Use our essay title generator to get ideas and recommendations instantly
Other examples in which the Court of the United States notes the Constitution had been violated because the defendant was not guaranteed aid of counsel or legal advisement include the case of Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 314, No. 326. This again is a case in which the Petitioner was accused and the interrogation was set up to make the Petitioner admit his criminal actions so that incriminating evidence could be collected and used in the preliminary trials. Once again however, the law enforcement agents involved failed to provide the individual their fair rights as defined by the Miranda ights and the right to an attorney to counsel the individual before interrogation takes place.
It is important to note also in many of these cases the Supreme Court notes many Petitioners are intimidated by the legal system and "forced" into confessing or admitting their crimes. While this may seem…… [Read More]
Miranda Rights hould Be Available to Individuals Detained by Private ecurity
Most people are familiar with so-called "Miranda Rights" that are named after the 1968 upreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Fewer people actually understand what those rights actually are or why they are important. pecifically, Miranda does not actually require police to "read rights" to suspects or prohibit them from questioning suspects and arrested persons. Instead, Miranda imposes a penalty only after the fact, by excluding from admissibility at the criminal trial of any statements made by defendants after their arrest unless they were first advised of their constitutional right not to speak to police and of their constitutional right to be represented by an attorney. Another thing that most people do not understand about "Miranda rights" is, like most other constitutional rights, they only apply to government authorities and not to private entities such as security personnel…… [Read More]
THE POS AND CONS OF THE MIANDA IGHTS
Protection against self-incrimination is undoubtedly one of the most basic rights as described in the laws and codes of the American legal system. In the past, this right was often completely abridged, for those that were accused of a crime would be forced to confess their guilt through various forms of torture. But under American law, the protection against self-incrimination infers that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by his/her peers or judges and that the government or some other legal body must prove their guilt via a fair and balanced trial.
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), one of the best examples of the decisions laid down by the Warren court, it was determined that "in order to secure criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, the police must advise suspects in custody,…… [Read More]
ight to Counsel
To whom it may concern,
This memo serves to inform and educate on what is commonly known as the "right to counsel". Even if criminals caught red-handed are not the Constitutional scholars that they think they are, anyone accused of and/or arrested for a crime does have a right to counsel. Before getting into when the rights to counsel become guaranteed and enforceable, the rights themselves should be discussed and the genesis of how they came to be should also be covered. The Miranda rights are as follows:
• You have the right to remain silent
• If you do say anything, it can be used against you in a court of law
• You have the right to have a lawyer present while you are being questioned
• If you cannot afford a lawyer, one can be appointed for you if you desire
The Miranda rights…… [Read More]
In 1966 the Miranda v. Arizona case ushered in the era of police informing suspects of their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. This case is universally accepted as critical to protecting the rights of suspects while in the custody of the police, however, the impact on the effectiveness of the police is not usually discussed. In a 1998 study John Donohoe discussed the empirical evidence which supported the argument that the imposition of Miranda rights significantly hampered the effectiveness of the police to clear cases. But while he admitted that there were statistical drops in the clearing of cases by police, he could not make a direct connection between that and Miranda. (Donohoe, 1998) In effect, the imposing of the Miranda rights warning does not impede the police and their attempts to catch criminals.
What the Miranda rights warning does is lessen…… [Read More]
Miranda ule's effectiveness in America today [...] why the Miranda is well tailored to guard against constitutional violations, and will present an argument for the Miranda rule. The Miranda ule, first adopted in 1966, is still a contentious ruling in today's criminal justice system. While some critics of the rule feel it is not a deterrent to coercion of information from a suspect, most experts believe the Miranda ule was created with a solid foundation to help ensure a suspect's rights are not violated and the information from any suspect is admissible in court. The Miranda ule guards the criminal justice system just as well as it guards against rights violations and because of this, it is vital to the quick and efficient trying of cases. The Miranda ule is controversial, but it is a necessity in modern policing, and it helps both the suspect and the police.
The Miranda…… [Read More]
The Supreme Court however, should not reverse their ruling on Miranda rights, because they are Constitutional rights that every citizen has. The majority of the time, criminals who are less educated will not know of their rights and therefore the institution of Miranda rights is crucial for every suspect to have a fair and equitable treatment from police officers.
In order to circumvent Miranda right restrictions an investigator should focus upon questions that allow suspects to explain their situation and reveal information that they would otherwise not have revealed. An investigator should focus on information such as their name, date of birth, address and other biographical information, collection of such information is legal under Miranda rights at the same time they convey to the suspect that they are still going to be questioned, and that Miranda rights do not give them unequivocal blank check to not talk to the police.…… [Read More]
Right to Counsel
In the United States, the right to counsel is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. Right to counsel is the civil right of an accused person to seek the aid of an individual who is an expert in the law of the land. Often when a person finds him or herself in a position where they are a defendant in either a civil or criminal court, they need to utilize the skills of someone who understands the law. ithout this right, the accused would be at a decided disadvantage against prosecution who are trained and employed in the field of the law. The present law of the United States is that a person may employ an attorney to represent him or her in a court. If a person is unable to afford an attorney, then counsel will be appointed to that person and paid for…… [Read More]
Miranda uling: Its Past, Present and Future
In almost all cases, the Miranda ruling of 1966 applies to police interviews with criminal suspects, although other Supreme Court decisions extend some of the rights to legal counsel and prevention of self-incrimination to public and private employers. According to the Supreme Court, the Miranda Warnings must be given prior to questioning to all persons who have been arrested and are in police custody, although one loophole "permits the police to question suspects without giving them their Miranda rights in those settings where it is unclear whether custody is present" (Wrightsman and Pitman 2010). In addition, suspects might not understand all these rights, especially because local and state police forces around the United States use hundreds of different versions of these rather than one standard set of warnings. At times, police training manuals also advise officers how to avoid giving the warnings or…… [Read More]
The fact that Fred was eventually allowed to leave is less important in that determination than Fred's state of mind and reasonable belief about whether or not he was still free to leave once the police informed him that he was actually a suspect in Wilma's murder (Dershowitz, 2002; Zalman, 2008).
