This case involves Robert Xie charged for the murder of Norman Lin, Lilly Lin, Irene Lin, Henry Lin and Terry Lin, although his wife believed that he was innocent. The reasoning for the murders were so he could have sexual access to his niece. The motive was previously not reported due to legal reasons. He continuously pleaded innocent. The case was under the jurisdiction of Common Law- Criminal.
Today marks the 80th anniversary of the devastating Supreme Court case of Palko v. Connecticut[1] in which the Supreme Court held that the 5th amendment right against Double Jeopardy did not apply to state courts. While Palko[2] was eventually overturned by the landmark case of Benton v. Maryland[3], Palko stood for 32 years as an impediment to peoples Constitutional rights. The Case[4] The case behind Palko perhaps explains the Courts dim view. Late one evening in 1935, Frank Palko[5] broke into a music store in Fairfield County Connecticut[6] , stole a phonograph and fled the scene on foot. Mr. Palko was quickly cornered by a police officer who he shot and killed.
Can the state try you twice for the same crime? Well that is where Double Jeopardy comes in under the protection of the Fifth Amendment. Double Jeopardy basically means that the court can’t find a defendant guilty for the same crime twice. There are several reasons why there is double jeopardy protection. First to protect that person from financial, emotional and social repercussions.
In Mike Anderson’s case, he had committed a serious crime, a crime that is thought by the FBI to occur frequently, be widespread and to do the most harm. Due to robbery being a serious crime the judge that heard Mike’s case had sentencing guidelines that help provide guidance for the judge about sentences for convicted offenders, making them more uniformed based
All clauses are adapted to the needs of the country at the present time. Change is always necessary to explore better and newer options. The double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment hasn’t significantly changed since the constitution was ratified, but rather the way viewed. The Supreme Court's rulings in Palko v. Connecticut, Benton v. Maryland and Heath v. Alabama show that there has been a noticeable trend towards various interpretations of the same clause over the last hundred years.
The majority of people would never imagine they could be convicted of a crime which they did not commit, but all too often, this is the startling reality. Through the history of the United States and the world, excessively many decisions have been made rashly as a result of fear and bias. Two specific cases in the United States are those of the Red Scare and the West Memphis Three. While both situations did not lead to prosecution and conviction of individuals, both did involve harsh accusations which seemed reasonably based but may not have been. By comparing and contrasting these two events, one can see specific recurring patterns not only in the history of the United States, but in the history of the whole world; by seeing this, hopefully
Third, crimes are more effectively prevented by the certainty of punishment—not by the severity of punishment. Jefferson’s proposed bill, the “Bill on Crimes and Punishments,” for a more humanitarian
Our Constitution has long required the criminally accused to be tried by their peers. The question before us today is whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment in light of the decision in Ring v. Arizona., 536 U.S. 584 (2002). We hold that it does violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. I
Over the past 40 years U.S. incarceration has grown at an extraordinary rate, with the United States’ prison population increasing from 320,000 inmates in 1980 to nearly 2.3 million inmates in 2013. The growth in prison population is in part due to society’s shift toward tough on crime policies including determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing laws, and mandatory minimums. These tough on crime policies resulted in more individuals committing less serious crimes being sentenced to serve time and longer prison sentences. The 1970s-1980s: The War on Drugs and Changes in Sentencing Policy Incarceration rates did rise above 140 persons imprisoned per 100,000 of the population until the mid 1970s.
Three-Strikes Law It is my intention to establish a relationship between the three strikes law and retention rates of prisoners incarcerated for low level offenses. Before I begin to discuss the three-strikes law, it is imperative that I give some background information on sentencing guidelines. During the 1970 's the incarceration sentences imposed were indeterminate, meaning the judge had the discretion to sentence an offender on a case by case basis and sentencing a person to state prison or county jail was supposed to be to rehabilitate that person so he/she could re-enter society. Often time’s prisoners were sentenced to different amounts of time for similar offenses.
Since the founding of our judicial system there have always been individuals claiming innocence to a crime that they have been found guilty of, traditionally, after their sentencing no matter how innocent they may or may not be would have to serve, live and possibly die by the decision of their peers. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck alongside Peter J. Neufeld faces this issue by challenging the sentencing of convicted individuals who claim their innocence and have factual ground to stand upon. The Innocence Project uses the recent advances in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing to prove their client’s innocence by using methods that were not available, too primitive or not provided to their clients during their investigation,
Defined as a public policy that imposes an outlined amount of prison time based on the crime committed and the defendant’s criminal history, these sentences dictate that a judge must enact a statutory fixed penalty on individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Such laws have removed discretionary sentencing power from judges, instead focusing on severe punishments in line with national drug and crime concerns. While the original goal of mandatory minimum sentences was to deter potential criminals, reduce drug use, control judicial prudence, the policy has had extreme consequences such as sentencing imbalances and
Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 87(1), 1. doi:10.2307/1143970 This article was written by Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers. They both consulted experts on criminology and criminal behaviour to evaluate the effectiveness of the Death Penalty.
Monetary penalties have so many disadvantages that they should not be used to a greater extent in the criminal justice system. Thus some have gone as far to argue that they should be completely abolished. However Burch has said that this would not be possible so reform should be favoured instead. I will argue that updating their current use is essential in order to make the current system of fines more effective and more restricted. I will continue to discuss why fines are not effective, from their rational, to their effect on the offender to the way that they are set in practice.
Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30).
