Assassination of Federal Judge John Howland Wood, Jr. Deyvahn Schultz North Atlanta High School Literature and Composition The following essay is about the assassination of Federal Judge John Wood. Judge John Howland Wood, Jr. was born on March 31, 1916. In 1970, Judge Wood became a United States Federal District Judge for the Western District of Texas. Judge Wood was tough on crimes including the making, selling, and distribution of illegal drugs, and he had a reputation for giving long prison sentences to drug dealers. This reputation gained him the nickname, “Maximum John.” In 1979, mobster Jamiel (“Jimmy”) Chagra was awaiting his trial for drug trafficking, and it was inevitable that he would be found guilty, and he was prepared to take any measure to prevent this fate. Consequently, Judge Wood was killed in front of his …show more content…
If Judge Wood did not approve of citizens using drugs, then ever offender whom he had to judge because they were caught using drugs would receive harsh punishments, and he would be unfair and treat them with little respect. Although it may be true that Judge John Wood despised drug use, the main influence on the judge giving drug dealers long prison sentences was because traffickers play an important role in the deterioration of neighborhoods and the crimes that some people have to endure due to drug rivalry. The drug use is only a portion of the problem. If the drugs were not illegally distributed in the first place, then the problem could not originate. Judge John Wood would not have given Jimmy Chagra a prison sentence for drug use; he was on trial for drug trafficking. Jimmy Chagra cowardly hired Charles Voyde Harrelson to assassinate Judge Wood on the day of his hearing because he was afraid of a long prison sentence; Jimmy suspected that he would receive a long sentence since he was a drug dealer and the judge despised drug
On September 13, 1986, Jonathan Wayne Nobles broke into a home in Austin, Texas and stabbed to death Mitzi Nalley and Kelly Farquhar, who were both in their early twenties. Ron Ross, while attempting to intervene, was also stabbed by Nobles nineteen times but survived losing only an eye. Nobles was sentenced to death for murder and was executed after twelve years on death row. While in prison Nobles became a pin pal of Steve Earle, a popular country music singer, and author of this essay. Earle struggled with drug addiction in the past and had spent some time in prison himself. Earle is familiar with life behind bars and is well aware of the changes people can go through while locked up. In the essay “A Death in Texas” Steve Earle writes about
“Corruption is like a ball of snow, once it’s set a rolling it must increase (Charles Caleb Colton).” Colton describes that once corruption has begun, it is difficult to stop. Corruption has existed in this country, let alone this very planet, since the beginning of time. With corruption involves: money, power, and favoritism. Many people argue today that racism is still a major problem to overcome in today’s legal system. American author (and local Chicago resident) Steve Bogira jumps into the center of the United States justice system and tells the story of what happens in a typical year for the Cook Country Criminal Courthouse, which has been noted as one of the most hectic and busiest felony courthouses in the entire country. After getting permission from one of the courthouse judges’ (Judge Locallo) he was allowed to venture in and get eyewitness accounts of what the American Legal System is and how it operates. Not only did he get access to the courtroom but: Locallo’s chambers, staff, even his own home. In this book we get to read first hand account of how America handles issues like: how money and power play in the court, the favoritism towards certain ethnic groups, and the façade that has to be put on by both the defendants and Cook County Workers,
Harrell’s essay also introduces other facets of drug courts to be researched in an effort to understand inconsistences in drug court practices from jurisdictions across the country. In particular, Harrell notes that eligibility, treatment availability, and court practices vary significantly from one drug court to the next. He brings light to the possible correlation between drug court practices and recidivism, and the importance of understanding which court practices contribute positively toward successful program
Throughout all of American history there have been those who are well known for committing what are classified as deviant or criminal acts. Most of those who are well known by the public for their actions have committed deeds seen as extremely controversial such as being cult leaders, gang or mafia members, terrorists, rapists, or killers. The lists of members for each topic is numerous, however, there are a certain few that are more prominent than others. One criminal that stands out when speaking of killers in particular is Gary Ridgway, or as he is better known, the Green River Killer. Gary Ridgway is the nation’s most abundant serial killer, with the highest murder rate in America’s history (Gibson).
In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
In Oklahoma, a man named Richard Gossip got sentenced to be put to death for a crime he said that he did not commit in 1997. In 1997, Gossip was convicted of demanding and ordering the brutal beating of Barry Van Treese. Barry Van Treese was a man who owned a motel where the inmate, Richard Gossip worked. According to “evidence”, Gossip hired another young coworker of the motel, Justin Steed, to brutally beat and kill Treese.