Search and Seizure and Unlawful Arrest Issues:
The fact pattern does not make clear whether or not the police actually conducted a search of Fred's home or were merely "bluffing" to induce cooperation from Fred. Assuming that no such unwarranted search was actually being conducted, there was no impermissible search and seizure of Fred's home. Provided Fred still (reasonably) believed that he was free to terminate the interview and leave when he volunteered the confession, that evidence should not be excluded under Miranda (and related) doctrine and principles.
However, the police did seize Fred's vehicle, which was an impermissible…… [Read More]
Dershowitz and others have pointed out, rightfully, that Miranda principles were designed to prevent the use at trial of evidence obtained improperly and that the prevention of mass casualties may constitute a sufficiently important goal to suspend certain constitutional issues. In that regard, even the terrorist is entitled to the same protections against self-incrimination and prosecution using illegally-obtained evidence of guilt. However, the legitimate need to protect the public from wide-scale death and destruction may be another matter entirely.
Dershowitz (2002) outlined the principles for designing a "torture warrant" in connection with which authorities may interrogate suspects known to possess information necessary to prevent mass casualties and loss of innocent life in imminent terrorist attacks through means ordinarily strictly prohibited by the Constitution and the laws applicable to all fifty American states. The fundamental distinction is that those efforts would relate to securing information for the purposes of preventing mass…… [Read More]
In the first place it is odd that the dispatcher did not have a better description of the vehicle that was reported stolen. And why would a young Hispanic male driving a late model "foreign car" -- in this case, a BM -- be a suspect, since the officer doesn't know a license number or make or model of the car? And how is it that when the officer has called in to check the license plate, by now the car has been identified as having been stolen? Needless to say this could have been construed as a racial profiling, and in some cases a defense attorney might try that angle, but that is not the most important element of this scenario. hat is considered important is what the defense lawyer will present in court, and how the prosecuting attorney will argue his case.
Facts of the Case
The…… [Read More]
The idea of remaining silent when faced with accusation has historical religious and legal roots. Moses teachings', transformed to written form by the ancient Talmudic law had a complete ban on self-incrimination. The self-incrimination law could not be changed because it was viewed to contravene the natural instinct for survival. The ancient common law rule also had it that confusions must be voluntary. When the right to remain silent was included in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. constitution, it was tied to a complicated and controversial history. The Supreme Court has applied three tenets in the constitution to evolve rules that govern police interrogation and the confession process. These three include the Sixth Amendment on the Right to Counsel, the Fourteenth Amendment clause on due process and the Fifth Amendment on Self-incrimination clauses. Each of these provisions has led the police to handle interrogation and confessions in varying ways…… [Read More]
In the 19th century, the idea and definition of rights was extended by calls for social and economic rights that came on the tail of rapid industrialization. This new era of rights was based upon the utilitarian idea of obtaining the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This included a discussion of property ownership, both private and common, and the ideas of public of rights and private responsibility (Nuncio).
By the 21st-century, the idea of rights has been transformed into a global political order based on constitutionalism and positive legalism. In a climate that supported the international will to maintain peace, the world's nations largely adopted a single agreement to ensure such rights. This agreement, the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was adopted in December of 1948 (Nuncio). This Declaration included provisions for both rights of nations, and the rights of individuals (Human Rights eb; a…… [Read More]
Criminal Justice & Criminology
Has the Miranda vs. Arizona ruling decreased the percentage of arresting official violations of defendant Fifth Amendment rights?
CJ327W esearch Methods in Criminal Justice
The Miranda vs. Arizona ruling has attracted notable attention to the treatment of the accused in the hands of the law. Specifically, the ruling affirmed the rights to the accused under the law and to the legal rights of the accused. The research was to reveal the degree of law enforcement lack of enforcing the Miranda rights to the accused. A questionnaire presented to four group types that have a stakeholder interest in the law enforcement and legal rights aspect of the case was distributed to determine the activity relevant to Miranda enforcement process. The findings are expected to reveal abuse within the system and a notable increase in the Miranda violations for the accused.
