Criminal Justice Essay Research Paper Supreme Court
Condemnable Justice Essay, Research Paper
Supreme Court Cases
Engle vs. Vitale
Case: In the late 1950 & # 8217 ; s the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a supplication, which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that pupils in public schools say the supplication on a voluntary footing every forenoon. In New Hyde Park Long Island a parent sued the school claiming that the supplication violated the first amendment of the fundamental law. The school argued that the supplication was nondenominational and did non try to & # 8220 ; set up or back & # 8221 ; a faith and therefore that it did non go against the constitution clause.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Religion
Decision: The tribunal ruled against the school territory and upheld the constitution clause of the first amendment. Prayer in schools was to be considered unconstitutional.
Lemon vs. Kurtzman
Case: Pennsylvania & # 8217 ; s jurisprudence included paying the wages of instructors in parochial schools, helping the buying of text editions, and other instruction supplies, as required by Pennsylvania & # 8217 ; s Non-Public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968. In Rhode Island, the State paid 15 % of the wages of private school instructors as mandated by the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act of 1969. In both instances the instructors were learning layman, non spiritual, topics.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Religion
Decision: Arguments were made on March 3rd, 1971. On June 28th, 1971, the Court nem con ( 7-0 ) determined that the direct authorities aid to spiritual schools was unconstitutional.
Bridget Mergens-Mayhew vs. U.S.
Case: Westside High School, a public secondary school that receives federal fiscal aid, permits its pupils to fall in, on a voluntary footing, a figure of recognized groups and nines, all of which meet after school hours on school premises. Mentioning the Establishment Clause and a School Board policy necessitating nines to hold module sponsorship, petitioner school functionaries denied the petition of respondent Mergens for permission to organize a Christian nine that would hold the same privileges and meet on the same footings and conditions as other Westside pupil groups, except that it would hold no module patron. After the Board voted to continue the denial, respondents, current and former Westside pupils, brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive alleviation. They alleged, inter alia, that the refusal to allow the proposed nine to run into at Westside violated the Equal Access Act, which prohibits public secondary schools that receive federal aid and that maintain a & # 8220 ; limited unfastened forum & # 8221 ; from denying & # 8220 ; equal entree & # 8221 ; to pupils who wish to run into within the forum on the footing of the & # 8220 ; spiritual, political, philosophical, or other content & # 8221 ; of the address at such meetings. In change by reversaling the District Court & # 8217 ; s entry of judgement for suppliants, the Court of Appeals held that the Act applied to prohibit favoritism against respondents & # 8217 ; proposed nine on the footing of its spiritual content, and that the Act did non go against the Establishment Clause.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Religion
Decision: In 1985, the principal and overseer of Westside High School ( a secondary school in Omaha, Nebraska ) cited the Establishment Clause as a ground for denying the petition of Bridget Mergens to organize a Christian nine that would hold the same privileges and meet on the same footings and conditions as other Westside pupil groups, except that it would hold no module patron. Ms. Mergens took the instance to tribunal, and won at first. She lost on entreaty at the 8th Circuit Court, and so subsequently won in a 8-1 determination from the Supreme Court
Johnson vs. U.S.
Case: During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, respondent Johnson participated in a political presentation to protest the policies of the Reagan disposal and some Dallas-based corporations. After a March through the metropolis streets, Johnson burned an American flag while dissenters chanted. No 1 was physically injured or threatened with hurt, although several informants were earnestly offended by the flag combustion. Johnson was convicted of profanation of a venerated object in misdemeanor of a Texas legislative act, and a State Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, keeping that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could non penalize Johnson for firing the flag in these fortunes. The tribunal foremost found that Johnson & # 8217 ; s combustion of the flag was expressive behavior protected by the First Amendment. The tribunal concluded that the State could non criminally countenance flag profanation in order to continue the flag as a symbol of national integrity. It besides held that the legislative act did non run into the State & # 8217 ; s end of forestalling breaches of the peace, since it was non drawn narrowly plenty to embrace merely those flag combustions that would probably ensue in a serious perturbation, and since the flag combustion in this instance did non endanger such a reaction. Further, it stressed that another Texas legislative act prohibited breaches of the peace and could be used to forestall perturbations without penalizing this flag profanation.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Expression
Decision: Johnson & # 8217 ; s strong belief for flag profanation is inconsistent with the First Amendment
Schenck vs. U.S.
