More handpicked essays just for you.
History of Criminal justice in america
History of Criminal justice in america
Essay on the History of the Criminal Justice System
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Ernesto Miranda was a spanish lower class citizen born and raised in Arizona. As a child Miranda had problems in grade school, a little while after Miranda’s mother died. After his mother died Miranda lost connections with the rest of his family. His criminal record began during his 8th grade year. During the next year, he was arrested and convicted of burglary and was sentenced to be sent to a reform school for one year. About a month from his reform school he committed a crime and was sent back to reform school. The second time he was released he relocated to Los Angeles. Not too long after Miranda arrived in Los Angeles he was arrested there. After 2 and a half years Miranda was evicted and sent back to Arizona, at about age 18. Afterward he traveled through the south for about 3 months, and ended up committing more crimes and served jail time in Ohio, Texas, and California, and Nashville. Miranda was able to stay out of jail for the next couple of years and had many different jobs before he got a stable job as a laborer for Phoenix Produce Company. On March 2, 1963 around midnight, a man in his early 20’s that we now know as Ernesto Miranda got out of his car and tied up the victim called Jane Doe as she wanted her name to be kept private. He drove her out to the desert outskirts of Phoenix. She did not resist Miranda as he kidnapped her as she feared for her life. Jane Doe was raped by Miranda a crime tried before by Miranda. He made her hand over the miniscule $4 she had and drove her back to the city. During the police questioning of Jane Doe about her attacker she said that she would recognize her attacker if she saw him again. About a week after the attack Jane Doe was out late with a family member, they walked by... ... middle of paper ... ...hrough or not, they were dealing with a similar case in which the suspect won with 5 of 9 justices agreeing. The Arizona courts denied Miranda’s appeal so he remained in jail. His last chance appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he could not afford the $100 fee needed to do so. He sent in the papers only to have them returned because of improper papers. He resent it without the money to see if the supreme court would listen to his petition. While waiting for a response from the Supreme Court, Miranda was joined by JJ FF and FF NN. Frank’s strong point was the U.S. Constitution and NN’s was criminal law. Many Months had passed until the Supreme Court responded and the lawyers worked on the brief during this time. Towards the end of February of 1966, the legal group in which represented Miranda appeared before the supreme court to make their spoken arguments.
On July 30, 1992, an innocent man was placed behind bars and caged for a crime he did not commit. This false arrest allowed for the real perpetrator to walk free whi...
Lawyer: Firstly, Your Honour and members of the Jury, I thank you for your time. My name is Evelynne Lee and I am a lawyer for the Defence.I am here today to prove that the intentions of Hernan Cortez were good and honorable and is innocent of the crime of genocide against indigenous civilisations. It is my belief that the Defendant is not responsible and innocent of the charges on the basis that the intentions of Cortes were good and honourable. To prove my statement about Cortes, I intend to call witnesses and give exhibits to prove that his motives were good and honourable to not destroy indigenous civiisations.-30seconds
After two hours of interrogation by the police, Miranda wrote a complete confession, admitting to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl ten days earlier. Alvin Moore was assigned to represent Miranda at his trial which began June 20th, in front of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Yale McFate. It was pointed out that Miranda had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right to have an attorney present during police questioning. Despite that he had not been informed of his rights, Miranda was convicted, forcing him to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The charges as well as the verdict remained the same. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 1965. Criminal Defense Attorney John Flynn agreed to represent Miranda in Alvin Moore’s stead. The Supreme Court agreed that the written confession was not acceptable evidence because of Ernesto’s ignorance of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the police’s failure to inform him of them. Then state of Arizona re-tried him without the confession but with Twila Hoffman’s testimony. He was still found guilty and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison, but this case set precedence for all other cases of this
On May 23rd 1957, three police officers representing Cleveland Ohio came to the door of Miss Mapp’s residence with the suspicion of a bombing suspect hiding out in her home. Miss Mapp and her daughter lived in a two family two story home. Upon their arrival at the house the police knocked on the door and demanded entrance from Miss Mapp. However Miss Mapp didn’t open the door and instead asked them to provide a search warrant after she called her attorney. The officers advised their headquarters of the situation and established surveillance of the home over the next few hours. The officers once again sought entrance three hours later when they forced open one of the doors to the home and went inside. It was around this time that miss mapp’s attorney arrived and witnessed the police officers enter the home. In their continued defiance of the law they did not allow Miss Mapp to see her attorney. At one point when the officers entered the hall Miss Mapp stopped them and demanded to see their search warrant. One officer held up a slip of paper claiming it to be a search warrant and Miss Mapp immediately grabbed it and stuck it in her bra. The officers wrestled Mapp to the ground and made her relinquish the paper through a struggle. The police then handcuffed her because she was being “belligerent”. The officers then escorted her upstairs and began searching through her drawers and belongings, even though they were looking for a bombing suspect. The police also looked at her photo albums and some of her personal papers. The search spread throughout the house. It’s possible that during this time they found who they believed was the bomber Virgil Ogletree inside the home. He said that he was there delivering laundry as he owned a dry cle...
