Texas Judicial Elections

The appointment of a state judge should not be through a partisan election. Rather, it should be through a governor in conjunction with approval and support of Texas senate. Voting in a general election takes time. A voter has to reach the polling station on time and he or she has the task of ticking against the individual he wants in office. In as much as the voters have the capability of choosing all of their public leaders, selecting judges through partisan elections is inefficient and not everyone would possess the information needed to make the right decision. Generally, judiciary matters are not visible to the public. Another reason against this old methodology is   that one gets into office in relation to party membership or support from a popular politician. One can have all qualifications to make it to the post but the   focus shifts to other factors rather than relevant credentials that would hold the attention of the public and mislead the voters (Election and Term of Office and Campaigns; Judicial politics pg. 299- 312).

More so, partisan politics cannot be reliable and trustworthy when it comes to selecting a judge. In one way or the other, one party can have local control over Texas due to their vast influence and majority presentation in vital institutions such as the judiciary. With influence comes manipulation and vices as corruption can find their way in courtrooms. Prior to an election, lawyers will align themselves based on a judge who has their best interests at heart. For instance, criminal lawyers will tend to support a different candidate from the prosecutors because their interests differ greatly. Hence, the power that a judge wields may be prone to manipulation due to partisan politics and lawyers’ interests (Election and Term of Office and Campaigns; Judicial politics pg. 299- 312).

As stated earlier, a voter may look at the name of a judge or label of a party to assist him or her make a decision during voting. For instance during the  Obama era in 2008,democrats judges won most slots but judges with unfamiliar names lost and that was why Sharon McCally retained  her seat as a republican. Nevertheless, assuming that the public has all the necessary information needed to vote in a judge is often misleading because of the number of candidates in the ballot. Many contenders on the ballot can impede making conversant decisions. Even though information acquired through campaigns may inform a voter, campaign funding comes from individuals or groups who have an interest in the court cases. The contributions from these funding groups can interfere with a judge’s decisions and even issues discussed during campaigns. The above description goes to show that partisan elections have the ability to destroy merit. The case between Rick green and Paul green showed that a voter confusion could put the wrong person in office. Paul green, a judge with 17 years of experience lost to Rick green an individual with no experience as a lawyer at all (Election and Term of Office and Campaigns; Judicial politics pg. 299- 312).

In summary, the fact that a judge may lose to another, yet he has enough credentials is reason enough to abandon partisan election as a way of selecting judges. In addition, the numerous number of judges that run for office leads to voter mix-up. Also, the public most of the times do not have enough information to guide them through making the decisions. Even voters who make an effort to evaluate each candidate can find it hard.

References

Election and Term of Office and Campaigns; Judicial politics pg. 299- 312

Evidence law

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 aims at rebalancing the common law system that appeared reluctant to admit evidence from past criminal record of a defendant in the victims favor while at the same time ensuring that the defendant is fairly treated (Parsons, 2007). The basis of this act is that majority of crimes are committed through recidivism, meaning that the individuals with criminal record tend to re-offend. The individuals have the inclination to commit crimes and are likely to be faced with various criminal convictions. In regard to contesting the admissibility of previous evidence, it is necessary to consider whether the inadmissibility rules which may be rightly perceived as the major aim of the act are affected or just the admissibility rules of bad character evidence (Tandy, 2009). This is relevant in light of the distinction of common law between the rule and exception. 

The admissibility of the previous evidence can be contested is the defense applies to have its exclusion under section 101(3). This is because the evidence can be admitted under section (d) of the act and even under subsection (g) (Monaghan, 2015). Subsection (d) holds that evidence should be admissible when it is relevant to a significant issue arising between the prosecution and the defendant (Monaghan, 2015). This considers the possibility of the defendant having propensity to commit such offences with which they have been charged apart from where the tendency does not make it more likely that the defendant is guilty.  The other consideration involves the possibility of the defendant tendency to be untruthful apart from where there is no suggestion that his case is not true in any way. The subsection (g) holds that such evidence is admissible if the defendant has attacked the character of another individual (Monaghan, 2015).

In the case of Jason Long, the evidence is significant since it involves an issue between the prosecution and the defendant, where the prosecution refers to previous criminal record to argue for the Jason Long’s propensity to carry out such offenses and even tries to enhance the likelihood that he is guilty of this murder. The case tries involve Jason in the fan fighting considering that he referred to the supporters of Middletown as “scum”. The defense in this case may apply to have the exclusion of the previous evidence involving 2 convictions; assault that led to body harm and harassment where Jason was sentenced to 6 months in prison. However, the evidence is admissible since the Act does not allow the exclusion of bad character evidence by the court of its motion once the prosecutor has served notice highlighting that he intends to adduce bad character evidence. This means that the evidence from previous conviction that the prosecution intends to use to indicate the bad character of Jason Long is admissible.   If the defendant states that he or she is of good character, the prosecution is entitled to adduce the evidence of their bad character in for of their past convictions.

When considering the application of bad character as provided in 2003 Act, the court should always regard the general principles that are established under the 1974 Rehabilitation Offenders Act (Monaghan, 2015). The judge should have access to the record of defendant statement so that to give a sentence if the evidence is admissible.

