Lack of funds in the justice system gives us another problem. Many people who are innocent are sent to jail for years suffering for a crime they did not commit, and in the worst cases they are sent to their deaths. The law of this country is that everyone will receive fair and equal representation. Now, when someone is suspected of committing a crime, they are assigned a lawyer so that they may have their voice heard in front of the judge and jury and tried fairly. Is it fair that most of these lawyers wo... ... middle of paper ... ... the Diallo case is that the officers were probably not very psychologically trained to deal with what occurred.
Unfair Court Decisions Suppose a special prosecutor tired you on purpose to put you in jail, and you didn’t plead guilty to show that you are truly innocent. Is it fair to you when the prosecutor tried knowingly and willfully while you are innocent? What do you do if you are harshly punished because you do not want to plead guilty to show that you’re innocent for real? This thing has been happening in our court system in criminal cases for many decades. In criminal cases, punishing defendants who didn’t plead guilty harshly creates severe problems to its citizens.
“South Africa ditched juries amid fears of racial prejudice among jurors and a reluctance on the part of many people to serve” (Fuchs), which most likely brings up the problem we have here in the U.S. Law professor Peter Van Koppen provides a perfect example of a common situation and compares it to our criminal justice system which sums up my stance on the ruling out of jury trials in the U.S., “Van Koppen pointed out that you wouldn 't want a panel of lay people acting as doctors. So, why would you want regular people deciding the fate of defendants? The work done by a jury isn’t that different from the work of a scientist like a doctor, he wrote. ““A scientist must make inferences about states of affairs that cannot be observed directly, inferring from the evidence that can be observed. And that is precisely what a jury must do: make a decision about the guilt of the defendant based on the evidence presented at trial.
Another reason they it as a disadvantage was because according to the dissent “some cases cannot be solved without confessions”. Also they implied the “welfare” of our society was at stake because it would let criminals run free, if the Miranda rights weren’t stated to them correctly. This was a “hazardous” experiment which could have a dismal outcome and prove to be very ineffective in the future. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion on the way the police officers had treated suspects amendment rights were “exaggerated” and that the outcome was only to favor the accused more favorably. Our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights have changed since the Miranda v. Arizona case got brought to the attention of the Supreme Court.
She claims the War on Drugs extends beyond the legal system affecting African American communities in terms of work, housing, welfare, and other necessities (Alexander 138). After prison, felons return to society only to find that many of their rights have been redacted without their knowledge. Often, they will have difficulty acquiring a job; the government denies public housing to all felons without a job and without public housing, many will become homeless (Alexander 56). This argument focuses on the denial of rights to former felons; Alexander believes that this system mimics the Jim Crow laws. Some scholars dispute this argument claiming that today it would be more difficult to create a system in which could fully define the entire race (Forman 58).
We spent quite a bit of time during the trial simply attacking the person who was on the stands character. With our idea of convicting someone being that hard evidence needs to be presented, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty this rarely occurs in our American justice system. If someone could be convicted just because a group of people had a bad opinion about them then people would be going to jail consistently without having committed any illegal action at all. The second noticeable asp... ... middle of paper ... ...ed the way they thought they were supposed to. It is possible that they all truly would have voted guilty if they were actually a jury member at that trial, but by comparison to the actual trial where only 56% voted him guilty it is difficult for me to believe that all 100% of them would have sentenced him.
The CSI effect is “the phenomenon in which jurors hold unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence and investigation techniques, and have an increased interest in the discipline of forensic science.”(Monica Robbers) This effect is a huge issue in the legal system today because it affects the juror’s judgement which carries forward and affects the outcome of many trials. Due to this common misconception by the jurors the legal system as a whole is impacted in a negative way. Jurors are simply average citizens who are selected in the United States from voter registrations and driver license/state ID renewals. The task at hand for jury members would be to make an impartial judgement on the case based on the evidence provided. This popular show raises the expectations for forensic evidence, that when members arrive at trials the jurors are disappointed by the real evidence that is presented.
What this means is that the lawyer you were appointed doesn 't really have time to break down your case and try to get you off but maybe get you a good plea deal. In the movie Twelve Angry Men juror number 8 wasn 't completely sure if the boy did it or not so he voted not guilty. The two witnesses that was present to the crime had strong statements. As a lawyer your job is to discredit the witness but do to the public defendants lack of skill he let the jury hear the testimonials of the witnesses and put his client 's life in the jury 's hands. Ultimately juror number eight did the lawyers job for the kid and got him off.
The crack window significance the hardship they will be facing in trying to fit back within society; since applying for a job may be difficult for them because the majority of businesses won’t take a person who has a criminal background. Even though, most of the men were arrested for nonviolent offenses for the possession of drugs. Bob Englehart argument, which I also happened to agree with, states that the releasing of the 6,000 prisoners won’t mean much until something is done with the war on drugs. What I feel about this political cartoon is the irony related to the nineteenth century crisis on alcohol. If one looks back to the outlaw of alcohol all it did was increase the criminal activity and the rise of the mafia empire.
• Joe is tried as an adult at only thirteen years old. • Michael and Nathan make up all of these lies about Joe and convince the court that he did in fact rape Ms. Bruner, when this was not the case. Michael and Nathan were lying to save themselves. • Nathan is sentenced as an adult to four-and-one-half years and serves just six months. • Michael has a criminal history and somehow he is tried as a juvenile and only spends a short period of time in juvenile detention.