A horrific murder happened in tiny Skidmore on December of 2004. Lisa Montgomery and Bobbi Jo Stinnett met and found out that they had much in common and became good friends (Nunes 85-86). Surprisingly, Bobbi and Lisa met in an internet chat room. Bobbi was into puppy breeding and she occasionally served as a judge. Lisa lived in Kansas where her close friends were shocked about what she was talking about. Of course, Lisa shrugged it off and she sent an email to Bobbi saying that she wanted to see the puppies (Nunes 85-86). When Lisa met Bobbi Jo she had a fake name which was Darlene Fisher because she didn’t want Bobbi to know her real identity. When Lisa sent Bobbi the email she had a criminal intent on her mind. She was planning to choke Bobbi into unconsciousness and then cut open her womb and steal Bobbi’s unborn baby. When Lisa arrived at the house she threw a rope around Bobbi’s neck and choked her until she was unconscious. That is when Lisa took a knife and started to cut open Bobbi’s stomach. Lisa had to cut through skin, fat, and muscle to get to Bobbi’s uterus. Bobbi’s baby was in eight-month gestation; Lisa cut and tied the baby’s cord. Lisa stole the baby and fled to her house in Kansas. Unfort...
Miranda Vs Arizona was a United States Supreme Court case in 1966. The court “ruled that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning” (Ortmeier, 2005, 285). This ruling meant that suspects must be aware of their right to remain silent and that if they choose to speak to the police the conversation can be used against them in a court of law. If they do decide to speak under police it must not be under false promises
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera was born on April 4, 1957 in Sinaloa, Mexico. He was born into a poor family in a rural community. His parents are Emilio Guzman Bustillos and Maria Consuelo Loera Perez. For numerous generations, his family’s legacy lived and died in La Tuna, Sinaloa. Although a number of myths about his father being an opium farmer have not been proven, he was actually a cattle rancher. Guzman has two younger sisters and four younger brothers. As a child, Guzman had a responsibility of selling oranges. In fact, he dropped out of school in the third grade to work for his father. Although his father physically abused him and treated him brutal, he stood up to his father when it came to his younger siblings for their own protection.
Before coming to the United States illegally with his family, Francisco lived in a small village north of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. His family left Mexico in hopes of leaving their life of poverty behind them. Francisco and his family moved from place to place throughout California, following the crops and living in migrant labor camps. Unfortunately, Francisco’s father started to have back problems from picking crops for so many years. Francisco’s family lived in Bonetti Ranch in army barracks for a few years ...
Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
Is it possible to sympathize with two calculated killers, if they claimed abuse? The jurors of the Menendez brothers’ first trial thought so. The Menendez brothers came from a wealthy family who lived in Beverly Hills, but everything was not as posh as it seemed. Lyle and Erik Menendez seemed to have it all, but their family allegedly had a deep secret. This secret eventually came out on the day that they murdered their parents in cold blood. The brothers shot their parents in their own home, like professional hit men. Aside from this trial, there have been many other cases showing conflicting ideas between jurors. In the play Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, he portrays the modern-day problems with the justice system. Through researching this case and reading the play, Twelve Angry Men, one can infer that the jurors from this play would hav/e great difficulty in coming to a verdict in the Menendez Trial.
...one else. Unfortunately, often times when a homeless person is victimized they are easily overlooked and not always given a chance to confront their attackers. In 2005, a case came about that shook the neighborhoods of St. Petersburg Florida. A woman by the name of Sara Lynn Wineski was brutally raped and strangled. On May 25th of 2005, neighbors heard screams and said it sounded like someone was being tortured, yet no one bothered to look into it or call the police. The following afternoon a body of a woman was found under a deck behind a home. DNA evidence was collected at the scene but there was little progress and too much suspects. It wasn’t until 2010 that Raymond Samuels DNA was a match to the DNA found on Wineski. Samuels was already serving time for attempted murder and kidnapping. He will be extradited from Ohio to Florida to serve out his life sentence.