Purpose & Audience
The Miranda vs.…… [Read More]
Case Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and locked up in a Phoenix police station on March 13, 1963 where he was identified by a complaining witness (Samaha, 2012). Law enforcement officers took him to an Investigation Room where he was questioned before the two officers came out with a written confession that he signed. During the questioning, Miranda was not notified that he had a right to an attorney and was notified of the need for voluntary confession after making his oral confession. The written confession was then admitted into evidence at his trial before a jury despite objections from the defense counsel. The court then found him guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced him to 20 to 30 years in prison for each count, with these sentences running simultaneously. This ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court of Arizona following Mirandas appeal on the basis that his constitutional…… [Read More]
Miranda v. Arizona
In the original case involving Miranda v. Arizona, 22-year-old Ernesto Miranda
stood accused of the rape of an 18-year-old female (and kidnapping and robbery).
The arrest happened on March 18, 1963. Miranda was arrested in his home and taken to a Phoenix police station, where he was interrogated and given a confession to sign -- which he did sign. On that confession, the police had typed in that Miranda fully understood his legal rights even though he was not notified that he had the right to remain silent (by not incriminating himself) and he had the right to legal counsel. Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. This was an example of a heavy-handed strategy used by Phoenix police against a Latino man who was not fully mentally sound, according to the literature on the case.
Miranda v. Arizona -- the broader implications and…… [Read More]
The American justice system is one of the most developed in the world. Indeed, any person in the United States can be assured that, whenever something legally dubious happens, he or she will have a day in court during which the case will be heard and tried according to a clear and consistent set of laws. The justice system is one of the components of the American legal system that ensures that all individuals in the country are treated according to a fair and consistent system of law. One of the ways in which this consistency is ensured is by means of the Miranda rights. The Miranda rights have become so prominent in American law that almost all other countries are aware of them. Therefore, it is a common component of arrest to "read the rights" of a person who is being taken into custody. The Miranda rights…… [Read More]
Miranda Rule -- Prohibits the introduction of any testimonial evidence elicited from criminal suspects while under arrest or in police custody unless police first advise them of their constitutional rights to remain silent, refuse to answer questions, and to be represented by an attorney before beginning any custodial interrogation. I have heard this term used frequently in television crime programs.
Prosecutor -- Is an attorney employed by the state whose responsibility it is to file criminal charges against individuals arrested by police and charge with crimes; typically, prosecutors represent the state at the criminal trial. The context in which I am most familiar with prosecutors is in their portrayal in television programs about criminal justice and news reports about criminal trials.
Pretrial Release Program -- Is a system of releasing criminal defendants from custody until their trials to reduce jail overcrowding; in principle, bond is one form of…… [Read More]
Some of these methods include plea agreements and the disclosure of incriminating evidence, along with witness testimony. Thus, defendants' rights do not tie the hands of officers and the courts because officers and the courts have an arsenal of ways to manage these rights and still perform their jobs.
While the myriad of rights offered to defendants in the United States may sometimes seem like ways to protect the guilty and harm the innocent, this is far from the case. Not only are these rights necessary for protecting the defendant, along with the rest of the democratic society of the United States, but the rights can also be managed through a plethora of legal tactics on the part of the courts and police officers. Established through the Constitution and landmark court cases, primarily, defendants' rights honor the intent of the constitution. Though it is true that some guilty defendants may…… [Read More]
In the United States of American court systems, juvenile courts still proposes juvenile delinquents in aspects that are more paternal other than diagnostic. The adult counterparts cannot access such diagnostic processing as juveniles do. Adults are treated separately unlike juveniles within the jury and the constitutional accordance that assures the difference has been assured to the individuals.
The IV Amendment Search and Seizure Clause
The Fourth Amendment is one of the most prolific archives of constitution litigation in the United States of America. The application to the state through the process of Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is unique and comprehensive to the American court systems dealing with juveniles. This amendment is depicted by issuance of connotation that protected individuals from unnecessary seizures and searches while in court proceedings. The amendment has much respect to juveniles and juvenile courts since most juveniles do not have to be apprehended…… [Read More]
Juveniles may commit crimes on the same level as adults do, but they are of a special case because of their age and relative psychological immaturity. The purpose of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate the minors and help them integrate better into the society. As research shows, police officers come into contact with different kinds of juveniles offenders. They may be mentally ill or handicapped. Some of them come from disorderly families, or are routinely abused physically and sexually by parents or other family members. Others may be simply neglected or have no family support when they are in need (Bartollas & Miller, 2008, pp. 101-2; Cole & Smith, 2007, p. 554). These unique circumstances make juveniles a special case.
As Lawrence and Hemmens (2008) write, police officers need to take special measures in treating juveniles during and after arrest especially because "young persons' views and attitudes toward…… [Read More]
On appeal, Terry argued that the conviction should be thrown out because the search that produced the evidence of the weapon in his possession was improper because it was an impermissible search of his person without a warrant or probable cause as required by the 4th Amendment (Schmalleger, 2009).
The Supreme Court decided that the type of search the police officer conducted was not prohibited by the 4th Amendment. Instead, it was a reasonable and appropriate means of ensuring the safety of the officer from concealed weapons in a tactical situation in which that concern was appropriate in light of the totality of the circumstances in which it occurred. While the 4th Amendment does prohibit more invasive searches with the intention of finding evidence of crimes, (such as for concealed contraband or of small containers), it does not prelude an external frisk now known as a Terry frisk or Terry…… [Read More]
List and explain five (5) ways that show how authentication or identification of physical evidence can be accomplished (also called "laying the foundation").