Case: Charles Schenck was arrested for go againsting the Espionage Act, passed by Congress in 1914. The Espionage Act made it illegal to slander the authorities or make anything that might retard the war attempt. Schenck, a member of the Socialist Party, opposed the war and printed and distributed booklets pressing citizens to oppose the bill of exchange, which he likened to slavery. Schenck claimed his first amendment rights were violated.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Speech
Decision: The tribunal ruled against Schenck stating that the Espionage Act did non go against the first amendment and that in times of war the authorities may put sensible restrictions on freedom of address. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes outlined the tribunals sentiment by explicating that when a & # 8220 ; clear and present danger & # 8221 ; existed such as shouting bow in a crowded theatre, freedom of address may be limited.
Gitlow vs. U.S.
Case: Benjamin Gitlow had been a outstanding member of the Socialist party during the 1920s. He was arrested and convicted for go againsting the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902, which made it a offense to try to further the violent overthrow of authorities. Gitlow & # 8217 ; s publication and circulation of 16 thousand transcripts of the Left-Wing Manifesto violated this Criminal Anarchy Act. The booklet went on to recommend the creative activity of a socialist system through the usage of monolithic work stoppages and & # 8220 ; category action & # 8230 ; in any form. & # 8221 ; Gitlow was tried and convicted. He appealed the determination, reasoning that his First Amendment right to freedoms of address and imperativeness was violated.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Speech
Decision: Although the New York tribunals held that the Communists must be held accountable for the consequences of their propaganda, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ballot, ruled in favour of Gitlow. It stated in its determination that & # 8220 ; for present intents, we may presume that freedom of address and of imperativeness & # 8230 ; are among the cardinal personal rights and autonomies protected by the due procedure clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from damage by the State. & # 8221 ;
Dennis vs. U.S.
Case: Eugene Dennis was a leader of the Communist Party in the United States between 1945 and 1948. He was arrested in New York for misdemeanor of Section 3 of the & # 8220 ; Smith Act. & # 8221 ; The Act prohibited advocation of the overthrow of the United States Government by force and force. The authorities felt that the addresss made by Dennis presented a menace to national security. Dennis appealed his strong belief to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that the Smith Act violated his First Amendment right to Free Speech. At issue was whether the Smith Act violated the First Amendment proviso for freedom of address or the Fifth Amendment due procedure clause.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Speech
Decision: The Court found that the Smith Act did non go against Dennis & # 8217 ; First Amendment right to liberate address. Although free address is a guaranteed right, it is non limitless. The right to liberate address may be lifted if the address presents a clear and present danger to subvert any authorities in the United States by for
Ce or force. Since the address made by Dennis advocated his place that the authorities should be overthrown, it represented a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.
Plessy vs. Ferguson
Case: Homer Plessey, a member of a citizens group protesting the Jim Crow Torahs that created segregation in the South, was arrested for go againsting the jurisprudence that forced Blacks to sit in separate train autos. Plessey claimed that the Torahs violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution that said that all citizens were to have & # 8220 ; equal protection under the law. & # 8221 ; The province argued that Plessey and other Blacks did receive equal intervention, merely separate.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Civil Rights
Decision: Plessey & # 8217 ; s strong belief of a misdemeanor of Jim Crow Torahs has upheld by the Court. The Court ruled that the 14th amendment did state that Blacks had the right to the same installations, merely equal installations. By governing this manner the tribunal created the philosophy of & # 8220 ; separate but equal. & # 8221 ;
Brown V. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas
Case: Linda Brown, a pupil in the unintegrated Topeka Kansas school territory had to walk 5 stat mis to school each twenty-four hours. Across the train paths from her house there was a white school she was unable to go to. Oliver Brown enlisted the aid of the NAACP to guarantee that his girl was able to travel to the best school possible. Thurgood Marshall, so caput of the NAACP, challenged the segregation of the school claiming that the Torahs violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution that said that all citizens were to have & # 8220 ; equal protection under the law. & # 8221 ; The province argued that Plessey v Ferguson had set the case in point and that the Torahs was clear on this point.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Civil Rights
Decision: The tribunal affirmed the place of Marshall and the Brown household and overturned the case in point set by the Plessey determination. Justice Earl Warren claimed, & # 8220 ; In the eyes of the jurisprudence, justness was color-blind. & # 8221 ; In opinion in favour of Brown the tribunal ordered the integrating of America & # 8220 ; with all deliberate speed. & # 8221 ; The civil rights motion had begun!
Gideon vs. Wainwright
Case: Gideon was accused of interrupting into a poolroom. Gideon, an antique con, was excessively hapless to pay for a attorney and asked the tribunal to name one for him. The tribunal refused to allow his petition saying that attorneies were merely provided for those accused of perpetrating capital offenses like slaying, colza, etc. Gideon was tried and was forced to support himself. While in Prison Gideon manus wrote a supplication to the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing. At this point he received representation from attorneies who were attracted to his instance. Gideon argued that his right to a just test was violated.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Rights of the Accused
Decision: Gideon & # 8217 ; s place was upheld. The Court ruled that all citizens must be provided a attorney if they can non afford one. This is irrespective of the type of offense.