References

Monaghan, N. (2015). Law of Evidence. Cambridge University Press. 250-251

 Parsons, S. (2007). The Criminal Justice Act 2003-do the bad character provisions represent a move towards an authoritarian model of criminal justice?.

 Tandy, R. (2009). The Admissibility of a Defendant's Previous Criminal Record: A Critical Analysis of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Statute law review, 30(3), 203-216.

Fairness in Sentencing

Judges should use the advisory guidelines that were established by the United States Sentencing Commission.   The guidelines states that judges should avoid judicial discretion and ensure fair and equality in sentencing. In other words, judges should ensure that punishment for equal crimes should be the same. There should be uniformity in punishment and this means that judges should not provide different punishments to offenders who have committed a similar crime (Siegel & Worrall, 2014). Other important point is that judges should evaluate current or present behaviors and avoid evaluation on the basis of past or the future behaviors.  In making sentencing decisions for similar crimes, judges should also use the concept of just deserts that states that people have the ability to make moral choice (Siegel & Worrall, 2014). Thus, as offenders commit the same crime, the sentence should be equal and there should be no discretion for the cases. Since the equal justice perspective focus on reducing discretion and providing equal punishment for equal crimes, a homeless person who steals goods from a business should receive the same sentence as a person with assets and income. This is because; both have committed a criminal offense and so both are equal. Both offenders have   done a particular offense of shoplifting regardless of the mitigating circumstances and thus, there should be no disparity

 Crime victims play a role or they have a greater participation in the sentencing process.   For example, a victim is allowed to provide the ‘victim impact statement' where he or she explains the impact of the crime (O'Mahony, 2002).  During the hearing, the victims are also allowed to allocute or say anything concerning the crime either to lessen the severity of the punishment or to apologize.  In addition to giving the defendant the right to express him or her opinion, the victims also play role in determining the guidelines determination and make sentence recommendations (O'Mahony, 2002).  In addition to the role of giving information and participating in the process, victims have the right to restitution in which the victim writes the necessary supporting evidence in the application form for him or her to be compensated.

            When determining the sentence of the offender, the impact of the crime on the victim should be a consideration. The ‘Victim Impact Statement' play a significant role as it allows the victim to explain the impact of the crime either financially, physically or emotionally (O'Mahony, 2002).  It is important for judges to take into account the long-term or short-term effects of the offense because; first,  this process gives the victims a sense of participation in the criminal justice procedures and second the process saves the victim from the trauma he or has may experience while giving evidence to the court. Generally, judges should consider the Victim Impact Statement as this is a fair way of evaluating the position of the victim realistically and the process increases the victim's level of involvement and improves his or her position in the criminal justice process (O'Mahony, 2002).   Note that as the victim explains the impact of the crime, the statement given and other important details are put in the case files and later, it can be used during the process.  Considering the Victim Impact Statement is a holistic approach to analyzing the victims' needs and rights throughout the criminal justice process.

  The habitual offender statute states that an offender who repeats the same offenses many times will receive harsher legal penalties or greater criminal penalties (Melton et al, 2018).   I do not support this statute since harsher punishment does not deter crime or it does not prevent reoffending.   The Courts hold that harsher punishment or life imprisonment will reduce crime but the bitter truth is that when reoffending, the offender makes rational choices and weighs both the benefits and consequences of the action. Other offenders do not understand the consequences of the actions and so the harsh penalty will have no impact (Melton et al, 2018).  Despite the harsher punishment, the rate of crime is rising upon release.  This means that a higher cost is used to incarcerate criminals but upon release, they continue reoffending.  Thus, harsher punishment does not have any impact on reducing reoffending but the only way to deter crime is to establish treatment services to those reentering the community. Punishing the offender more harshly than the first time is a double jeopardy and it should not be applied to today's society (Melton et al, 2018).  Rather punishment should be less costly, safe and it should be directed toward shaping behavior, helping those reentering the community and reducing recidivism.

  According to the federal sentencing policy, crack cocaine offenses require a harsher penalty than powder cocaine crimes.  I support this policy because first, there are many large-scale crack dealers and their extensive role in the drug trade makes crack the most used recreational drug.  In addition, crack is cheap and can be easily afforded by users from the poor socioeconomic background. Despite its lower cost, it is highly addictive and contributes to long-term health consequences.  This disparity plays a significant role in punishing the crack traffickers and the street dealers (Tonry & Tonry, 2004).  As the dangerous dealers receive harsher penalties there will be a reduction of criminal activities and gangs.  However,   this policy is not effective since it only focuses on disparity in sentencing but it does not solve the underlying problem; that is the issue of drug abuse. It means that the federal government will need to spend a higher amount of money to build new prisons where the drug dealers will stay (Tonry & Tonry, 2004).  It is also menus the federal government is trying to solve the expanding jails and prisons rather a treatment to the users.  I argue that the policies should be reformed and new policies should focus on developing substance abuse programs to solve the issue of drug addiction.

References

Siegel J. Larry., & Worrall L. John. (2014). Essentials of Criminal Justice. Cengage Learning

O'Mahony, P. (2002). Criminal justice in Ireland. Dublin: Inst. of Public Administration.

Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K., Mossman, D., & Condie, L.

1. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health

professionals and lawyers.

Tonry, M., & Tonry, M. H. (2004). The Future of Imprisonment. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Assessing Juvenile Offenders

            The case flow diagram presents the different stages in which juvenile offenders go through in the juvenile justice system. The most significant aspect of this system is the adjudication and dispositional hearing.  In the adjudication stage, the judge listens to the arguments of both parties where each party presents reasoned arguments to support the claim. After presenting the arguments, the judges make decisions and decides who is right and who is wrong.  This state is significant as it helps the judge determine the status of both parties and encourage treatment and rehabilitation.  The judge also gets an opportunity to make fair and consistent decisions through cross-examination, sharing of information, constitutional protections and adhering to rules and regulation (Denholm, Ferguson & Pence, 1993). Juvenile disposition is also important as it focuses on rehabilitation, protection or probation.  The adjudication helps the judges understand the nature of the crime and the possible dispositions that a juvenile offender can receive such as community service, group home placement, secure detention and more.

  In my home state (OHIO), the following preventative programs are used as a rehabilitation strategy to prevent crime and help youth who have engaged in violent behaviors. The first program is the Multi-systemic Therapy- this program is effective as it not only reduces recidivism but it also improves the behaviors of young people. The purpose of this program is to provide community and parents will parenting skills and foster community and the parent-child relationship.  This program shapes the behaviors of the youth, empowers the young and prevents delinquent behaviors (Freeman & Gutiérrez, 2001). Another program is the Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care- this program ensures that young people who have committed crime are put in a foster home where foster parents and therapists work together to help the young offenders change behaviors. The third program is the Functional Family Therapy- the program provide families with parenting skills and tools that foster family bonds. Therapists provide the affected families with treatment strategies thereby preventing crime and improving health.

 There are similarities between the rehabilitation programs in my state and the prevention interventions learned in the class. The textbook talks of group therapy where a therapist meets with the juvenile delinquent to discuss interpersonal behaviors, share problems and develop self-awareness. The mingling creates a positive environment where young people have an active role to share experience, engage in a productive discussion, ask questions and create a relationship (Freeman & Gutiérrez, 2001).  Other rehabilitation techniques include group housing-young offenders are taken in a   home setting where they create healthy attachments.  They live in a safe environment and experience an array of advantages since rather than engaging in criminal activities, they receive guidance and treatment which makes a unique difference in their life (Freeman & Gutiérrez, 2001). These programs and the State program work toward a similar goal of helping young people stop engaging in criminal activities, change behavior and live a productive life.

Reference

Denholm, C. J., Ferguson, R., & Pence, A. R. (1993). Professional child and youth care. Vancouver: UBC

Press.

Freeman, E., & Gutiérrez, L. (2001). Substance Abuse Intervention, Prevention, Rehabilitation, and

Systems Change: Helping Individuals, Families, and Groups to Empower Themselves. New York,

NY : Columbia University Press, 

Equality in criminal sentencing

 As a judge, I should strive to provide justice and fairness and adhere to the doctrine of the natural justice. In dealing with the first defendant, I understand that defendants in the U.S criminal justice system have rights such as the right to jury trial, public trial, and Miranda rights, fair trial rights among other rights which are under the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments (Kusha, 2004).  In the first case, it means that the defendant insisted on a jury trial because he pleaded ‘not guilty'.  And for this reason, the jurors should find the facts and evidence. Actually, the jurors have more arbitrary royal power than the judge since not only do they find facts but they also make honest decisions and prosecute the alleged criminals. In addition to the right to a jury trial, defendants also have the right to a defense attorney under the 6th Amendments (Kusha, 2004). Thus, as a judge, I understand the first defendant has the right to a jury trial and right to a find an attorney who would assist him in the criminal process. After going through the various process, the defendant was convicted by a jury or in other words the jury found that after finding facts and reviewing the evidence, the crime charged was true and he voted guilty. The other defendant pleaded guilty and this indicates that the defendant admitted that he was involved in a robbery and for this reason, there was no need for technical argument or a jury trial.

 As a judge, I will impose equal prison sentences for both offenders since both have committed the same crime (Kusha, 2004).  I would not consider factors such as the jury trial, use of defense attorney or early guilty plea but I will focus on the seriousness of the crime. In the first case, the defendant exercises his right to jury trial, right to appeal a motion and right to a defense attorney and his co-defendant offers an early guilty plea voluntarily. Thus, both defendants have exercised their rights and regardless of their differences, they should receive similar punishment.

Reference

Kusha, H. R. (2004). Defendant rights: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara (Calif.: ABC-CLIO.

Punishment & Sentencing Assignment

Imprisonment

Mandatory sentencing laws

Mandatory sentences refer to the sentences that a judge should impose on a certain offender irrespective of the context of the offense committed.  The judge in such a case does not have any discretion in imposing a maximum or minimum sentencing depending on the type of crime that has been committed.  The laws place a minimum sentence that a give judge should not lower. Many of such laws deal with drug related offenses (Larkin & Bernick, 2014).  In case the offender pleads guilty or the judge finds him or her guilty, they will be given at least the minimum sentence that law has set.   These laws normally vary depending on the state and federal laws (Larkin & Bernick, 2014) .Advocates in such cases normally brings some arguments in support of the laws.  