Authentication of physical evidence can be accomplished by:
Testimony of a witness who has first-hand knowledge. This is enough for authentication if the person involved has personal diligence that a matter is what is claimed to be.
A non-expert person who must have been well-acquainted with the specimen and did not acquire the knowledge for the purpose of betrayal, such as a spouse or roommate.
Allowing the jury or an expert to put in comparison the evidence purported with the specimens which have been authenticated is enough for authentication.
Distinctive qualities and associated circumstances such as sending a bill to a particular address and getting payment from the bill or other appearance, contents, substance, as well as other internal design qualities when admitted together with…… [Read More]
Finally, a lot of defense lawyers assist in helping men and women go free because of a technicality. On the whole however, it is a better system after the Gideon case because less innocent people are being convicted of crimes they did not commit.
In the Case of Miranda v. rizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Court ruled that a defendant's admission was only admissible provided he had been properly advised of his right to counsel and of his right to remain silent, and if he waived these rights, the waiver had to be voluntary and knowingly. This case involved a burglary suspected who admitted to rape and kidnapping while in police custody. The defendant, Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to concurrent 20-30-year sentences for the two crimes he confessed to.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of questioning by the police involved, there is no…… [Read More]
Many states, such as Virginia, are training private security officers in order to ensure smooth cooperation and coordination between security companies without police powers and the police and sheriff's departments. In Washington D.C., the municipal police department requires private security officers to be licensed as "special police" officers in order to legally search or arrest people. Cooperation can reach significant proportions, as in the case of the Minneapolis Police Department's "SafeZone" program, which place private security officers downtown who now outnumber Minneapolis Police Department officers there 13 to 1.
4. Industries and organizations that use special and/or commissioned officers and for what purposes
a. There is a truly broad range of industries and organizations which use special police officers. These organizations tend to have significant financial resources, large premises, and sensitive security needs which they believe cannot be met by the existing public police force. These often involve the need…… [Read More]
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 129 S. Ct. 2079, 173 L. Ed. 2D 955
Jesse Montejo and Jerry Moore were interrupted during a burglary by the owner of the residence, Lewis Ferrari (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009). Montejo was picked up for questioning the next day and after waiving his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 1966), admitted to shooting and killing Lewis Ferrari during the burglary. When Montejo was arraigned two days later in court, he stood mute as the court appointed counsel.
A few hours after the arraignment, police detectives visited Montejo at the jail (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009). During the end of the ensuing discussion, Montejo waved his Miranda rights and agreed to take them to the murder weapon. During the trip to locate the murder weapon, Montejo wrote a letter of apology to the victim's widow.
The defense attempted to suppress the letter of…… [Read More]
Examples of offenses that are based on constitutional endowments of right contain tax evasion, possessing illegal substances and conspiring to violate civil rights. Courts have specified on the whole a wide explanation to the Commerce Clause authority, allowing Congress to create a federal offense of many widespread law crimes such as kidnapping or murder if state outline are fractious during commission of the crime and such as misappropriation and blackmail using instrumentalities of trade such as telephone lines or the U.S. post. Examples of offenses that are based on regions owned by or under the restricted power of the federal government contain crimes committed in the District of Columbia, in U.S. Territories, in U.S. National Parks, in federal courthouses and federal jails plus on board airplanes and ocean going ships. The United States armed force has its own immoral justice system applicable to its members, but civilians might be accused…… [Read More]
Also, the search warrant must specify exactly what evidence the police are seeking. At times, a search warrant is not required, for if an officer observes a crime being committed, he/she has the right to arrest or apprehend the culprits. However, if a search warrant specifies what evidence is being sought during a search and other evidence is found concerning another crime, such evidence cannot be used in court.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees that an accused person will be treated fairly and justly by the officers that make the arrest and by the courts that hear the accuser's case. As to jury trials, three rules must be followed -- first, the jury must be made up of twelve members; second, the trial must be supervised by a judge with the authority to instruct the jurors, and third, the verdict of the jurors must be unanimous. However, prior to 1968, states…… [Read More]
One of the most controversial laws passed in favor of public order over individual rights was the U.S.A. PATIOT Act. Passed in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the law permitted more leeway than had been previously granted to law enforcement officials. Searches, seizures, and wire tapping are some of the ways law enforcement officials can infringe on personal liberties and individual rights, with the ultimate goal of protecting public order.
Similarly, the Guantanamo Bay detainees have their individual rights restricted and because they are not American citizens their access to Constitutional rights is not guaranteed. The government has determined that impinging the rights of the individual detainees serves the best interests of the general public: a stance that has the nation up in arms about the ultimate purpose of the legal system and of the efficacy of due process of law.
Whether or not a suspect is…… [Read More]
Even so, it has been argued that the limitation of liberties does not necessarily help the war on terror.
Given the nature of the legislation, which includes limitations on freedom of expression or transportation, the society is most of the times limited in its enthusiasm. In this sense, members of Parliaments throughout the world draw the attention on the fact that anti-terrorism laws have infringed the freedom of speech, the liberties of the societies, but most importantly they interfere in the right to privacy of the community (Conservative Home, 2010). Moreover, the right of the state to hold in custody without warrant suspects of terrorist acts is also one of the most important statements made against the Miranda rights and the rights of a suspect.
