However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137). The Lectric Law Library at lectlaw.com (1995-2012) states that “the double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: 1. a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, 2. a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and 3. multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case Armington is incorrect. Armington was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery and assault and battery. The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy.
It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),
The eighth amendment to the United States Constitution located in the Bill of Rights specifies the prohibition of excessive bail as well as cruel and unusual punishment. However, what punishments are considered to be “cruel and unusual”? Courts have ruled that the means of penalty that are vicious, disgraceful, or shocking to the social morality may fall under this clause. So why is it that the death penalty continues to be utilized in several different states throughout the US? Does death not descent under the category of “cruel and unusual”?
Yet Charles Black, by providing the inevitability of "caprice" (inequality), undermines his own constitutional argument, because it seems unlikely that the Constitution's fifth and fourteenth amendments were meant to authorize the death penalty only under unattainable conditions. See C. BLACK, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: THE INEVITABILITY OF CAPRICE AND MISTAKE (1974). n9 See BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, BULLETIN NO. NCJ-98,399, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 1984, at 9 (1985); Johnson, The Executioner's Bias, NAT'L REV., NOV. 15, 1985, at 44. n10 It barely need be said that any discrimination against (for example, black murderers of whites) must also be discrimination for (for example, black murderers of blacks). n11 Bedau & Radelet, Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases (1st draft, Oct. 1985) (on file at Harvard Law School Library).
To ensure judicial oversight to this decision, Rule 5(a) requires that after arrest, the defendant must be brought before a magistrate judge for an initial appearance “without unnecessary delay,” a phrase discussed at length in later sections. [FN29] The government must then “promptly” file a complaint in the district where the crime occurred that demonstrates probable cause as required by Rule 4(a). [FN30] This can afford the defendant the opportunity to contest his continued detention by challenging the sufficiency of the
These things are no joke. One of the greatest challenges facing the criminal justice system is the need to balance the rights of accused criminals against society’s interest in imposing punishments on those convicted of crimes. This tension is illustrated by the debate over whether defendants have the right to be represented by an attorney. Whether or not those accused of a crime should be vigorously defended by lawyers, and whether lawyers should even accept such a case in the first place goes to the heart of the issues in Criminal Justice: Opposing Viewpoints. The authors examine these topics and others in the following chapters: Does the Criminal Justice System Need Reform?
Discretionary life sentences tend to be given for the more serious offences such as rape, manslaughter or robbery. The judge (as said before) does not have to give a life sentence a may chose a fine, discharge or community sentence instead. The final custodial sentence available to judges is a fixed-term sentence. Yet this sentence is always harder for a judge to give as there are many factors which determine the sentence being given; the maximum sentence available for that particular crime, the defendant’s previous record and the seriousness of the crime committed. The defendant is then given a set number of months or years in prison hence the name ‘fixed-term’.
When the jury reaches a verdict of guilty, the judge is responsible for following established legal guidelines during sentencing. If a guilty verdict is appealed, appellate judges are responsible for reviewing the case and determining whether there was any legal misconduct. Federal appellate judges are nominated and appointed by
In the 1976 case, Gregg v. Georgia, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, as applied under the new statutes. You need to look at the constitutional rights during the sentencing as well as the impacts on sentencing guidelines and the constitutionality of the death penalty. On the constitutionality on the sentencing guidelines they can be used to determine the appropriate sentence for an offender. “With the goals of the offender’s sentencing to hopefully lead to rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation, or deterrence.” (Worrall, 2007) The death penalty is the most serious punishment that can be imposed. The death penalty is a very sensitive subject and with it comes different pros and cons.
Capital Punishment, also known as Death Penalty, is when a judicial system punitively undertakes the execution of a convicted criminal. Currently, Death Penalty is employed by few countries commonly recognized as “democratic”, the United States and Japan being the major exceptions (Pearson Education, 2013). The severity of the crime equivalent to receiving the Death Penalty varies amongst its practitioners, likewise does its methods. Whilst one must normally perpetrate murder in the USA in order to be sentenced to Capital Punishment (Death Penalty Information Center, 2013), any act of homosexuality is sufficient in Saudi Arabia (UNHCR, 2013). Should one subsequently face legal execution, the method may vary in dignity.