 The major argument in support of the laws is that they deter criminals, and that they can eliminate sentencing disparities. However, the mandatory laws have in no way eliminated sentencing discretion but have just shifted such discretion to the prosecutors to the judges. The judge may see the need to impose any punishment as per the requirement of the law, but a prosecutor is not under any such obligation in which he or she can charge a defendant with violation of the law whose minimum penalty is mandatory(Gray, 2017).  In addition, the unrestrained prosecutorial discretion serves as a greater evil than judicial discretion that is unlimited. The prosecutor has not been trained to sentence, and therefore, does not exercise discretion in an open manner. The prosecutor who will gain professionally after successfully convicting a person under mandatory minimums has no enough incentive to exercise his discretion in a responsible way (Gray, 2017).

The mandatory minimums have rarely acts as deterrence but have led to swelling of population in the federal prison and even outrageous racial disparities, and thus, causing untold misery. For instance , a federal mandatory sentencing relating to drugs can be considered as unforgiving since an individual  who has previously been charged with just one drug felony could be give a minimum of 29 years.  A person with two prior cases will get a life penalty with no parole. Regardless of such penalties they do not reduce crime rates. Enacting the mandatory penalties either has no proven deterrent effects or has short-terms impacts that do not last long (Gray, 2017).  Moreover, incapacitation does not lead to lower crime rates such as drug dealing or peddling. It is an important aspect of justice in any democratic society that all people should face similar treatment and not be subjected to any kind of direct or indirect adverse discrimination (Larkin & Bernick, 2014). However, it is important to determine the history of the person so that those with one or no past offense not be sentenced the same as constant offenders.  

Reference

Larkin, P., & Bernick, E. (2014). Reconsidering mandatory minimum sentences: the arguments for and against potential reforms. The Heritage Foundation.

Gray, A. (2017). Mandatory sentencing around the world and the need for reform. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 20(3), 391-432.

A  Case study of Marvin Anderson’s wrongful conviction

Natural rights are   the most fundamental civil rights in the entire universe. Going against such privileges disturbs the normal course of humanity. The fact that a person is born, certainly grants him or her the natural rights. The basic freedoms  that comes  as a result  of  living  allows  an  individual to live as they   see  fit  without  any  disruption  from a government. Other vital terms such as Interpretations and strict constructionist will   also come into play in the case study. This paper will look into the illegal conviction of Marvin Anderson, prosecution misconduct and judicial wrongdoing of the case while at the same time giving in-depth analysis of the impact of the act (Innocent project, 2017).

Case summary

In the   year 1982, a young lady   claimed that a black man raped her. After she laid bare her claims to the law enforcers, a policeman identified Marvin as a suspect simply because he earlier told   the   victim that he was in a relationship with a Caucasian woman. More so, Marvin was the only   black man with a Caucasian female. Since Marvin had no past felonies, law enforcers went to his work place   and took his photo. Later, the victim identified Marvin as the perpetrator of the crime after reviewing both mugshots and lineups. It is good to note that Marvin was the only individual in the lineup whose mugshot was subject to review by the victim (Innocent project, 2017).

Another suspect of the case was a black man, John Lincoln. He  was  person of  interest in the  case  because  the  bicycle  that  the  perpetrator  escaped  with  was the  same one Lincoln owned. Lincoln stole the bike a few hours before the crime took place. Although Lincoln admitted that he was the real perpetrator, the same judge dismissed his claims (Innocent project, 2017). 

Prosecution misconduct

First of all, the  prosecution  was made up of  an all-white  jury , leaving  loop holes  for bias  and  unfair  behavior. The jury ended up convicting an innocent man and slapping him with two hundred and ten years on all accounts charged. Secondly, after Lincoln admitted to the crime in 1988, Anderson remained in custody. The admission was not  casual  and he did it  under  oath  but  due to  some queer  reason, the  prosecution denied  the  information and  held to their conviction. The prosecution did not handle evidence with care. It was an uphill task for Marvin to prove innocence after the kit bearing all the evidence was disposed of by the court (Innocent project, 2017).

Defense misconduct or wrongdoing

Anderson  wanted  Lincoln and     the  owner  of the  bicycle   to  appear in court as  witnesses but the  defense  denied his  request (Innocent project, 2017).

 Strict constructionist

 The  term  strict  constructionist  appear  when  Anderson  contacts Innocence  project  after  learning  that the  content of  evidence  kit  was  destroyed. The right to seek justice via an external   source in the manner in which Marvin did is not recorded anywhere in the constitution, yet it came in handy (Innocent project, 2017).

Interpretationist

 The term comes into context when Anderson’s defense team   gets permit to analyze the   DNA evidence. The   changing  standards allowed for examination of  new material and  comparing  them  with  sperms  from the  body  of the  victim to prove that Anderson was not  guilty   of   the  crime. The sperms   from the victim’s body showed that Anderson was not guilty (Innocent project, 2017).

