Stanford v Kentucky was a United States Supreme court case that dealt with the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least sixteen years old at the time the crime was committed. Stanford was 17 years old at the time he committed murder in Kentucky. On January 17, 1981, Stanford and an accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized twenty year old Barpel Poore during and after their robbery at the gas station Poore worked at. Hearings were held to decide on whether Stanford’s case should be held in Juvenile court or adult. The juvenile court did make the decision to transfer his case, therefore; Stanford would be trialed as an adult under a state statute permitting such action as to offenders who are either charged with a class A felony, capital crime or anyone over the age of sixteen and charged with a felony.
The fifth task is to sentence convicted criminals. When a judge sentences a convicted criminal it can be from a fine, community service, restoration, or a prison sentence. Punishment is given to fit the type of crime the criminal has committed. Many criminal cases and almost all civil cases are heard by a judge without a jury present (Role of the Judge and Other Courtroom Participants, n.d.). Witnesses are present in the courtroom to give testimonies about facts pertaining to the case.
His sentence is changed from manslaughter and he has now been sentenced to 18-20 years in prison for manslaughter, followed by four to five years in prison for illegal possession of a firearm. (Ryan, 2013) During a trial, the evidence is again presented to a court of law or a jury. Being sentenced to Capital Punishment is very unlikely to happen for Burke, as the state of Massachusetts has abolished Capital Punishment and only uses it in very severe cases where the suspect is tried federally (McCarthy, 2014) instead of regionally, like the Boston Bomber Case. Burke most likely got this sentence, because he pleaded guilty, possibly after enough evidence was gathered to prove his guilt and thereby “has taken responsibility for shooting the victim, resulting in his death, over what appears to have been a dispute about money” (Boston.com, 2013) Burke is most likely to receive this sentence, because it is exactly the crime he committed. He committed manslaughter which was proven by the messages on the phone and apparently other evidence that has been found.
Here are the statics: “Since 1989 when the first DNA exoneration occurred, 328 defendants have been exonerated in the United States after being convicted of serious crimes such as rape and murder. The exonerated were 316 men and 12 women; 145 of them were cleared by DNA identification and 183 by other kinds of evidence” (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0304/May10_04/25.shtml). What went wrong? * Eyewitness Misidentification * Improper Forensic Science * False Confessions * Overzealousness/Public Pressure Eyewitness Misidentification Imagine being a victim so frighten and traumatized after such a hideous unimaginable experience. It can be hard, almost impossible to accurately describe the assailant.
After taken to trial, the prosecutor's case “consisted solely of his confession” to obtain a conviction. The Maricopa County Superior Court convicted Miranda of both rape and kidnapping and was then sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that “the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” as well as the absence of an attorney during the interrogation and should have been excluded from trial. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights.
Conviction, and the possibility of such, presents the defendant with many questions concerning outcome and consequences. Do you think that I should just plead guilty so I can get this over with and reunite with my son? Why or why not? When faced with the possibility of serving a lengthy prison sentence and expensive fines the option of pleading guilty becomes favorable. The occurrence of plea bargaining and pleading guilty even though the defendant professes his or her innocence is a rising and questionable phenomenon in the US court system.
Said perpetrator was, Joe Davis, already a convicted felon, had seen release from prison only three weaks earlier. Afterwards, Kimber’s father Mike Reynolds met with an informal group of judges, attorneys and law enforcement reps to discuss sentencing practices. This case set the precedent for California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law. Said California law requires that when a criminal is convicted of three felonies, he or she must serve a mandatory fixed sentence of twenty-five years to life, usually without parole. There are three types of offenses that qualify as a strike: Juvenile Offenses, Serious Felonies and Violent Felonies.
Following on from this, Gudjohnsson carried out a study involving a case study about a 17 year old boy who confessed to crime and was subsequently imprisoned for one year. Later it was found out that his confession was false and he was not guilty of committing the crime. Gudjohnsson wondered how false confessions can arise. The aim of the study was therefore to document the case of the false confession of a youth who was at the time of the confession distressed and susceptible to interrogative pressure. In 1987 two elderly women were found battered to death in their homes, their savings were stolen and there was evidence of sexual assault.
Public Safety and Privacy Analysis Carolyn Newby-Ruffin AJS 552 March 18, 2013 Professor Vinci Maryland vs. King, 12A48 In this case the US Supreme Court decisions conflicts with the Maryland Supreme Court’s decisions. Alonzo Jay King Jr. was arrested for first degree assault in 2009. What Mr. King did was point a shot gun at a group of people. Witnesses identified Mr. King as the person with the shotgun. Here’s where the issue comes into play.
During a grueling two hour-long interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to these crimes (McBride, 2006). Only finishing school up until the ninth grade, Ernesto wasn’t considered a very educated man. His lack of education, paired with the fact that he had a history of mental instability, made a confession from Miranda easily obtainable without having council present to represent him. With his recorded confession, the prosecution was able to convict Miranda of rape and kidnapping, thus sentencing him to 20 to 30 years in prison (McBride, 2006). After the Arizona Supreme Court threw out his appeal, Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.