Miranda vs. Arizona
Case: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the snatch and colza of a immature adult female. Upon arrest Miranda was questioned for two hours. He ne’er asked for a attorney and finally confessed to the offense. Later, nevertheless, a attorney stand foring Miranda appealed the instance to the Supreme Court claiming that Miranda & # 8217 ; s rights had been violated.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Rights of the Accused
Decision: Miranda was acquitted. The Court ruled that citizens must be informed of their rights prior to oppugning. Any grounds or statement obtained prior to a fishy being read his/her rights is inadmissible. This has led to what is normally referred to as one & # 8217 ; s & # 8220 ; Miranda Rights & # 8221 ; holding to be read upon oppugning or arrest. They are: & # 8220 ; You have the right to stay soundless, anything you say can, and will be used against you in a tribunal of jurisprudence. You have the right to an lawyer. If you can non afford one, one will be appointed for you. & # 8221 ; Note, Miranda was subsequently killed in a saloon bash, stabbed to decease.
Mapp vs. Ohio
Case: Fremont Weeks was suspected of utilizing the mail system to administer opportunities in a lottery, which was considered gaming and was illegal in Missouri. Federal agents entered his house, searched his room, and obtained documents belonging to him. Subsequently, the federal agents returned to the house in order to roll up more grounds and took letters and envelopes from Weeks & # 8217 ; shortss. In both cases, the constabulary did non hold a hunt warrant. The stuffs were used against Weeks at his test and he was convicted. At issue was whether the keeping of Weeks & # 8217 ; belongings and its admittance in grounds against him violated his Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable hunt and ictus and his Fifth Amendment right non to be a informant against himself.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Search and Seizure
Decision: The Supreme Court of the United States nem con decided that as a suspect in a condemnable instance, Weeks had a right to be free from unreasonable hunt and ictus and that the constabulary unlawfully searched for, seized, and retained Weeks & # 8217 ; letters. The Court praised the constabulary functionaries for seeking to convey guilty people to punishment but said that the constabulary could non be aided by giving the cardinal rights secured and guaranteed by the Constitution. [ This determination gave rise to the Exclusionary Rule. ” This meant that grounds seized in misdemeanor of the Constitution couldn T be admitted during a test. ]
Furman vs. Georgia
Case: Three instances were brought to the Supreme Court refering the decease punishment and the racial prejudices present in the choice procedure. Three juries had convicted and imposed the decease punishment on their accused without any guidelines to travel by in their determination. This instance represents the first clip the Supreme Court ruled against the decease punishment. The dissenting Justices argued that the tribunals had no right to dispute legislative judgement on the effectivity and justness of penalties. The bulk nevertheless held that the decease punishment was barbarous and unusual penalty, which violated the Eighth Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall went on to assail the punishment more straight saying, & # 8220 ; it is inordinate, unneeded, and violative to modern-day values. & # 8221 ;
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Decision: The existent determination created three options for usage of the decease punishment: compulsory decease sentence for certain offenses, development of standardised guidelines for juries and straight-out abolishment.
Gregg vs. Georgia
Case: In this instance the tribunal upheld the constitutionality of the decease punishment, supporting legislative acts that usher Judgess and juries in the determination to publish the decease sentence. The Court did, nevertheless, province that the compulsory usage of the decease punishment would be prohibited under the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual penalty. The suspect in this instance, Gregg, had been convicted on two counts of armed robbery and two counts of slaying.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Decision: The jury was instructed by the test justice, who was following Georgia province jurisprudence, to return with either a determination of life imprisonment or the decease punishment. Justice Byron stated in his sentiment that Gregg had failed in his load of demoing that the Georgia Supreme Court had non done all it could to forestall prejudiced patterns in the forming of his sentence. This determination became the first clip the Court stated, & # 8220 ; penalty of decease does non constantly go against the Constitution. & # 8221 ;
Tinker vs. Des Moines
Case: Several pupils and parents in Des Moines organized a protest of the Vietnam War. Students were to have on black armbands to school in protest. When the school found out they warned all the pupils and parents that anyone have oning the armbands would be would be suspended. The Tinker kids wore their armbands to school ( they were the lone 1s of the group to make so ) and were suspended. Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filed suit claiming that the school violated the kids & # 8217 ; s right to freedom of address and look. The school claimed that the armbands were riotous.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Speech
Decision: The tribunal ruled against the school territory stating, & # 8220 ; pupils do non cast their constitutional rights at the school house Gatess. In making so the tribunal protected what has come to be known as & # 8220 ; symbolic speech. & # 8221 ;
