Facts of the case: A California statute made it a criminal offense for a person to "be addicted to the use of narcotics." Lawrence Robinson was convicted under the law, which required a sentence of at least ninety days in jail. After a police officer, who had noticed that Robinson's arms were scabbed, discolored, and filled with needle marks. The officer arrested Robinson, who was sent to the Los Angeles central jail. He was examined by a narcotics division of the police department and proven to have and injection of unsterilized hypodermic needles in his arm. Summary of one side’s arguments: Robinson believed it was an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. It violated the ban on cruel and unusual punishment
To begin, the events that took place in this Supreme Court Case occurred on November 17, 2003 involving Donnohue Grant and three Toronto Police Officers, two of which were dressed in plain clothes and in an unmarked car. The area had a history of student assaults, robberies and drug offences which was one of the main reasons for the obvious police presence in the vicinity. The accused was walking down the street very close to school when officer’s Worrall and Forde passed by in their unmarked car. Grant stared at the officers as they drove by him while fidgeting with his coat and pants in a particular way which caught the attention of undercover Worrall and Forde. Officer’s Worrall and Forde then informed officer Gomes that he should have a chat with the suspicious accused.
In To Kill a Mockingbird, a conflict that connects to the theme innocence should be protected is the death of Tom Robinson. Once found guilty, Tom Robinson was placed in prison. Because of his race, Robinson knew he would be sentenced the death penalty. Soon after being convicted, Robinson tried to escape. He knew that he didn’t deserve to be punished. While trying to escape, he was shot 17 times by p...
Before the mid 1900’s the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was formed to tax those making, importing or selling any derivative of opium or coca leaves. In the 1920s, doctors became aware of the highly addictive nature of opioids and started to avoid treating patients with them (Center, 2004). In 1924 heroin became illegal. However according to a history published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2003, anesthesiologists opened "nerve block clinics" in the 1950s and 1960s to manage pain without having to resort to surgery (Meldrum, 2003). This push for treating pain without surgery was a major factor in the opioid epidemic we see today. In 2008 the overdose death rate was almost four times the rate in 1999, and the sales of prescription pain relievers in 2010 were four times higher than in 1999 (Paulozzi et al, 2011). The substance use disorder treatment admission rate is also greater than in 1999, with it having been six times higher in 2009. Chasing Heroin’s claims surrounding the fear of prescribing pain medications is accurate as you see an increase in public policies surrounding opiate use in the early 1900’s. The climbing rates of overdose deaths and the increased amount of people seeking addiction treatment suggests that the fear of prescription opiates was
When writing the book, Robinson used various sources. He examined legal cases from across the South, U.S. Supreme court decision, debates in state legislatures, comments in the U.S. Congressional Record, newspaper editorials, anti-miscegenation laws, private correspondence, and some personal writings by African Americans.
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
Indeed, themes of coercion are oftentimes synonymous with family-related oppression that various groups faced. Some benefits were meant for children who were missing a parent, as merely lacking finances was not enough to merit welfare. Yet despite defining the condition as “absence of a parent,” what these programs really meant was the absence of a father-- the traditional wage-earner of the household. [footnote 115] There was anxiety about whether or not “able-bodied males might surreptitiously benefit from grants given to women and children,” for if one was physically able then regardless of whether or not the wages and hours were fair it was believed one should work. [footnote 124] Thus, any perceived method to circumvent such assigning
Our founders recognized the plausible abuse of power by an out of control Judiciary and a fractious Congress. Despite our founders intentions the United States government doesn’t consist of three coequal branches; ergo, Americans are subjugated by a judicial tyranny. When the states were drafting the Constitution, the power of Judicial Review was not delegated to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) or any other branch of the government. Our founders knew that placing too much power in any one branch of government would be a significant threat to liberty which could result in despotism. This thread will examine the brief history of Marbury v. Madison and how SCOTUS hijacked the power of
In the case, Carpenter v. United States, the question is posed whether the US Government needs to obtain a search warrant before collecting incriminating location information from a cell phone company. Timothy Carpenter was suspected of participating in numerous armed robberies. Therefore, the FBI showed a judge that the records they wanted were related to a criminal investigation, and they received records about Carpenter’s cell phone from his wireless phone company. The records included information about which cell phone towers Carpenter’s phone pinged off of and the call logs. These facts were then presented in Carpenter’s trial, where he was convicted of participating in and organizing nine armed robberies. The FBI is not wrong for using
Ever since Judge Taylor assigned me this case, I knew that I was in for a lot of mayhem. I've been asked many times why I agreed. I would like to say that there was a large, selfless, complicated reason of " the greater good", or "protecting humanity," something that my children read about in their folk tales, and bedtime stories, but really it's actually quite simple. Tom Robinson was a hard working father, just like me. He wanted to do his best for himself and his family, just like me. His life had suddenly
The Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) was investigating the tax return of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. As part of their investigation, The IRS sought materials such as documents and tapes that were in possession by the District Court. Their purpose seeking these documents was due to the connection to California v. Armstrong, a case involving the Church of Scientology. In the Armstrong case, there were allegations by the Church that one of their former members had unlawfully obtained materials, such as documents and tapes regarding the Church’s activities. The I.R.S. issued summons to the court and were granted access to inspect those materials. The Church of Scientology acquired a restraining a restraining order against the I.R.S. , requiring them to retain all obtained materials back to the District Court. The I.R.S. decided to fight back through the District Court. Both parties made arguments regarding the scope of attorney-client privilege. The Church of Scientology fought for the continued protection of these documents under attorney-client privilege due to the fact that they believed that the IRS did not seek these documents and tapes out of goodwill.The I.R.S., however, believed that they should be granted access to the documents
The wonder-drug of the early nineteenth century was finally being recognised as a dangerously addictive substance, although the interests of imperial traders kept it legal for another five decades, until the Dangerous Drugs Act was passed in 1920. This Act made it illegal to possess opiates without a doctor’s prescription.
The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is one of the most important constitutional limitations upon the penal process...
According to Bennett-Alexander & Hartman (2015) in order to determine the severity of the sexual harassment, the perspective must be obtained from the reasonable person standard (usually a male or gender neutral) or reasonable victim standard, which is viewing from the victim’s perspective (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). The reasonable victim standard was issued as a policy by EEOC in order to be fair and obtain the woman’s perspective or reasonable woman (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). Both of the standards mentioned are not intended to favor one gender more than the other, but rather create a gender-conscious examination of sexual harassment (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). Thus, it is the employer’s responsibility to make the
The death penalty breaks the eighth amendment which prohibits the government from using cruel and unusual punishment; death is a very cruel punishment.
FACTS: In 2007, Hung and Carol Nguyen entered a contract with Kevin Morton to purchase a property. After complying for 3 years, the Nguyens advised Morton that they would be utilizing their statutory right to cancel and revoke the contract for deed. Along with the cancelation, they ordered to get reimbursed for all thirty-four payments made, down payment, insurance policy payments made, and taxes paid during the term. Leading Morton to not only making the Nguyens vacate the property, but demanded payments and sued them for breaking the terms in the contract. Counterclaiming, the Nguyens’, accused Morton violated the property code and did not meet the requirements under Subchapter D. However, Morton argued that the Nguyens’ we’re not supposed