In this regard, Wexler (2002), points out that the "reliance by many deeply religious citizens on religious sources of authority raises important civic problems" (p. 1159). Among these problems is the ability of the state to "see your face" when it comes to providing official forms of identification that are routinely used by law enforcement authorities. Indeed, taken to its logical extreme, other religious adherents could present themselves for driver's license photographs wearing Halloween masks or nothing at all, claiming religious authority for such actions. It is a matter of dispute, however, whether the Koran demands that Muslim women cover themselves. Furthermore, the issue of whether the plaintiff's claims that religious imprecations prohibited her from having her face photographed were carefully considered by Judge Thorpe but were found to either be spurious in the instant case or otherwise open to interpretation. As Weiner (2004) points out, the requirement to wear the niqab remains open to interpretation even by Islamic religious authorities: "One frequently encounters a textual interpretation that is liberal: Modesty is required of Muslims of both sexes, and Koranic references to veiling apply (or, applied) literally only to the wives of the Prophet Muhammad" (p. 49). Therefore, the legal line concerning acceptable photographic content for legal identification purposes must be drawn somewhere and Judge Thorpe firmly - and rightly -- drew it in this case.
Conclusion
The research showed that in early 2001, Freeman received a valid driver's license issued by the State of Florida containing a photograph of her face covered by a niqab, a garment...
The research also showed that later in 2001, the plaintiff in this case received notice from the state that she must either submit to another photograph of her face with the niqab removed or surrender her driver's license. In response, Freeman brought suit against the State of Florida Department of Motor Vehicles but her lawsuit was rejected on grounds. The arguments presented by Judge Thorpe in the instant case were compelling and on-point, and the religious authority cited by the plaintiff was taken into account in formulating this decision. In sum, the judge in this case rightly determined that notwithstanding the plaintiff's fundamental constitutional right to appear in public and even drive a motor vehicle with her face covered by a niqab, the state had a right to see her face for driver's licenses purposes since this license also served as a form of official identification in the State of Florida and throughout the rest of the country and that law enforcement authorities had a legitimate right to be able to verify an individual's identity by using timely photographs contained in state-issued drivers' licenses.
Criminal Court System Evolution and History of the Criminal Justice System: When the British first colonized the Americas, they adopted their centuries' old "Royal Privy Council" as a judicial system, as a separate branch of government. Prior to the American Revolution, the individual American colonies all developed and maintained their own criminal (and civil) justice systems with absolutely no uniformity among them, either procedurally or statutorily. More importantly, there was no official method
The need for mental competency was most recently addressed by the Supreme Court in Indiana v. Edwards, a case that helped to reinforce these fundamental constitutional rights for mentally ill defendants. The research also showed, though, that the criminal justice system is faced with some profound challenges in conducting mental health assessments in a rapid manner due in large part to the multifaceted evaluation approaches that are involved as
Crime Control/Procedures The term "play in the joints" refers to flexibility within the law that allows for a certain amount of discretion to occur within the prosecution and judge. Even though there is discretion within the manner in which the Judge may interpret sentencing, procedure and rulings, there are still formal rules of law that provide for a basis for upholding the Constitution. In a given situation, for example, the Judge
The consequences of impermissible detention and searches without sufficient probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct can result in civil liability on the part of the police agency involved. The most serious types of criminal procedure violations, such as those depriving individuals of fundamental civil rights and freedoms can also trigger serious criminal violations under federal law in addition to civil monetary penalties (Schmalleger, 2008; Zalman, 2008). Modern American criminal
Criminal Procedure Chief Justice Earl Warren had a political background, unlike his counterpart Justice William. He is one of the chief justices in the U.S. who had a significant influence on the criminal procedures offered by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He brought in the notion of strong belief in the remedial power of the law. He had a pragmatic view of the law, something he used
Georgia (428 U.S. 153). In that case, the Supreme Court finally ruled specifically that capital punishment was not inherently necessarily cruel or unusual, and therefore, was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment in and of itself (Schmalleger, 2008). Since Gregg, the issues surrounding the Eighth Amendment constitutionality of capital punishment relate to the specific methods of implementation in light of evidence that lethal injection, the most common method used