Reference

Innocent project (2017). Madeo

 Retrieved from:  https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/marvin-anderson/

Capital Punishment

Introduction

The use of capital punishment as a justified means of sentence is morally acceptable. The debate on morality of capital punishment is based on three premises; every guilty person deserves punishment, only the guilty person deserve punishment and a guilty person should have a punishment that is proportionate to the severity of the crime they have committed. In so doing deterrence and re-offending prevention can be achieved in the process. However, Capital punishment has been associated with vengeance instead of retribution and thus, perceived to be concept that is morally dubious.

Discussion

The moral reasoning for capital punishment is that actual justice needs guilty persons to experience suffering equal to their wrongdoing and the suffering should be appropriate to the specific crime that they have committed. Hence, a criminal who have been convicted of a crime deserves to be punishment and in a murder case, for instance, the criminal deserves to die.  The punishment should be measured in relation to the atrocities perpetrated by the criminal, while considering the state of the defenseless state of a victim (Sunstein, 703).  It is argued that such a position fits with the innate concept of justices with the leniency and severity of the person must correctly be measured.  The other notion relates to the deterrence effect of capital punishment. In this case, meting of the punishment on criminals is regarded as an ‘act” but refusing to issue the punishment can be regarded as an outright “omission” (Sunstein, 703). Morality does not only involve avoiding doing something wrong but ensuring that the right thing has been done.

 Capital punishment can significantly deter other individuals having the thought of committing heinous crime to reconsider their actions since they are aware of the results. When murderers are executed, other would be murders are discouraged from killing especially when such a punishment is provided immediately after the crime. In this case, the issue relates to saving human lives.  When the risk of fear and punishment is increased, would be perpetrators of major crimes are discouraged from taking actions that would see them face the punishment (Sunstein, 703). Majority of the people will consider the costs and benefits associated with a crime and respond appropriately. Some studies have shown the relationship between execution of criminals and decline in rates of murder and such link can at times be strong.  The case for the execution is that it is right for the guilty person to be punished but not an innocent person. The idea of capital punishment can involves a back-ward-looking perspective, not just for revenge, but expressing the moral seriousness of the crime committed (Sunstein, 703). 

It is difficult to serious argue for human rights but not think that something serious has to be done so that the severity of violating human rights can felt.  If an action is not carried out towards people who commit heinous acts towards others, it tantamount to saying that it does not matter a person can act in such a manner. This means that a brutal criminal can be called to give up his or her life so that the seriousness of their crime can be underscored.  The failure to impose tough penalties on specific crimes can lead to increased crimes being committed in the society (Muhlhausen, 27). Hence, refusing to impose the capital punishment where murder crimes have been committed presents a problem from the moral perspective. Even in criminal law or justice system there will always be some risk-risk tradeoffs.  Even where capital punishment does not rehabilitate a person so that they go back to the society, they can take such an opportunity to express remorse, repent and even have a deep spiritual rehabilitation. This indicates that capital punishment can bring about some kind of rehabilitation. Moreover, reverting to other forms of punishment such as a life sentence with no parole can in extreme case provide a chance for the person to escape and commit similar crimes, and this could have been prevented if the person had been executed. In addition, even if the person is no longer dangerous to the public, he may harm other inmates and the prison staff (BBC, 1).

However, capital punishment has been argued to be based on vengeance but not retribution and thus, does not have moral backing. In this case, the expected suffering by a convicted criminal who may be held in death row for a long time increases the severity of his life. Moreover, it is argued that it is wrong to morally wrong to take a life in defense of another life.  The opponent of the punishment holds that the crime may have been committed in an emotional state where the perpetrator was not thinking about the consequences of his actions (Sunstein, 703). It has also been observed in statistics that capital punishment does not deter people from committing crime.

Conclusion

The use of capital punishment is justifiable if the guilty person but not innocent person is executed. The punishment can act as a deterrence to would be crime perpetrators and thus, saves life. It helps by acting to outline the seriousness of the crime and thus, upholding rights of victims. 

Works cited

Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. "Is capital punishment morally required? Acts, omissions, and life-life tradeoffs." Stanford Law Review (2005): 703-750.

 Muhlhausen, David B. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives." Testifying on June 27 (2007): 2007.

BBC.Arguments in favour of capital punishment. (n.d). Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml

Case study/Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe

Introduction

In the case of Santa Fe Impendent School District v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruling held on 19^th June 2000 that the policy by the school board allowing a prayer session initiated and led by student before the beginning of the food ball games violated the establishment clause in First Amendment. As per this clause, it is illegal for the government to establish, advance or favor any religion in the country.

