The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from prosecuting individuals more than one time for a single offense and from imposing more than one punishment for a single act. The Constitution states “No person shall…be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb.” Most state constitutions guarantee this right to defendants appearing in state court. States that do not specifically assure the right of double jeopardy in their laws, must still ensure the right to criminal defendants. States must uphold this right due to the guarantee in the Fifth Amendment by means of the doctrine of incorporation. Benton v. Maryland, 39 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969), supports the the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause is relevant to both state and federal proceedings.
The Sentences Paper In today’s criminal justice system. Crime is not always solved. The person that commits the crime is not sentenced fairly. The factors that measure the judges and jurors discretions in the sentencing process are governed by the United States constitution. The 18th amendment provides protection to all citizens against unusual sentencing.
When it comes to capital punishment, proportionality under the Eight Amendment to the U. S. Constitution means that any state or federal law that allows for the death penalty must specify the exact crimes for which the death penalty may be imposed. In addition, the crimes specified have to be serious enough to justify the punishment. www.criminal.lawyers.com>...>criminallaw. In non-capital cases where a defendant, if convicted, doesn’t face the death penalty because the rules on proportionality aren’t always clear. Under the Eight Amendment, federal and state criminal laws can’t allow excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.
Statutory Offenses The phrase of crimes are statutory offenses means that an illegal crime was committed that violated a criminal statute (Mallor, J., 2013, p.130). In order to convict a person of any wrong doing that violated a crime, the plaintiff’s lawyer has to provide evidence of the criminal act committed, demonstrate substantiated evidence that would show beyond any doubt that the defendant committed the act, and prove that the defendant was fully capable of engaging himself in the criminal act of what he/she is being accused of (Mallor, J., 2013, p. 130). Any kind wrongful behavior is not considered a crime, unless Congress or the state legislature has criminalized it (Mallor, J., 2013, p. 130). An example is, Killing vs. United States; after four months when Jeffrey Skilling’s resigned from Enron’s Corporation it went into bankruptcy (Mallor, J., 2013, p.133). A Federal Investigation was filed, uncovered an elaborate conspiracy to prop up Enron’s short-run stock prices by overstating the company’s well-being (Mallor, J., 2013, p.133).
Evidence seized by private parties is not excluded from trial if the search was not in the direction of law enforcement officers. If a criminal defendant testifies in his or her own defense, illegally seized evidence may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony. Evidence seized in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights may be used in Grand Jury proceedings and civil proceedings. In a grand jury proceeding, illegally seized evidence may not be used if it was obtained in violation of the federal government. In the case of United States v. Herring, the officer arrested the defendant without a proper arrest warrant.
If evidence is withheld, it violates the defendant’s rights and justice will not be achieved. Prosecutors have to follow the Brady Rule, which was established in 1963 after the Brady v. Maryland ruling (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). This rule requires prosecutors to expose any material they have, and any material the government may have, to the defense team. The material exposed is known as “Brady material” (Legal Information Institute, n.d.).This evidence may be favorable to the defendant’s case and may help prove the innocence of the accused and may also shorten any prison sentence he or she may receive. If, at any time, the evidence is not given to the defense, any evidence that has been exposed to that point will be determined unvalid (Legal Information Institutue, n.d.).
In the 18th century most individuals were allowed to have his or her defense attorney present during criminal cases. There are certain fundamental rights that are safe guarded by the first set of eight amendments against the federal actions, and against those actions of the state by due process of law and the fourteenth amendment. Among these rights are fundamental rights of the accused individual to have aid from a counsel during criminal prosecutions. The rights of a defendant during a criminal trial to have aid from a counsel is a fundamental right that can lead to a petitioners trial and a fair trial, but a conviction without the aid of a counsel will violate the rights of that individual under the fourteenth amendment. Most of the time it is common for an individual to have assistance from a counsel offered to him or her in most cases, but it is not always necessary to have one.
The accused are innocent until proven guilty and cannot be found guilty unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit the crime or crimes that he or she is being accused of. The accused have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney and if they cannot afford it one will be provided for them, they have the right to a trial by jury and the right to confront witnesses against them, and the right to bail bond unless they are charged with murder or the court determines them a flight risk. The accused also have the right against self-incrimination meaning that a person cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. Rule seven of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the accused must have a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the facts constituting the offense they are being charged with. The accused have the right to counsel which means that under the sixth amendment the accused has the right to representation by an attorney.
I think that the rationale for not including serious crimes such, as genocide and human trafficking, as Part 1 crimes because they don’t fit the type of crimes reported in Uniform Crime Reports. The UCR is a “program that supported the development of state-level mandatory reporting systems. A state-level system, created by legislation, designates an official crime-reporting agency in that state and mandates reporting by all law enforcement agencies in that state.” Which means that only local or common crimes committed in each state are reported. Part 1 offenses include criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft (excluding auto theft), motor vehicle theft, and arson. These offenses were chosen because
What I mean by this is that the government, not a private party, files the litigation. By the government taking action, the case is classified a criminal law case and not a civil law case. Then why were civil law standards applied to the criminal law proceeding of In re Winship? Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the illogical exercise of government power. Granted, the procedures that are needed to satisfy due process will vary depending on the circumstances, and subject matter involved; Winship was clearly being evaluated by two different and unequal evidential law standards, violating his due process rights.