David Phillips, who chairs the crime committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, suggests that “someone manifestly guilty can evade conviction” under the double jeopardy rule. The amendments are able to alleviate this problem by allowing retrials provided that there is “new and compelling” evidence to be adduced. The first successful retrial case of R v Dunlop , which pleaded William Dunlop guilty to the murder of Julie Hogg in 1989, marks the reduction of legal gaps in the double jeopardy rule. Dunlop exploited the rule by confessing his guilt to a prison officer knowing that he could not be re-trialed. However, the amendments acted as a deterrent to such exploitation.
I believe that convicted felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison because they exercise good judgment: in addition, withholding their rights to vote would be a violation of the United States Voting Rights act of 1965 and the eighth amendment of the Constitution. I think that some, but not all ex-convicts should be allowed to reinstate their voting rights. This should be judged on a case by case basis according to the crime they committed. Also, it should be based on the magnitude and severity of their crime. At the very least, they should attend and complete a special designed program, go through a waiting period, and take a drug-screened testing regularly before they get their privileges restored.
There are 4 reasons why bail could be refused; if they believe the defendant will commit an offence while on bail, if they would interfere with any witnesses or the course of justice, if they need protection from anyone, and if they would surrender to bail. There are also factors to consider when granting bail such as; the seriousness and nature of the crime committed, the strength of the evidence against the person, the antecedents-family or social background and their previous bail record. The court and the police can impose conditions on bail and this is known as conditional bail. They have the power to impose a curfew - specified hours you are allowed, a report - to report to the police station regularly, reside - living at a certain address, surrender a passport and finally a
Specialty Drug Courts Columbia Southern University 1/27/2014 | The importance of Drug Courts are non-traditional justice procedures that were created to find alternative solutions for overcrowded prisons and for nonviolent drug offenders to seek treatment and prevent further drug use while saving the criminal justice system money. According to (Dean J. Champion, Richard D. Hartley, Gary A. Rade, 2012, p. 300) “The first drug court began in Dade County (Miami) in 1989; today there are somewhere around 2,500 drug courts across the United States’’. Drug courts have a big influence on the drug policy that helps correct nonviolent drug offenders with addiction instead of jail time. The debate on drug courts therapy is a main problem with politics with race, poverty, and drug cities (p.417).
Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
I feel people on probation do not take it as serious as they should. They view it as receiving the easy way out. Restrictions such as getting a job, attending two NA/AA meetings a week, urine test and a list of other numerous restriction does not instill fear in the person that is placed on probation, nor is it going to make them change their lifestyle. When looking over the guidelines to probation restrictions are significant. People placed on probation have to realize that freedom is a privilege and to maintain their freedom they need to do right.
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: The rationale behind this exception is that a person who has been arrested may destroy evidence or use some type of concealed weapon against the arresting officer. The Supreme Court of the United States articulated this rule in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The Court held it was reasonable for law enforcement to search an arrestee for evidence or weapons. In order for a search incident to arrest to be lawful, the arrest itself must be lawful. This means if a person is arrested without a warrant or without probable cause and incriminating evidence is discovered after the arrest, that evidence cannot be used against the arrestee.
Since insanity is defined so arbitrarily, lawyers can protect their clients from their punishments with relative ease by dragging out the legal process for years at a time by using the insanity defense. To be protected with the insanity defense in many states, a criminal must take the M'Naghten test: failure to determine right from wrong deems the criminal insane (Cornell University Law School). Although some argue that people with mental illnesses cannot be held accountable for their actions, the greater concern should be for the overall safety for The United States of America because criminals who plead insanity can be a danger when released, legal definitions of insanity vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, Supreme Court has upheld four states' abolishing of insanity defense, and there is incomplete research on insanity. Shafer !2 Insane criminals who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are sent to mental hospitals to rehabilitate and treat their illness. The problem is that the criminals who are sent to a hospital and become "cured" could be a danger to society.
As many have heard discussed on the news, there is much debate about the new law to require welfare recipients to under go drug testing. While there are many states to follow this law, there is still much deliberation on whether this law is ethical or unjust. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 53 percent of American’s believed that recipients should be tested before receiving benefits, 13 percent supported random testing, and 29 percent thought testing should be used only if there was a reasonable suspicion of illegal drug use. The aspect on discipline resulted in 70 percent believing recipients who are found using illegal drugs should have their benefits cut off and 58 percent believe the rule should be one strike and you’re cut off. Florida, being the first state to pass the law, decided that applicants who test positive for controlled substances will either have to complete a substance-abuse program or be banned from receiving benefits for a year.
If the accused appears in court the money is refunded at trial but if the accused refuses to appear then the money is not refunded and a warrant will be issued for his or her arrest. At the time of an arrest the officer is responsible for reciting the Miranda rights to the accused ("Sixth Amendment", n.d). References Due Process Model Law & Legal Definition. (2013). Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/due-process-model/ The United