With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
Disappointed, the Tinker’s appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided to hear this case because they have made attempts in the past to define the freedom of speech limitations. They wanted to hear the constitutionality of Des Moines’ anti-armband
I believe neuro-imaging could be used as evidence. While many people may use it as an excuse for their actions, it makes sense for why they did these actions. I do not believe it should give them a free pass out of jail (since they still know its wrong and CAN ask for help), but I do think they need counseling and medication over some jail time since that is the only thing that will cure their problem. 5. Do you believe that the judicial system should be based on holding people accountable for their choices (blame) or probability of future crimes committed?
Should Judges (i.e. District, Superior, and Supreme) in North Carolina be elected by the citizens or appointed by the Governor? Jonathan Mills North Carolina Wesleyan College Author Note This paper was prepared for Legal Environment, taught by Professor KizzyV Crawford Heath Abstract NO, it is unethical for judges to hear cases for which they may have a conflict of interest. I think it is far better for the Governor to nominate judges from a list of lawyers vetted for their professional qualifications and judicial temperament. Most elected judges once elected make bias decisions.
Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement. The exclusionary rule is judge made law and has been around since the beginning of the 1900’s. The Supreme Court ruled that illegal searches conducted by law enforcement officials should not be allowed in court because it was a breach of a person’s fourth amendment. This rule prevents officers from misconduct. Cost and Benefits When determining the cost/benefit analysis to the exclusionary rule, one must take into consideration the outcome.
Since Mapp and other significant decisions, innocent people have been subjected to fewer unconstitutional searches, not necessarily because the police fear the exclusion of evidence but because of the potential for civil liability, citizen complaints, and the like. The rules of law decided in Mapp v. Ohio relate to the relevant facts in the fact pattern based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Det. Quickdraw is a representative for the government, but he failed to uphold the law by not following the correct criminal procedure for search and seizure. In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible.
Is Tom Robinson Guilty or Innocent? A trial is all about the evidence and its validness, if the evidence has any doubt that it could be wrong it shouldn’t be in the trial. With this in mind, one could argue that he is not guilty because the lack of evidence. Furthermore, Atticus Finch disproved all evidence of the Tom Robinson trial. Also, you have to factor in the time period of this trial, which was in the 1920’s to the 1930’s.
Jury nullification is the right of any jury during a trial to decide the guilt of the defendant even if the judge has already found the defendant guilty of charges and has decided the punishment. The jury can overturn the judge’s verdict and allow the defendant to go free without serving any time for the guilty verdict. This is if they believe that the guilty verdict is unjust for the crime that was committed or the law that is being served upon the defendant. Ethnicity based jury nullification is when the jury would be composed of a specific race based on what race the defendant. This way, the jury would allow the defendant to go free based on the fact of race to prove a point to the criminal justice system that they need to stop going after minorities.
Cover Letter 1) The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the difficulties of prosecuting DUI’s. Justice is not being served, instead defense lawyers are looking for loopholes to get their clients charges dropped or reduced. 2) I learned their needs to be changes in the legal system. If someone is found not guilty of a crime, it needs to be because they did not do it, not because of a technicality. 3) I found a lot of good information on this topic.
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.