Academics and experts have consider the fight against terrorism to be important precisely for the protection of human rights, the most important being the right…… [Read More]
Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040 (1983)) since the independence of a state court's state-law judgment is not clear.
Furthermore the Court stated that the Florida Supreme Court treated state and federal law as interchangeable and interwoven and therefore would give jurisdiction to the U.S. Supreme Court based on a ruling made in the Michigan v. Long case.
he most weight was obviously put on the wording used and how it can be interpreted and how it was interpreted. Since there are grammatical differences between "before" and "during," the decision cannot be upheld. It is clear that if the interrogator used the phrase: ".. An attorney will be presented to you before questioning" it is not the same as if it would read: ".. And attorney will be presented to you before and during questioning." his is misleading and can be interpreted as if the defendant would have the right to…… [Read More]
The basic structure of the United States legal system comes from the Constitution. Constitutions are living documents that lay down principles and rules, as well as overall functions of how law should be used within society. Constitutions tend to be macro in scope, in that they define responsibilities between the three organs of U.S. Government (Judicial, Legislature and Executive). Laws are individual (micro) edicts that are made to define specific issues under the Constitution. The Constitution is the basic framework, or the strategic direction of law; defining relationships and allowing for reasons that are fundamental to other laws (e.g. privacy, search, etc.). Laws are the manner in which the tactics of the legal system and/or philosophy are carried out and used within society. A Constitution defines the theoretical basis of law, while laws incorporate the process of law and allow the government and its officers to use the…… [Read More]
To prove either side of the argument, the sensitivity and impact needs to be assessed -- there is no blanket rule of everything being transparent, or everything being private; it is dependent upon the sensitivity and overall impact of the issue at hand.
3. ources: Hunold, C. And B. Peters. (2004). "Bureaucratic Discretion and Deliverative Democracy." Transformation in Governance. IGI Publishing; Holzer, M. And K. Yang. (April 1, 2005). "Administrative Discretion in a Turbulent Time: An Introduction. Public Administration Quarterly. Cited in: www.highbeamresearch.com.
4. How does a cost-benefit analysis used in the determination of due process?
Using, for example, Miranda v Arizona, a cost-benefit analysis is used to determine due-process in the sense of the decision's impact on law enforcement and the community needs to be taken into consideration before a ruling of using Miranda, 5th Amendment Rights, and basic procedures. The Rehnquist Court's decision in the idea of cost-benefit,…… [Read More]
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
The Miranda rights are very clear and they are for the purpose of protecting a client or defendant from making self-incriminating statements to law enforcement because he or she is not aware of the law or how it works (Marcus, 1990).
High courts have ruled that inmates have the right to have counsel present during questioning just like non-incarcerated people have the right to do.
In a Maryland case in which an inmate was accused of murdering another inmate on a prison bus his attorney instructed authorities not to question him with the attorney present (Klein, 2005).
That request was upheld by court even though conversations that took place on the bus before the attorney was apprised of the new situation could have been very damaging to the suspect.
In a Colorado…… [Read More]
noble cause" and how it relates to law enforcement daily? What positives and negatives can you identify? How can organizations control the "noble cause"?
The 'noble cause' of law enforcement is to uphold public safety. The idea that the highest good of law enforcement is to protect the public can be useful and important in the manner in which it motivates police officers to realize that they have a higher duty. When there is violence or crime, officers must run into danger, versus away from it like ordinary people. However, with this idea there are many profound, problematic implications. The idea that the cause is so noble that nothing can get in its way can act as psychological self-justification for officers to violate the law. When this occurs, no one benefits because evidence can then be thrown out of court, if it was obtained in violation of the suspect's civil…… [Read More]
They are occasionally informed too poorly to make an opinion, or are simply uninterested in some aspects of politics. Public opinion used to be measured through voting, letter writing, and demonstrating. However, those who write letter and demonstrate generally have views that are more extreme than those of the public (166-168). Thus, the public opinion poll was introduced. Examples of public opinion polling include President Barack Obama's approval rating, which is currently 68%, and the 72% that believe the U.S. will be "better off in four years" (Gallup). Public opinion polls are important because they "keep the public well informed," as well as keeping the public in touch with important shifts in public opinion" ("Are opinion polls useful?").
Using a random sampling method, the public opinion poll uses probability to reflect the views of the public. That is, by using a random selection of the population, the opinions of the…… [Read More]
Peace Officer Trainee
Discuss the stages (investigative, prosecutorial) at which each of the above interacts with a criminal defendant. Specify the roles of each and explain the process by which a suspect becomes a criminal defendant.
criminal justice system has interconnected parts that are working together to investigate and prosecute crimes. At the same time, officials have to be respectful of the defendant's civil rights and any kind of investigative techniques they are using to collect evidence. This is because the Constitution states, that all persons who are facing criminal prosecution must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Hess, 2010, pp. 32 -- 105) (Cryer, 2010, pp. 361 -- 424)
As a result, all of the different sides must work together to ensure that these basic principles are taken into account. This means that the police and federal agents will be at the forefront for investigating crimes and making…… [Read More]
Zionism is even being identified with Christianity, with evangelicals uniting themselves to Israeli interests. Need we remind ourselves that Zionism is a politico-religious belief that is diametrically opposed to Christian values? The post-war propaganda that followed II even helped obliterate the notion of Jesus Christ as Holocaust and replace it with the Shoah, the Jewish holocaust. At the heart of Zionism is the eradication of Christian culture and the elevation of Zionist policies like the one currently being enacted on the Gaza Strip. Israel is an apartheid state and has been murdering Palestinians for years -- and now it has convinced millions of Christians and evangelicals that they must destroy the Arab before he destroys them. hat kind of value is this? It is a diabolical one.
