Here’s where the issue comes into play. Mr. King admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Officials of the corrections department collected Mr. King’s DNA. This is a state law, but unfortunately for Mr. King his DNA came back linked to a crime of rape in 2003. Here are the particulars of the problems of this case; one the DNA collected was not needed for the assault case again in which Mr. King pleaded guilty.
When used, the Three Strikes law treats all crimes the exact same way, which makes the law unjust. For example, someone who raped and murdered a twelve year old girl would receive the same exact punishment as someone who was caught with marijuana. Many people want to put a stop to situations like this, but every day these trials are taking places. The media then tries to persuade the citizens into believing the law is effective by broadcasting different trials that put the person in prison. But, they do not tell the public that they are being put in prison for stealing “videos or pizza” (Messerli).
In the case of Powell v. Alabama we find a perfect example of The Indigent Person’s Right to Appointed Counsel. This means that anyone with the inability to make discussions on their own and in good faith has an unfair trial and should be allowed to have counsel appointed to them. In this particular case nine African-American illiterate boys were found guilty for rapping two white girls. Eight were sentenced to death. The Supreme Court ended up setting aside their convictions stating that the boy’s illiteracy prevented them from having a fair trial and that they were denied the right to appointed counsel.
Johnson, R. & Tabriz, S. (2011) Sentencing Children to Death by Incarceration: A Deadly Denial of Social Responsibility. The Prison Journal, Gale 91.2, 198-204 In this mind-altering article Johnson brings to attention how there is ultimately two forms of the death penalty in American: death by execution and life without parole, better known as death by incarceration. In the case of Robert v. Simmons it was said that according to the supreme court juveniles cannot be executed, it violates the eighth amendment of cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore they are locked away for life, with no second chances. Rehabilitation is more successful in juveniles than in adults, which has brought to attention that death by incarceration should never be
The Case Against Lethal Injection MICHELLE KAMINSKY When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Florida death row inmate Clarence Hill's plea in Hill v. McDonough, it touched a vein in America. The issue before the high court is actually a very narrow, procedural one pertaining to appellate rights, but that hasn't stopped the national discussion of the larger question: Is lethal injection unconstitutional under the 8thAmendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment?" Recently released evidence virtually screams "yes," but we'll get to that in a moment. In the case before the Court, Hill is convicted of murdering a police officer, and is challenging Florida's lethal injection procedure in a civil rights claim as a last-ditch appeal, having exhausted all other methods. Hill's lawyer claims that the so-called three-drug "cocktail" administered may cause "wanton and gratuitous pain" that Hill would not be able to express during the execution.
Furman intent to burglarize someone home was illegal conduct. The defendant was convicted of murder; Supreme Court granted certiorari. Issues: The case of Furman v. Georgia considered the 8th and 14th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment and the equal protection clauses, specifically. Was the death penalty, as applied by the states in the three cases, “cruel and unusual”? Would the death penalty be “cruel and unusual” if it typically were given to poor people and minorities, while higher ups or white people were given life sentences for similar crimes?
Medical experts , disagree over whether the brain tumor found in his autopsy had any effect on his actions (A+E Networks, 2012). The actions taken Whitman should be studied even further, his mental state could reveal whether serial killers do in fact suffer from some form of mental illness. This could also be a new defense for criminals who commit violent acts in the future, by claiming that they committed these crimes due to a mental illness and were not responsible for their own actions. Whitman’s actions may have been
Rational Choice Theory January 31, 2008 five suspects are charged with first-degree murder, battery, and unlawful restraint of Dorothy Dixon, a pregnant, developmentally disabled woman. Dixon was beaten, shot with a BB gun, and scalded with hot liquid. Her killers were Judy Woods, 43; Michelle Riley, 35; Michael J. Elliott, 18; Benny Lee Wilson, 16; and Leshelle McBride, 15. While this violence seems irrational and committed by monsters with no conscious, even the most violent criminals choose vulnerable targets that are least well protected and do not pose a threat. In order to further understand why people commit violent crimes we explore rational choice theory and ask ourselves is crime rational?
In the case that they are not willing to collaborate with the prosecution, the defense is not permitted access to the requested evidence. In an example of discovery of evidence, Brady v. Maryland (1963), Brady and his acquaintance Boblit were prosecuted for murder. Though the prosecution had a written statement from Boblit, in which he admitted that he alone had killed the victim, they had convicted Brady for the crime as well. The Maryland Court of Appeals found that withholding evidence that is pertinent either to a person’s guilt or to their punishment violates due process
Following that Andrea Yates submitted a plea of guilty for reason of insanity. The criminal case a criminal defendant can claim insanity by simply saying that he or she should not be held criminally liable for the damages committed from his particular crime because he was insane at the time of occurrence. Acording to CBS News (2009) "Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist, testified for the defense that she did not know killing the children was wrong because she was trying to save them from hell.” Now because of the evidence used and the defense of insanity, the cases outcome did not meet very many people’s expectations, to include my own. Many felt that her being sentenced to a mental institute was an injustice at its finest. Acording to CBS News (2009) "No one should believe that she is getting off easy.