Case facts

The case involved Santa Fe Independent High School as the petitioner and Doe as the respondents, and the name was meant to protect the respondent’s identity.  Before 1995, the student who held the elective student council chaplaincy office prayed using the school’s public address system before the starting of every food ball game at the varsity level for the whole season. The issue that was finally brought the US Supreme Court regarded a policy that was to allow students to carry out a vote on whether they supported deliverance of prayers before the starting of the game and even choose one student who would do so.  The student voted for the inclusion of prayers. Respondents were former or current students and their mothers, with one family being Catholic while the other was Mormon (John & Ronald 425).  The respondents moved to the District Court so as to restrain the violation of Establishment Clause. Does allegations included that the District engaged in practices that promoted Baptist Church while chastising students from minor religious beliefs and even distributed Bibles to schools.  The respondents also argued against the adoption of other similar policies, such as allowing prayer at school graduation for senior class which was voted by senior students through secret ballot.  They also alleged that the polices did not include any requirement that these prayers should be non-proselytizing and nonsectarian ((John & Ronald 425).   The policies involved the messages, invocations or statements that propagated religious favoritism.

However, the District Court entered an order preventing adoption of the policies even the open ended ones.  The court ruled that actions taken by the school should not coerce a person into supporting or taking part in any religious organization, relying on Lee v. Weisman decision of 1992. The court conclusion included ruling that the prayers offered at the school appealed some Christian beliefs and using the public address system to deliver the prayer before the games coerced students to take part in religious exercises (John & Ronald 425). However, the patties appealed the ruling, with the District arguing that the include part of the policy was allowable while Does contended that there was a violation of the Establishment Clause.  The majority of the Court of Appeal supported Does contentions.  The decision  by the   Court if Appeal was in line with precedent set by Fifth Circuit  in the case of Johns v. Clear Creek Independent School District of 1992(John 1789).  This case was also brought before the Supreme Court, where board argued that students were left to control the message and choose the speaker. Due to this, respondent argued that the content of the aforesaid message was “private speech” which as safeguarded by First Amendment.  The Supreme Court dismissed the argument, noting that most students have to attend such games and that even if it was mandatory to attend the game, the resulting social pressure would make them go (John 1790).   It was held that the policy was in violation of First Amendment Establishment clause.

Works cited

John E, Nowak, and Ronald D. Rotunda. Constitutional Law. 423-429 (St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West) (2004).

John R. Vile, Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues, 1789-2015 (Santa Barbara, California)(2017).

Plea Bargain

Introduction

The plea bargain process involves the defendant agreeing to a lesser sentence in exchange for pleading guilty. The deal may be reached a short moment after the arrest of defendant and before the filing of criminal charges. The major benefit for the plea bargain is that the defendant is given a lesser sentence than possible through the trial.  The police officer involved in investigation and the victim may favor the plea bargain instead of the possibility of having no justice through the courts. The plea bargain may lead to failure to scrutinize evidence and an innocent defendant may end up being punished.

The process

Plea bargain is where a defendant enters into an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to part or all of the charges and in return, he gets a lenient sentence. In the process, the prosecutor agrees to a lesser punishment for the defendant through a reduction of charges severity or number (Abel, 2016).  The agreement may also involve a recommendation for the defendant to given lesser sentences.  In some instances, the prosecutor may need the defendant to offer more than just pleading guilty.  The prosecutor may offer a favorable plea bargain when a defendant agrees to be a witness for the state and testify against some other defendants (Abel, 2016). The process may also involve the judge, where together with the prosecutor they may pre-determine the sentence to be given to the defendant after accepting the plea bargains.  The role of the judge in many jurisdictions is limited.  For courthouse in many jurisdictions, plea bargain may be given at any phase of criminal justice process.  The agreement can be reached a short moment after the arrest of defendant and before the filing of criminal charges (Abel, 2016).

Plea bargains are offered for various reason  which include to reduce the number of court cases , prosecutors’ may need to put their focus on some cases and the process may save time and resources for the defendant. At times, it is easier for a plea bargain to be offered by the prosecutor than taking cases in court, given that the system is normally overcrowded.  The aim is to minimize the burden placed on the court system (Batra, 2015).  Prosecutors are able to pay focus on greater cases and offering such plea bargain especially if the defendant is a first time offender or the cases involves lesser charges. The prosecutors can make their schedule less strained. The trial process cost much money and consumes significant amount of time, so the plea bargain makes the process to move quickly so that defendant can go on with their activities. Negotiations in plea bargain may result in an agreement as the jury goes back to the courtroom to give the judgment.  If the trail leads to a hung jury, where the judges are not able to reach a unanimous decision needed, the defender and the prosecutor may negotiate a deal instead of going through the trail again (Batra, 2015).  Such deals at times are reached after the conviction of the defendant and the case has been appealed thus saving time and money.

The law enforcement officers who took part in investigating a crime can support a plea bargain when the final verdict by the court is not in their favor. They may want the entire legal process to be complete quickly. The case present to the prosecutor can be weak so that the court asserts the need for proper evidence or even witnesses.  The officer doing the investigation may not want to provide even the slightest chance that the defendant will be acquitted  but aims at ensuring that he or she is punished (Abel, 2016). The officer favors the plea bargain because there may be an opportunity for the defendant to be punished even when evidence against them is not sufficient.  The police may also oppose the plea bargain considering that they risk their lives investigating and putting into custody the defendants only for the prosecutors to throw away the cases that could have gone through a fair trial (Abel, 2016).  The police may feel that their longtime work was not meaningful.  The police may fear that frustration from such deals can lead fewer arrests due to their concerns regarding plea bargaining.  They fear that they will finally become less dedicated or conscious in the streets with the possibility that their work will lead to a naught.  The level of respect the police is given is likely to evaporate when the prosecutors and the defendant have the case and reach a deal (Abel, 2016).  Hence, his actions become questionable to the public and tactical decisions face increased criticism.