Refusing to embrace diplomacy also undermines our prosperity. Rather than attacking and occupying countries in the Middle East, we should be working with…… [Read More]
Under U.S. v. Butler, the courts can make interpretations as to if a suspect has invoked these rights based upon their reactions to the questions and body language they are using. ("Berghuis v. Thompkins" 2009) ("Berghuis v. Thompkins," 2012) ("Miranda v. Arizona," 1966) (Dempsey, 2010)
In real world situations, this means that the basic rights are continually evolving based upon the questions and answers that are provided to law enforcement. The moment the suspect does not say anything, is the point when implied protections are being utilized. Once they begin answering questions is when they will have revoked these protections. This is because they decided to respond to one question. The fact that they chose to do this, is illustrating that the individual knows what is happening to them and is fully aware of their surroundings. As a result, any kind of information they provide can be used as evidence…… [Read More]
Custodial Interrogation vs. Voluntary Statements
In legal and criminal justice terms, as well as in their application in everyday life, there is a considerable degree of distinction between a voluntary statement and custodial interrogation. Nonetheless, there are a number of key similarities between these terms. Both of these proceedings (the issuing of a statement and an interrogation while in custody) can incriminate. Moreover, it is also possible for what begins as an opportunity to issue a voluntary statement to end as an instance of custodial interrogation. One of the key differences between these proceedings is the liberty of the person issuing administration to either federal, state or local authorities.
A voluntary statement is made to the aforementioned authorities without an individual being compelled to make a statement. Frequently, voluntary statements are made at will on the part of the person making them. Individuals may choose to go to a police…… [Read More]
*I uploaded material reference. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Stuckey, G., Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. (2006). Procedures justice system (8t Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Case Study: Jon Doe individual left country effort make a life
Te case of Jon: Felony carges
In tis case of 'Jon Doe,' te suspect wo is accused of larceny was arrested because e began to make incriminating remarks wile being investigated. He was ten placed under arrest by te police. If te police ave probable cause to believe tat a suspect committed a crime, tey may place Jon under arrest witout a warrant, as tey did in tis specific instance. However, te police must read Jon's 'Miranda Rigts' before processing im (FAQ: Police interrogations, 2012, FindLaw). A suspect's Miranda Rigts include te rigt to remain silent and to ave an attorney, regardless of weter te suspect can afford an attorney or not. Also, "before…… [Read More]
S. Supreme Court's decisions in Escobedo v. Illinois (Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964) and Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). These two cases dramatically altered how police treated criminal defendants subsequent to their arrests and forced police agencies throughout the United States to develop new procedures. The reading of what have become to be popularly known as Miranda rights has become a routine part of every arrest. Like it has in many areas of criminal procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the application of Miranda and gradually chipped away at the rights originally granted by the Court that decided the case. Two of the more significant cases were decided in 1984 when the Court allowed an exception to Miranda in the case of New York v. Quarles (New York v. Quarles, 1984) so that police can use Miranda statements in situations involving public safety. Additionally, in a companion case…… [Read More]
Moose Horn Police officers admissible at trial, since no Miranda warnings were given to the defendant at any time?
In the case of Sleazy vs. The state of decency the statements made by the defendant were not admissible in court because the officers did not inform Sleazy of his Miranda rights. These rights should have been stated to the defendant when it was obvious to the police officers that section 54321 of the law had been violated.
Instead the officers continued to ask Sleazy questions that they knew would incriminate him. This violated his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself; the amendment is a fundamental part of the American justice system and was not adhered to in this case. Therefore the statements made by Sleazy were not admissible in court.
In neglecting to read Sleazy his rights the officers were forfeiting all of the information that Sleazy was providing…… [Read More]
Supreme Court Chief Justices Warren and ehnquist
Compare and contrast approaches to criminal procedures by U.S. Supreme Courts:
The Warren vs. The ehnquist Court
A common philosophical debate within the legal community is when the approach advocated by so-called 'conservative' justices (often called strict constructionism) is pitted against more 'liberal' and freer interpretations of constitutional words and history. Throughout much of the 20th century, it was often said that the more liberal interpreters of the Constitution were 'winning the war' in regards to this issue, thanks to the presiding intelligence of Chief Justice Earl Warren. "Following his appointment in 1953 Chief Justice Earl Warren led the Court into a series of decisions that drastically affected sexual freedom, the rights of criminals, the practice of religion, civil rights, and the structure of political representation. The decisions of the Warren Court reflected its deep concern for the individual, no matter how lowly"…… [Read More]
3) All of this evidence is admissible. Even if the police informant elicited the information in the jail cell when he was not uniformed so as to avail the defendant of the knowledge that he was talking to a cop, it is still admissible. This is the case even if the defendant requested council - the idea here is, confessions cannot be forced when a defendant believes he is under the duress of police custody; if he does not believe he is being forced to talk or threatened to talk, there can be no duress, so the evidence is admissible.
