Horton accuses the governing body of frequently exploiting its power in having the Justice Department instigate repression among voters. Furthermore, the lawyers who were inspecting the unlawful actions of these political criminals were quietly discharged of their duty and the incriminating evidence was concealed. The Bush administration was also spying regularly on religious and political groups in the country, while it covertly introduced a tremendously illegal surveillance program that caused conflict among senior officials in the Justice Department. Horton attributes this illicit monitoring device as the reason behind the “War on Terror” because it misleadingly revealed all of intelligence’s information on Iraq to both
Sentencing scheme is unconstitutional b/c of overlap that inevitably tilts sentencing scales toward DP imposition 3. Permitting jury to enter sentencing hearing already across threshold of D-E entrusts determination of man’s life or death to “a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death.” vii. Vague ACs: 1. Godfrey v. GA (1980, p. 147) a. Δ admitted he had been thinking about murders for 8 years & would do it again (convicted of 2 murders) b. AC: § (b)(7): outrageously or wantonly vile murder, horrible, & inhuman c. Δ’s claim: § (b)(7) is unconstitutionally vague b/c GA SC tied AC to torture, aggravated battery, or depravity of mind – none of which were found by jury d. Held: DP imposition unconstitutional b/c did not fall w/in GA’s definition of the phrase i. Court concluded that GA SC’s constitutional construction of the AC was unconstitutional b/c there was no principled way to distinguish this case from cases in which DP wasn’t imposed ii.
SUSPENSION OF HABEAUS CORPUS UNCONSTIUTIONAL? In Article I, section IX of the U.S. Constitution is states “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Therefore, any suspension of habeas corpus, either short-term or long lasting, is a crucial action that must be applied strictly as last resort and only when confronted with disastrous and unforeseen situations. Such, situations like the Civil Wars and attacks on the US by terrorist are most definitely disastrous and unforeseen and are without doubt constitutional. Habeas Corpus is the lawful ability of a prisoner to apply for release from a prison due to a permissible and/or truthful inaccuracy in either the trial or sentencing process. The suspension of Habeas Corpus is one of the most weighed upon acts in United States history for the reason that it takes away the rights given under the United States Constitution.
Point A) An interesting report by John Stossel on how government at all levels are criminalizing and regulating more and more. This points out how we by our vote are giving the government far too much power and how they are using their power to chip away at even the most basic of our rights. For so many things to be illegal and a crime to be committed, it becomes impossible for people to live without breaking the laws. This government is out of control, especially the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and local prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. What happened to our freedom?
What are the reasons for gang related violence? There are a plethora of ideas that plenty of people have made a strong case for; including fatherless families, weak immigration rules, a soft touch criminal justice system, racism, poverty, and too many guns. Dan Gardner suggests it may not be any of the previous mentioned possible causes. A cause, he claims often going unanalyzed, is the effects of the drug trade and the black market. In this essay, Gardner suggests that drugs and the black market are primary causes of gang related violence, and that these causes are often ignored.
In some states, the individual must be convicted of two serious felonies for the three strikes law to apply, while in others any felonies count towards the third strike. Critics of the three strike law express many strong arguments against their harsh legal statute. Our society has ultimately had an issue with the three strikes law. Some people have said that the law “destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge, it is unjust in certain conditions, and it adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive criminal system”
The real challenge to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and its medieval, terror-laden theology, has come not from the West’s war on terror but from the Arab Spring, from the revolts that have shaken the region from Tunisia to Egypt to Yemen to Syria. The desire of the peoples across the Arab world for democratic change has not only humbled autocrats, it has also marginalized the jihadists who have played no part in the popular movements. These uprisings, and the hope that they engender, will transform the world far more than will bin Laden’s
Humanitarian intervention and the spread of human rights can be recognised as progressively challenging the nation based order of the order and adjusting it to embrace universal values and individual human rights. The international realm has persisted to stress the significance of non-intervention, however, it is arguable that military involvement must be legalised in disregarding the sovereignty rule in cases where states have succumbed to civil disorder or when a regime massively infringes its citizen’s rights. As the United Nations prohibits war, excluding self-defence and united action with the approval of the United Nations Security Council, humanitarian intervention produces major dilemmas for the international realm which is established on nation rights such as sovereignty, self rule and the rights to non use of force. Presumably, sovereign nations behave as defenders of their civilian’s protection, however, many human rights activists assert that nations are allowed to act aggressively towards their own population, regarding sovereignty as their authorisation for abuse. Spurring vigorous debate among theorists is the issue as to whether totalitarian nations should be acknowledged as genuine member of the international community and provided with the protection of the non intervention standard, or whether they have forfeited their sovereign rights and ought to be exposed to legitimate intervention.
Criminal Jurisdiction A criminal jurisdiction and law enforcement concern establishes a massive break for state-tribal collaboration. Criminal jurisdiction on ethnic grounds may be puzzling vicinity of regulation. It could require three diverse provinces (federal, state, and tribal) and should take into description issues extra aspects for example, the individuality of the criminal, the identity of the fatality, precise category of crime that is was committed, and the vicinity of the offense (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011). The present jurisdictional agenda has created conditions in which no particular administration has the power to implement occupied province, missing supportive agreement. The confusion and possible jurisdictional gaps have contributed to the excessively elevated offense rates and under-prosecution of crimes, which harmful influence inhabitant and habitant people equally (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011).
Jessica McClenahan Sociology of Prisons Professor Ronald Lee Morris 12 March 2012 Prison: A Corrupt System “Prison will always be prison: Every society has to live with some level of institutional violence in the worlds it builds to confine its most dangerous elements, and there’s an inherent cruelty to incarceration that cannot be refined away. But there has to be a limit, as well. And what Americans have learned to tolerate (or rather, ignore) inside the walls of jails and prisons ought to churn our stomachs, shock our consciences, and produce not only outrage, but action.” (Douthat) The inherent cruelty to incarceration goes beyond the expected violence that occurs in prison. The corruption of the penal system this cruelty