 The victims support for plea bargain may be due to some circumstance such as being very elderly or too young so that they do not want to be involved in the trial rigors. They may not want to remain in the presence of the defendant due and relive the victimization horrors. For instances, abuse and rape cases the victim may not have the courage to undergo the cross-examination. In other instances, the witnesses may not be cooperative, available or reliable which is likely to make the testimony not credible (Arns, 2015).  In addition, the negotiated punishment or settlement offers more justice than the uncertainty related with judicial process which whose judgment may be different from what the victims prefers.  On the other hand, the victim may oppose the plea bargain due to the feeling that the prosecutor is too lenient whey he or she agrees to a given sentence.  The victim may desire to asset his or her rights to oppose any plea agreement that is binding (Arns, 2015).  This may arise from the feeling that the victim will be denied their right to take part in the system by supporting the plea.  The victim’s objection may also result from need to raise concerns that the prosecutor wants a quick victory while ignoring their plight.  The sentence given to the defendant may be too lenient so that it is just a resemblance to the deserved justice. The victim may also oppose the process if they are denied the right to oppose any deal between the prosecutor and the accused (Arns, 2015).

The re-definition of the defendant’s criminal demeanor may results to a different perspective by the society related to the plea bargain. This result to the defendants having an offense that faces less stigmatization in their records.  The relationship with the family and families may change as a result. At times, those defendants who have been imprisoned for offenses that are stigmatizing are likely to face higher risk of harm in the prison compared to when they have been sentenced for a minor offense (Berger, 2014)e.  The defendants can also save on the costs associated with the case especially the attorney’s fee after the plea bargain if they have been represented by a private lawyer.  The trial of a case almost always consumes more money and time than negotiating and dealing with a plea bargain.  The defense counsel will normally charge a large amount of the fee if defendant’s case is taken to trial.   Moreover, the defendants in custody whose right to bail was rejected or could not afford to pay the bail may move of almost immediately after the judge has accepted the plea (Berger, 2014). The defendant may also move out or be on probation while not being sentenced to service obligation in the community depending on the nature of the offense committed.

The provision of plea bargain means that the case against the defendant will not go through trial and hence, the opportunity to scrutinize the evidence in the court will be lost.  The lack of scrutiny means that there will be suppression of evidence while relying on the witness.  The witness credibility may be questionable where the impeachment evidence is not revealed. The court may fail to examine whether the evidence presented and the witness testimony are biased (Petegorsky, 2012). This may lead to a case where an innocent person is forced to accept to plead guilty rather than face the uncertain outcome of the court trial even where the evidence is not enough to convict him. The failure to present exculpatory evidence means that the innocence of a defendant cannot be established (Petegorsky, 2012). An innocent person may be forced into bargain plea for the fear of being convicted for a higher sentence that the one reached through a bargain.

Conclusion

The plea bargain may benefit the defendant and the victim, in that the defendant may receive lesser sentence while the victim will be assured of some form of justice. The officer favors the plea bargain because there may be an opportunity for the defendant to be punished even when evidence against them is not sufficient. The lack of scrutiny may lead to suppression of evidence while relying on the witness whose credibility is not ascertained.

Reference

Batra, R. R. (2015). Judicial Participation in Plea Bargaining: A Dispute Resolution Perspective. Ohio St. LJ, 76, 565.

Abel, J. (2016). Cops and Pleas: Police Officers' Influence on Plea Bargaining. Yale LJ, 126, 1730.

Arns, K. (2015). Not All Plea Breaches Are Equal: Examining Heredia's Extension of Implicit Breach Analysis. Nw. UL Rev., 110, 617.

Petegorsky, M. N. (2012). Plea Bargaining in the Dark: The Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Brady Evidence During Plea Bargaining. Fordham L. Rev., 81, 3599.

Berger, T. A. (2014). After Frye and Lafler: The Constitutional Right to Defense Counsel Who Plea Bargains. Am. J. Trial Advoc., 38, 121.

US Prisoners Exchange Policy

 Introduction

Prisoners exchange is the process of transferring prisoners to their home countries under the provisions of the governing treaty. The prisoners' exchange programs play a significant role in eliminating the hardships that offenders experience while being imprisoned in the alien nation.  It is important to understand there is a difference between prisoner exchange and extradition, as the latter occurs when one state requests other states to take legal action and punish the offender. There are prisoner transfer treaties that connect the sentencing and receiving countries when planning for the prisoner's transfer. Prisoners exchange is a good national policy aimed at giving relief to the distressed prisoners and controlling the transnational organized crime.

