Indeed, in 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud. This stemmed specifically from the proposition that lay persons may not be competent to evaluate particularly complex evidence, and was certainly fuelled by acquittals in well-publicised cases, such as that involving the Maxwells in the UK (see e.g. Doran & Jackson, 1997). In this article, research regarding individual juror decisions (not jury decision making) is introduced in respect of two questions. Should trial by jury be waived for so-called complex cases?
Not only are Law enforcement officers today focus surveillance on assessing the risk and dangerousness of an individual (qtd. in Mitsilegas). There are two factors that can be attributed to the changes the criminal justice system has undergone in recent years. According to Bloss, both globalization effects and increased electronic communication ... ... middle of paper ... ... had to shift its investigative and preventative techniques to keep up with criminals. Today 's society lives in fear of another domestic terror attack and has thus taken far-reaching steps to prevent it.
For any company that communicates by computer, the proposal: 1) Creates liability for, but never defines, “indecent” speech, a dangerously vague standard that could leave companies criminally liable for use of mere profanity; 2) Establishes vague and contradictory standards of liability that could leave innocent companies vicariously liable for communications over which they have no control; 3) Strips workable affirmative defenses from the Senate bill, eliminating a clear standard of care for companies. Not only does the proposal endanger companies, it fails to protect children. The indecency standard guarantees that enforcement will be tied up in the courts for years to come. Companies will be particularly reticent to identify and eradicate prohibited communications when they are incapable of discerning which communications are “indecent” and when the company's consequent knowledge of the communications may actually make them liable. At worst, the proposal will either shut down systems entirely or will shut down any attempts to constructively monitor and screen systems, as providers take a know-nothing stance to avoid prosecution for purported knowledge.
It also grants the use of sneak and peak searches allowing for looking first and getting a warrant later which violates the 1st and 4th amendment (p. 271). National security letters requiring providing information for records and then not allowing that person to tell anyone but a lawyer (p. 271). All of these powers were given under the idea of “war powers”, typically war time is a limited amount of time that accept more extreme security measures, but with the prospect raised by the Bush administration of a new era of never ending conflict means these powers might not end. Another tipping of the scales towards the executive branch and president is the use of signing statements. The signing statements allow legislation passed by congress to be applied how the executive branch sees fit which directly contradicts the legislative role is creating laws ("Aba: Blue-ribbon task," 2006).
Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for... ... middle of paper ... ...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. The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution.
In the case of Weeks v. United States (1914), a unanimous decision by the courts ruled that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. Prior to this ruling there had been a long-standing practice of the federal courts accepting illegally gathered evidence in court. The theory was that justice was more important than an individual’s rights. Weeks’s case essentially created the exclusionary rule (Wilson, 2014). The exclusionary rule prohibits wrongfully seized evidence from being introduced at trial and if evidence is introduced it is in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment.
During Bush?s State of the Union speech, he emphasized that a key role of our government was to protect us from foreign terrorists. However, if the Bush Administration continues to advocate such measures as the Patriot Act, then an important question is raised: Who will protect us from our own government? I conclude my stance with a quote from Senator Russel Feingold the sole senator who voted in opposition to the USA Patriot Act, Feingold passionately states ?Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war against terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people. ?
(2015). Supreme Court Makes It Harder to Sue Police. Richmond Times – Dispatch. Richmond Times - Dispatch newspaper article, Supreme Court Makes It Harder to Sue Police, is about a ruling that officers are protected from law suits except if it is “beyond dispute.” The newspaper article is showing how police officers are confined through the government. Although the jury opened a door to the utilization of excessive or deadly force, the public can bring forth their first amendment right to forbid the ruling.
The issue is even addressed in the US Constitution, which states that “two witnesses to the same overt act” are needed for a conviction of treason. Scientists have been disputing the credibility of eyewitness testimony, with experiments dating back to the early 20th century. In 1908, Harvard professor Hugo Münsterberg warned against dangero... ... middle of paper ... ... all they can to reduce the risk of misidentifications. Misidentifications not only damage innocent lives, but also hinder investigations. While police are focusing on the wrong person, the real perpetrator has gotten away.
The International Criminal Court (ICC), created in 1998 (Thayer and Ibryamova 2010), is responsible for investigating and prosecuting the most extreme cases, including crimes against humanity, aggressive crimes, war crimes, and genocide. The credibility of this institution, however, has been compromised due to the United States revocation of support and membership. Initially it is important to recognize the arguments against the United States becoming a member state of the ICC and what precipitated the U.S. withdrawing its signature from the document that instituted the Court. Once this has been established, the arguments in favor of ICC membership will be developed by addressing and refuting these objections. Finally, this analysis will lead to proving how the United States becoming a member state will increase the effectiveness and integrity of the International Criminal Court.