Criminal Justice:
On September 18 at around 2:30 PM, the victim, a famous citizen in the community was assaulted and robbed of his wallet by the defendant on his way home. The victim was not only assaulted but he was also pushed against his car and threatened with a knife. The crime generated huge media attention because of the victim's popularity as calls for speedy arrest and conviction of the criminal gained momentum. As heavy pressure was place on the law enforcement officers to arrest the criminal, the defendant was apprehended several days later while carrying the wallet of the victim and knife and was subsequently identified in a lineup by the victim. During preliminary of the case, the defendant was pronounced indigent and offered with a public defender and even denied bail because of the nature of the crime. While he chose not to take to the stand, the defendant was convicted of several charges associated with the assault and is awaiting sentencing.
Double Jeopardy in these Proceedings:
Based on the Fifth Amendment to the American constitution, double jeopardy is an aspect in the criminal law that forbids the government from prosecuting people more than once for a single crime and from imposing more than one punishment for a single crime ("Double Jeopardy," n.d.). Defendants appearing in state courts are also guaranteed this right because most state constitutions consists of this law. Notably the protection must still be provided to defendants even in states that don't necessarily guarantee this right to defendants. This right could attach itself to these proceedings if the indigent defendant had already been punished for the same offense. In this case, the defendant could be guaranteed this right if he had already been convicted and punished for his involvement in the offense. However, this policy does not attach itself to the proceeding because the defendant has only been declared indigent, which has nothing to do with the offense.
The other important aspect that may have played a critical part in these criminal proceedings is the defendant's failure to take to the stand in his own defense. The jury in this case was unduly influenced by the defendant's decision not to...
However, as criminals become more aware of undercover tactics, the covert officer is required to provide more and more proof that he is indeed a criminal- which leads to the officer committing acts that compromise his or her integrity for the sake of maintaining cover. By understanding the often conflicting nature of these goals, deception and integrity, we can see how an undercover officer can become confused, lost, and
Baker reviewed three landmark Supreme Court decisions on capital punishment and concluded that the death penalty is capriciously imposed on Black defendants and thus serves the extra-legal function of preserving majority group interests. He viewed discrimination in capital sentencing as deliberate and identified the primary reasons why Black defendants with white victims have been denied fairness in capital sentencing. These are prosecutorial discretion in the selective prosecution of capital
The sources provided background and reviews of published literature: Holmstrom (1996); Marcus-Mendoza (1995); and Osler (1991). Finally, three reports took on a narrower focus in investigating boot camps: Clark and Kellam (2001); Mueller (1996); and Souryal, Layton & MacKenzie (1994). Burns and Vito (1995) examined the effectiveness of Alabama boot camps. In Alabama, overcrowded prisons brought on interest at the state level for prison boot camps. State prison boot camps
Gerber (2001) studied 75 precincts of New York City and 154 police teams to determine whether male and female police officers appeared to have different personality traits because male officers typically have a higher status than do women in American society; this investigation made it clear that the personalities individuals adopt are fluid, and that the status model of police personalities suggests that officers' perceptions of their personality traits
" (Elsea, 2005) It was stated at the time that it would appear that "…that federal courts will play a role in determining whether the military commissions, established pursuant to President Bush's Military Order (M.O.) of November 13, 2001, are valid under U.S. constitutional and statutory law, and possibly under international law." (Elsea, 2005) It is reported that in June 2008, and in the case of Boumediene v. Bush that
S. law. Legislation such as many elements of the U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT are problematic because they do not provide adequate controls to ensure that investigative methods and procedures appropriate under some circumstances cannot be used in circumstances where they are inappropriate under U.S. law. 4. What is the FISA Court? Explain how it works. What authorities can it grant law enforcement? How is it different from traditional courts? What concerns exist
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now