If I could spend one afternoon with someone dead or alive, I would choose Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court Justice. Antonin Scalia was considered one of the most influential conservative Supreme Court Justices in history. Recently in February of 2016, Scalia passed away, leaving his legacy forever in the court. Scalia was involved in numerous landmark cases that shaped American history, for example District of Columbia v. Heller and Bush v. Gore. As a young conservative who is anticipating a major in political science and future law school, Antonin Scalia’s career and political views reach to my similar goals.
Men like Nixon and Reagan had a tough mentality, while Clinton and Carter were a little more lenient (Parenti). Some targeted the suppliers, some targeted the consumers, and others targeted both. One of the key faults in the War on Drugs has been targeting consumers. People are going to take drugs no matter what. In order to reduce mass incarceration, the government must stop targeting and focusing on punishing the consumers of drugs. In 2005, four out of five drug arrests were for mere possession, and the vast majority of those offenders had no history of violence (Alexander). Targeting consumers of drugs is completely detrimental to the War on Drugs. You aren’t removing the problem by getting rid of the consumers. Instead you are putting a lot of people who have never committed a violent crime into a system surrounded by hardened criminals who truly deserve to be away from society and in prison. Prison is not a safe place. After a few months or years in prison, you become accustomed to prison norms, full of aggression and violence. People who simply got caught in possession of a drug are interacting and living with rapists and murderers. 77 percent of drug offenders would be arrested again (Crimeinamerica). Putting drug addicts and users in prison doesn’t solve the problem, but only enhances it. The point attempted to be made here is not to abolish drug laws for consumers,
The silence has been broken in recent years in federal courts where witnesses detailed the crimes of drug kingpins and many hit men, putting many of Charlestown's d...
Convicted for the murders of his wife and two kids, thirty-four years ago, Dr. MacDonald still endures the agony of being accused of killing his family. Even after twenty-four years of imprisonment and several unlawful court hearings, additional documentation continues to up hold Dr. MacDonald’s testimony.
The Judiciary Branch of the United States government is responsible for interpreting the law. Those involved with this branch determine the meaning of the laws and decide what to do with those who break them. Because of a drug movement that took place through the 1980s, the courts have severely punished those who break laws associated to drugs; Congress is now trying to step in to change the way the Judiciary Branch is forced to punish such criminals. Congress has been busy the past couple of years evaluating the proper sentencing of those convicted of drug crimes. Many men and women of Congress are joining forces in an attempt to come up with a solution to propose as an amendment. Our elected leaders believe the need for the reform of drug crimes is due because of the number of cases and number of years those convicted are spending in prisons. Because of the drug wars that took place in the United States, the minimum sentence has been set so high today. Drug reform is needed in the United States, and those convicted of drug crimes with improper sentences need to have their sentence reduced. 1
A week after James Neaville left the Missouri State Hospital’s psychiatric ward in April 1987, he told authorities that he was hired as an assassin by James Beckman to shoot President Reagan with an Uzi submachine gun. Later, he would t...
One of the many problems with the criminal justice system is the issue of mandatory sentencing. A mandatory sentence is when people convicted of certain crimes are punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. Mandatory sentencing especially applies to crimes related to drugs, thus criminals who have gone to prison for rape and other violent crimes, often serve less time then drug dealers because of these mandatory laws. Many politicians view this as unfair because these harsh laws on drugs are not fixing the problem, rather they are costing tax payers millions of dollars and overpopulating prisons. To fix the problem law enforcers must convict and sentence the drug lords, rather they are harshly punishing addicts and “drug
Jarecki, teases out racism as the center piece of the drug war, new sentencing guidelines and the resulting prison enterprise. He dared to broach the subject of an era when state and local government do not have the cash to provide basic services to their citizens there was the foresight to continue making numerous arrests for nonviolent drug offenses and create prison enterprise to house them. In my opinion, the enterprise at the time was only known to politicians, correctional institutions and private contractors. Then, with almost laser-guided precision a disproportionate burden of the sentences fell on African Americans. Mr. Jarecki is direct his statements that American drug laws are laden in racism. Time and again, politicians have criminalized the habits of certain groups of people to fulfill an agenda unbeknownst to the intended target. With this theory in mind, the latest strategy was seemingly designed for African Americans, but other ethnic groups have been targeted in the past. There was opium as an illicit drug connected Chinese immigrants at the turn of the century. We completely ignored, during the same time Americans used opium in elixirs and tinctures for medicinal purposes (Dial, 2013). Later there was hemp linked to Mexicans immigrants, the marijuana of the day. There was not much to hide about the fact that both Mexicans and Chinese had incredible work ethic, and the willingness to take low wages. This notion ultimately meant
“Getting tough on drugs inevitably translates into getting soft on nondrug crime,” they write. “When a decision is made to wage a ‘war on drugs,’ other things that criminal justice resources might do have to be sacrificed.”