Beginning the well-known case of Furman v. Georgia, it all started on August 11, 1967 when 26 year old William Henry Furman entered the residence of 29 year old William Joseph Micke during the middle of the night in attempt to rob any valuables from the home. Micke, awakened by the commotion, proceeded to his kitchen find Furman inside his home stealing his belongings. Before Furman could react, Micke confronted Furman but was stopped in his own tracks when he noticed the hand gun he had in his person. Unfortunately for Micke, as Furman reacted to running out of the home he tripped and fell over, exposing the gun and triggering a single bullet hitting a clean shot right through Micke’s chest killing him instantly. Micke’s family, who had awakened …show more content…
The trial only lasted a day given the substantial amount of evidence against him. Even with an insanity plea that the court denied, the jury found Furman guilty of murder and was sentenced to death on September 21, 1968 at 5:00pm. This ruling brought up the issue on whether or not the death penalty, particularly in this case, was considered ‘cruel and unusual’. Enough support was gathered for the Supreme Court to take on this case beginning in January 17, 1972. Throughout the case it was made clear that the issue to be discussed was whether or not the death penalty would “constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments” (Oyez). After months of debating and decision making, the final verdict was announced on June 29, …show more content…
In the majority opinion, I agree that the death penalty is in a way cruel and unusual towards the human population. In the minority opinion, I agree that there is something to be done for those who cause suffering onto those who hurt others and have probable cause of doing it again if they get the chance. Many can agree that with our progressive society we are starting to lose our roots from our forefathers, making new rules and regulations that keep our society content. I believe that the world we see now as Americans is a world of leisure and tranquility where only the worst of travesties brings out the fighting spirit in people to take action for their cause. It is until then that people start seeing the reality of the situation and would either learn to accept it or quarrel behind denial and fight for their world of leisure and tranquility. This can implied in the death penalty case where people believe that death should not be so easily manipulated and it is not up to one person on whether or not they should die due to their causes. The victims are not the only ones who have families that worry for their relative’s future in which both cases their biggest fear is death. How I see it, at the end of the day, these people just committed one of the most heinous crimes known in our society. Why do they commit these acts? I have absolutely no idea. What I do know is that in every act there is a motive,
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also “figured” that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department’s policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner’s fathers’ argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing no threat of danger to the officer. The incident was then reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm’s Revie...
.... Madison was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unusual punishment to Graham. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. Therefore Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
“William Henry Furman, a twenty-six-year-old black man with a sixth grade education, was not what most people called a “bad” man,” (Herda 7). Furman was just laid off of his job and was struggling to find work. But there was none. Every job did not pay enough, or was a short term job. Eventually, depressed, hungry, and broke, Furman turned to breaking and entering and to petty thievery by means of survival. Furman was caught a few times and was given a light sentence. He was also examined by a psychiatrist and was determined to be mentally impaired, but not enough to go to a mental institution. But on August 11, 1967, Furman went to rob the house of twenty-nine-year-old William Joseph Micke, Jr. with his wife and five young children. When searching through the house, Furman made too much noise, which alerted Micke. Furman heard Micke walking down the stairs and pulled out his gun that he used for scaring people away. But Micke kept walking downwards. Not wanting to be caught, Furman tried to run away and tripped over an exposed cord. His gun discharged. The bullet ricocheted to the back door. On the other side, a body fell to the floor. William Joseph Micke Jr. was dead. “The police responded to the call quickly and, within minutes, they had apprehended Furman just down the street from the scene of the crime. The murders weapon was still in his pocket,” (Herda 9). Furman tried to plead guilty by insanity and the psychiatrists described him as legally insane. But then, several days later one of the psychiatrists revised their medical opinion. Because he was not insane, the case would go on. The state of Georgia charged him with murder and issued the death penalty. This was because Georgia state law stated that any form of murder is...
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
Furman, a black, killed a householder while seeking to enter the home at night. Furman shot the deceased through a closed door. He was 26 years old and had finished the sixth grade in school. Pending trial, he was committed to the Georgia Central State Hospital for a psychiatric examination on his plea of insanity tendered by court appointed counsel. The superintendent reported that a unanimous staff diagnostic conference had concluded "that this patient should retain his present diagnosis of Mental Deficiency, Mild to Moderate, with Psychotic Episodes associated with Convulsive Disorder." The physicians agreed that "at present the patient is not psychotic, but he is not capable of cooperating with his counsel in the preparation of his defense"; and the staff believed "that he is in need of further psychiatric hospitalization and treatment."
Nashville police department received information that a suspect in a car bombing case, as well as some illegal, stolen equipment, could be found in the home of Mary Cooper. A few law enforcement officers were dispatched to her home. The police officers went to Cooper’s home and asked for permission to enter the home, but Cooper refused, without a search warrant. Two officers left and two were still at the resident of Mrs. Cooper. A few hours later, the two police officers returned with more police officers, waving a piece of paper, and broke open the front door. Cooper asked to see the warrant and took it from the officer, putting it her pants. The police officers had a struggle with Cooper and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed for being aggressively
By the mid 1960s, the death penalty seemed fated for extinction. Only seven executions were conducted in 1965 and only one in 1966. For about ten years supporters and opposers of capital punishment looked to the Supreme Court for a final ruling on the constitutionality of the death penalty. The word came out in 1976 in the case of Gregg v. Georgia. The court ruled that, " the punishment of death does not violate the Constitution."
The death penalty has many supporters and opposes and i would have to say i am one of the opposes because whether they did or didn 't comment the crime . I don 't think it gives us as the people of the united states the right to kill a Man or Woman that does the horrific Crime . I mean don 't get wrong i am a true believer that everyone person is responsible for their actions and that justice needs to be taken. I believe most people think that if they get justice for their loved ones it would solve everything it may for the few minutes. But killing a person for their crime is just not justice Its just revenge for the families they harmed.
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
... concerned, each death is justified. Law officials, as well as many people feel safer knowing that a murder may not be committed simply because of the fear the death penalty installs. Only the truly mentally sick refuse to fear the idea of being put to death by the government. The death penalty has come a long way through the years to become more humane, despite the idea of killing another human being. It was originally a painful hanging. Years later it was changed to death by electric chair, and now recently it has been changed to death by lethal injection. Reasons for condoning the death penalty are justice, revenge, a feeling of justification for the victim's family, and possible prevention of another murder. It may be an inhumane act but the idea of being put to death by the government may have possibly prevented possible murders throughout the years.
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.