And the officer can testify to what the defendant said, but it has to be in the form of exceptions to hearsay evidence. As he would be testifying to matters for the truth of the matter asserted, they have to meet hearsay exceptions - the most important one here would…… [Read More]
Organizational Issues and Criminology
Introduction- When we think of the criminal justice system in the United States, we are referring to a broad collection of federal, state, and local agencies that are focused on crime prevention and upholding the law. In general, these agencies uphold the law at various levels, investigate crime, process the accused, compile evidence, work with the district attorney, and develop profiles and crime prevention techniques. The process of the criminal justice organization is designed to work in conjunction with the three branches of the U.S. government, and to uphold the Constitution. Organizationally, because there are so many agencies, personalities, interpretations and goals, there tends to be either a crime control model or a due process model. Many scholars see that this is one of the downfalls of the organization, because the tension and competition between the two viewpoints tends to cause negative issues within the system…… [Read More]
Deception is an integral part of the police arsenal during interrogation. The tactics and techniques of deception have been finely honed, and continue to improve to allow for effective interrogation and information retrieval. Within the framework of judicious police interrogation, the techniques and tactics can be employed effectively, efficiently, and ethically. A few, like the eid Technique, have been criticized for their misuses and for their tendency to create false confessions (McKee, 2014). Other tactics and techniques do deserve to remain part of the overall law enforcement strategy, especially when the tactics and techniques preserve the integrity of the investigation. One of the most commonly used deceptive interrogation tactics is minimization. Minimization is used to engender trust and establish a bond of communication with the suspect. The law enforcement officer basically bluffs throughout the interview, downplaying the severity of the crime itself, feigning sympathy with the suspect's point-of-view, and…… [Read More]
The Court rejected Medellin's argument that the President's 2005 Memorandum was binding on state courts. The Court accused the President of attempting to unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one." The government had also claimed that the Memorandum was an exercise of the President's authority to resolve international claims under his executive authority. The Court recognized that this was a long-standing practice, but prior uses of executive authority to settle international disputes had occurred in narrow circumstances, and did not involve the complete setting aside of state law, as the Medellin sought.
In the Medellin v. Texas oral argument, Justice Scalia says, "Usually when we have treaties that are not self-enforcing, the judgment of whether that international law obligation shall be made domestic law is a judgment for the Congress. Congress passes a law to enforce the treaty. " the United States must abide by its international commitments…… [Read More]
Court Proceedings Experience
year-old Nicholas Lindsay was charged for the murder of Officer David Crawford. esides Lindsay's own confession to the murder, there is no other evidence that he committed the murder. Lindsay made this confession at the urging and in the presence of his mother, without a lawyer present. He told the police officers that he shot David Crawford after being apprehended by Crawford.
The official police report stated that, after apprehending Lindsay, Crawford was reaching for his notepad when Lindsay pulled out his own handgun and shot him five times in the chest. Hence, Lindsay was arrested and charged for murder. The prosecution, which included the State Attorney, decided to prosecute 16-year-old Lindsay as an adult.
Lindsay was indicted on the count of Murder in the First-Degree, which is defined by Florid State law as "The unlawful killing of a human being perpetrated from a premeditated design…… [Read More]
If the defendant is acquitted by the jury or by the judge in a bench trial, the 5th Amendment government prohibits the government from trying the defendant for the same crime.
Although there are is no constitutional right to appeal convictions, every state has passed its own laws which allow a convicted defendant to appeal a conviction after trial.
The defendant may appeal to an appellate court below the state supreme court or, if there is none, directly to the state supreme court.
If the appellant is unsuccessful at this level, he/she can bring the appeal to a higher court.
If the appellant's complaint is based on a Constitutional issue, she may bring her case to federal court which has jurisdiction over that particular state.
However, if the appellant's complaint involves a right provided by the state's laws, he/she cannot bring this issue before a federal court.
If the…… [Read More]
history of citizen's arrests, citizen's arrest in today's society, and give examples of citizen's arrests, the outcomes, etc. It will also look at the downside of making a citizen's arrest, including the repercussions to that individual such as civil action, liability, etc. Citizen's arrests are more common than they have been in the past, with many states reporting higher incidents of these types of arrests (Grossack, Takata). Citizen's arrests have a long and varied history, and are still a frequently valid form of citizen involvement in the often complex process of law enforcement and criminal justice.
The history of citizen's arrests goes back to the beginnings of Anglo-Saxon law in medieval England. Because the medieval sheriffs were spread so thin, they encouraged citizen involvement in law enforcement. David C. Grossack, a Constitutional attorney notes, "Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages…… [Read More]
juvenile offenders' ability to understand their legal rights and one issue related to their ability to participate effectively in their own defense.
