - Case 19 July 2010 Module 1 – Case Does the Federal Grand Jury System need to be reformed? Being that “Grand juries listen to evidence and decide if someone should be charged with a crime (Brenner, 2003)”, I believe the Grand Jury System to be in need of a reform. The evidence the grand juries hear, unlike a trial jury, is against the accused without allowing the accused to refute the evidence with evidence of his or her own. Other issues of concern as to why I believe in reformation of the grand jury system include: embarrassment, fear, manipulation, uphold rights, misconception, and unfairness. Illustrated statements for each aforementioned
Misty Vernon Unit 9: Analysis and Application: Sentencing “THE IMPOSITION/ CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY” CJ500 Critical Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Twenty five years ago, in Furman v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court explained that the lack of uniform standards for the application of the death penalty resulted in arbitrary and discriminatory sentencing, violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty was then found unconstitutional. In response to this decision, states modified their death penalty legislation to accommodate the concerns of the Court. In the 1976 case, Gregg v. Georgia, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, as applied under the new statutes.
“Indeterminate sentences are sentences that have a minimum and maximum time to serve; a decision by a release authority determines the actual time served within that range” (Seiter, R. 2011). Indeterminate sentencing structure was used before the 1970’s and was supported by two beliefs. The first belief was environmental explanations could contribute to the offenders upbringing and mental condition. The second belief was the offender suffers from psychological problems that result in criminal behavior. These beliefs became heavily challenged in congress because they made the criminal justice system responsible for turning criminals into law abiding citizens.
Since capital punishment is an option in California and other states, innocent people can be executed, to later be found innocent. At least 350 people that were convicted during 1900 and 1985 in America were executed and later on they were found innocent. (“Should the death penalty be allowed?”). Capital punishment lowers the value of human life and it puts the lives of innocent in risk. How would you feel if your loved one was executed and later on found innocent?
Since death has so far been a question of judicial interpretation, I propose that it be questioned no longer. I’m amending the Eighth Amendment to include the death penalty as a means of cruel and unusual punishment prohibiting further violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. I propose the needed modification of the Eighth Amendment to read: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted (including but not limited to the death penalty)” There are many reasons as to why the death penalty should be abolished. First and foremost as mentioned above, the death penalty violates a citizen’s Eighth Amendment right. In Gregg v. Georgia, a case where the death penalty is in question, Justice William J. Brennan in his dissenting opinion asserts that "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no
Should one subsequently face legal execution, the method may vary in dignity. Whilst an American death-row inmate likely faces lethal injection conducted in private (Death Penalty Information Center), his Saudi Arabian counterpart faces public beheading (National Post, 2013). The risk of violating the right to life by incorrect verdicts, in conjunction with unproportional costs and failure to deter, makes Capital Punishment highly questionable. “Innocent until proven guilty”, the same legal and moral principles should indeed apply for “Innocent until proven guilty, innocent if proven non-guilty following false verdict”. Many, if not all, would agree.