Case Brief Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda (Plaintiff) v. Arizona (Defendant) Facts: On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. At the Phoenix police station he was identified as the perpetrator by a witness. Mr. Miranda was taken into an interrogation room with two police officers and was questioned. At no time was Miranda advised he had the right to remain silent or have an attorney present. Several hours later the police officers came out of the room with a written and signed confession, which contained a paragraph that the confession was made voluntarily with full knowledge of legal rights.
“Those two guys came out of nowhere, made everyone go to the corner,” the bagboy said/. Also, according to the bagboy, one of the masked men took the clerk working at the time, Celeste Turner, to the register. During the investigation, investigators found that the store only had two surveillance cameras, one over the register and one in the loading docks. After all the damage, the robbery left five dead bodies, including one police officer, two customers and the gunmen. Story 2 Las Vegas, NV— Officer involved in grocery store shooting is put on leave Officer Frank Fromanski has been going through questioning from Internal affairs this week, about his connection in last Monday’s grocery story robbery.
This program is geared towards probationers who are drug-involved, or committed crimes involving domestic violence, sexual abuse. HOPE provides treatment to offenders who request it and to those who demonstrate a need for it through persistent relapses in drug use. Benefits of limited mandated substance abuse treatment are; it cuts down on the expensive costs of treatment, saving the program and state money, and not all drug using offenders require treatment to stop their pattern of drug use, just a reason not to use it. (Wadsworth and T. Scott, 2011)Judge Steven S. Alm of the First Circuit Court of Hawaii introduced this program in Honolulu. Probationers who have committed any of the above mentioned crimes enter HOPE through a warning hearing.
It is dangerous and people need to take it seriously. By not finding better ways to prosecute DUI’s more people will continue to be killed. 6) There is no further information I want the Professor to know about this essay. Michael St.John Professor Jodie Baeyens ENGL 102 Effectiveness in Writing June 5, 2012 Difficulty of DUI Cases Driving under the influence (DUI) is a major problem in the U.S. DUIs are dangerous selfish acts that affect all social classes and ethnic groups. DUI’s happen when a person has no regard for the rules or regulations of their state or the safety and well being of fellow citizens.
Running Header: STOP THE INCARCERATION AND START THE REHABILITATION 1 Stop the Incarceration and Start the Rehabilitation Amber Pritt English 215 Professor Dorothy Hoerr December 8th 2013 STOP THE INCARCERATION AND START THE REHABILITATION 2 Abstract About 9,700 American prisoners are serving life sentences for crimes they committed before they could vote, serve on a jury or gamble in a casino - in short, before they turned 18. More than a fifth have no chance for parole. Juvenile criminals are serving life terms in at least 48 states. The increased prosecution of juveniles in adult court is another failed “get tough” policy which is excessive and harmful to children and does nothing to increase
Justice Process By: Ebony Loggins After an arrest is made, at the police station, the suspect is searched, photographed, fingerprinted, and allowed at least one telephone call. After the booking process, charges are reviewed, and if they are not dropped, a complaint is filed and a judge looks at the case for the probable cause. A grand jury will than determine if there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime. The federal government and about one third of the states require grand jury indictments for most felonies. Grand juries are impaneled, or created for a period of time usually not exceeding three months.
Criminal Justice Ethics A case, where a woman was found assaulted, raped, and left for dead, is brought to my desk. An investigation was under way and two juveniles were brought in for questioning because they were seen in the area of the crime on that same evening. The two juveniles belong to a gang who have been known to cause gang-related activities. The juveniles were placed in two separate interrogation rooms and questioned by my partner. My partner informs me that he allegedly obtained a confession but did not perform a video recording or call the juveniles parents.
First, he broke the department policy by not video recording the interview which was essential to built a solid case if they had confess in which he claimed the two did. Secondly, he did not have either of the young offenders guardian(s) present which was a grand mistake. Not only did he confess to intentionally crossing the line by avoiding bringing in the parents and including them in the interview he probably is also guilty of coercing them in the confession. According, to the self-incrimination clause it clearly states that any statement made by defendant(s) while in police custody before trail will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have the right to remain silent, the right to consult an attorney before being questioned, the right to have an attorney present during police questioning, the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, the right to be informed that any statement they do make can
Prison rehabilitates criminals and once freedom, money and life’s luxuries are taken away from white-collar criminals then they will learn that committing such crimes are not worth prison time. Alternative sentences should not be given because being isolated from the world will be more effective then giving them house arrest because they will not be in the luxury of their own
It doesn’t matter how much damage it could cause, you are intentionally harming people. This would make it wrong all the time, because you know the products that you are selling are going to harm someone. With the second definition this becomes a little blurry. In a free market you should be able to sell your products at whatever price you want to. But it becomes wrong when you are selling your products at such a low price that you put all other companies out of business.