Ability to understand legal rights: Competency
Ability to participate effectively in their own defense: Treating juveniles differently
According to U.S. criminal law, part of the right to counsel includes the notion that a defendant must be able to participate in his or her defense (Sandborn 2009: 137). However, schizophrenics, persons with low IQ, and many other individuals who might seem otherwise unable to discern right from wrong have been found competent to assist in their own defense, even persons later found to be insane. The question of juvenile competency is particularly vexing given that juveniles have an innately 'different' status under the law. The focus of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation, and to a lesser extent, restitution, while the focus of the adult justice system is usually…… [Read More]
However, Doherty took the themes of these books as further evidence of Adams' wrong doing, although Adams himself never admitted to anything about being part of the Black Blocs or believing in anarchist ideologies. The only thing Adams sad was that he was an environmentalist, which is why he had been collecting the glass Coca Cola bottles in order to recycle them later when he found an acceptable recycling location. Additionally, Officer Doherty found medication on Adams person as well. This medication was prescribed to Thomas Adams, a fact which Doherty should have seen as an obvious red flag that he was dealing with a minor with behavioral and emotional issues, which should have led him to be even more sensitive in his actions towards Adams. Yet, Officer Doherty seemed to only see this as further reason that Adams was guilty.
This leads into the second charge against Adams, the…… [Read More]
Background of Terrorist Trials in the United States
Terrorism occupies a unique liminal position, somewhere between acts of war and criminal acts. Because of this, jurisdiction, the rights of terrorist suspects, and other ethical and legal conundrums have lent themselves to an inconsistent and ambiguous terrorist trial system in the United States. Historically, as now, terrorist trials in the United States have taken place in several different jurisdictions, and prosecutorial discretion can be based on factors like circumstantial and situational variables or on political whim. Whether or not the terrorist incident was allegedly perpetrated by a domestic or an international group may also have a bearing on how a terrorist trial is conducted. Some terrorist trials have taken place in civilian courts and others in military courts, neither of which seem ideally suited to address the complex issues associated with terrorism.
Since September 11, the federal government expanded its own…… [Read More]
An officer of the law has a great deal of power, and it is helpful for civilians to know what rights they have when approached or stopped by an officer. It is also important to understand the difference between being stopped and being arrested. Individuals should also be aware of the laws regarding search and seizure of property. Generally, an officer of the law is permitted to stop a person to ask questions but unless there is an intervening circumstance, the person is not obliged to answer and may remain silent. If, however, there is a reason for the stop that is obvious (such as, a robbery, terrorist attack, or other incident had just occurred nearby), or if the person was engaged in activity that might be construed as suspicious, then the person should cooperate with the police. If the person continues to remain silent, the officer might have…… [Read More]
Law Enforcement Opinion
This report will cover a topic that has always been controversial. However, there have been some events as of late, most of them racially and otherwise socially charged, that have forced the argument the subject firmly back into the forefront. Of course, that topic would be law enforcement. While gun violence, politics and so forth are all the rage in the modern blogosphere and social media realms, the topic of law enforcement is high on the minds of many regular people and activists due to, among other things, the events and details surrounding what happened to people like Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Michael Brown and so forth. There are plenty of talking heads that would paint the police as abusive and authoritarians. However, that is far from being the true picture that should be painted and this report shall aim to fill in the rest of the…… [Read More]
Achieving Justice in America
The main aim of every court system is to ensure that victims of a particular crime receive justice where the guilty are punished accordingly while and the innocent are set free. All these procedures are embodied in the constitution, which should be observed by the judges and any other authorized person making determinations. For the guilty to be punished and the innocent to be set free, the criminal justice system has three major institutions, which are involved in processing the case. The three major institutions are inception, trial, and punishment (Cole et al., 2015). As per the assessments, sometimes the innocent are punished, and even the guilty are set free. Before a case reaches its determination, law enforcement officials investigate a crime and collect any evidence to be used against the presumed perpetrators. The case will proceed, and the court system will weigh the evidence presented…… [Read More]
Officer Jim Rawlins, a fourteen-year veteran of the Anytown Police Department spent the morning working with Sadie. He hid a series of balls around his backyard, giving the golden retriever praise and pets every time she found one of the balls and brought it to him. Then he clipped on her leash and her special K-9 officer vest and loaded her into the squad car. Today Jim was taking Sadie to Anytown High School, where she would sniff out drugs in student lockers. One high school in the district was randomly selected each month for a drug search (De La Garza). Jim took his job seriously because drugs were a growing problem at Anytown High School, and one of the students had overdosed the week before. The girl was going to live, but her life would never be the same. If he could keep that from happening to…… [Read More]
Incident Response to the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings
Although named for its venue, the Boston Marathon is sponsored by a number of different cities in the greater Boston area and is held annually on Patriot’s Day which is the third Monday in April (About the Boston Marathon, 2018). First run as an all-male event in 1897, the Boston Marathon has since become an international event that draws both male and female contestants from around the world with a global audience. On April 15, 2013, two Kyrgyz-American brothers detonated two homemade bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, causing hundreds of casualties – many of them severe and involving the loss of limbs – a well as three fatalities. The purpose of this case study is to provide an analysis of the effectiveness of the incident response to these bombings, including the role of first responders and the law…… [Read More]