Both extradition and prisoner exchanges involve the transfer of criminals from one country to another. However, the two are different in that they have distinct procedures in that extradition occurs when a country surrenders an offender to another country. In other words,   when an offender commits  a crime in one country  and escapes to another country,   the  charging country   requests the  other country to   put the offender  on  trial  through consulting the  Office  of  International Affairs.  On the other hand, prisoner exchange is a process that involves the transfer of criminals from their own country to other countries to face trial for the crimes they have committed (Bassiouni, 2014). According to my personal opinion, I think the significant difference between the two is on the purpose or goal of transporting the offender.   In the prisoner exchange, there is an agreement between the nations that criminals will be transported for completion of the trial whereas, on extradition, there should be an extradition request and approval.  An example of the prisoner exchanges is the prisoner's incarceration of   Ukrainian criminals in Russia and Russian criminals in Ukraine.  However, the Ukrainian government wants the Ukrainians to be freed from Russia since it values its citizens who are suffering from beatings and torture (Bassiouni, 2014). An example of extradition is the extradition of   Robert James from Pennsylvania to Canada for committing sexual offense through the internet.

Example of statutes involved in the exchange of prisoners are as follows; exchange of prisoners and extradition is allowed under the international treaties and relationships.  Any person in a foreign country is subject to the laws and regulations of that country and violation of the law may result to arrest.  Another statute is that the offense is referred to as extraditable under the rules in the foreign and own country (Bassiouni, 2014).  The countries should also come to an agreement that the offender will be denied liberty or may face a severe penalty for at least one year, and both nations should define the offense using similar terminology.  Extradition should not be requested for political offense and offenses which are not political offense include murder, kidnapping, inducing or counseling toward committing a crime, violent crimes and more (Bassiouni, 2014).  Another important statute is that if the requesting state confirms that the offense is subject to the death penalty, the requested state should not accept the extradition unless the requesting state eliminates the death penalty.

            Exchange of prisoners is a good national policy.  This is because it is important for countries to cooperate in criminal matters as long as there are a legal framework and mechanism for the exchange of prisoners.  This is mutual legal assistance and a comprehensive strategy where countries can combat and prevent all forms of crimes. Since all states are in a borderless world where it is easy to transport or exchange information, people and other goods, countries should enjoy the globalization advantages such as reduction of national and international crime (Bassiouni, 2014).  However, I would change the policy since the current statute is convoluted.  The new proposal includes building an integrated scheme which would offer an appropriative balance between the rights of those who are extradited and effective mechanism for the process (Bassiouni, 2014).   It is important to have a central authority that would play a role in managing the extradition request, examining the foreign applications, examining how extraditions are conducted and more importantly protect the rights where necessary.

To the US citizens prisoners who claim that they were tortured in foreign prison, I would inform them that; first, torture is illegal and unacceptable. In addition, inmates have the right to challenge the status of the custody and the Bill of Rights to protect inmates against torture (Pyle, 2001).  I would also inform them that exchange of prisoners is a process where offenders are authorized to move to a foreign country to answer criminal charges, and the countries should adhere to the agreement.  It is also important for the prisoners to know that the exchange of prisoners is not a clear violation of the 8th Amendment right. The latter states that inmates have fundamental rights and no one should violate the human dignity. Inmates also have the right to challenge the condition of confinement and report the officers who show ‘deliberate indifference’ (Pyle, 2001).  It is the role of the prisoners to make sure that their constitutional rights are not violated by filling complaint form.  Thus, the exchange or prisoners does not violate the 8th Amendment, but the two work together to ensure that inmates' rights are met.  However, actions toward the cruel and unusual punishment should be taken, and such actions include direct prevention or torture such as education, training, and monitoring of the prison officers and indirect prevention such as prosecution and sanction (Pyle, 2001).  The international legal framework should also be re-stated to ensure that officers adhere to rules and regulation.  Another important point is that the U.S legal process is in favor of the complaints in that it has a Uniform Criminal Extradition Act that contains the individual's right.  The U.S also protects and values its citizens since it does not allow the inmates face the death penalty in foreign prisons.  

 Conclusion

All countries need to cooperate in controlling the crime.  Even though the law enforcement has a significant role, all sectors of society in the states need to collaborate and use the conservative approaches to combatting crime.  Police exchange and extradition offer legal assistance in different areas such as controlling the international borders, prosecuting, and preventing future crime.

References

Bassiouni, M. C. (2014). International extradition: United States law and practice. New York, NY : Oxford

University Press

Pyle, C. H. (2001). Extradition, politics, and human rights. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.

Juvenile Criminal Justice System

 Introduction

            There is a debatable issue in the criminal justice system on the age at which a young person should be held accountable for the criminal behaviors.  Though it is clear that adults and young people have distinct special needs, there are issues and challenges in determining the age of criminal responsibility.  In addressing these problems and deciding issues, the U.S Supreme Court is applying the international opinion. The international law has a proper meaning in the interpretation of U.S constitutional mandate. Overall, U.S should set a minimum age of criminal responsibility and utilize the international law such as Child Rights International Network where it will learn more about the sentencing of children.

 There are psychosocial factors that influence adolescent's maturity and ethical development. These psychosocial factors influence the ability to make decisions such as committing antisocial acts. The first factor is responsibility- this encompasses self-reliance, self-esteem and independence and the ability to be responsible and accountable for one's behavior. The second psychosocial factor is perspective-this comprise the ability of the adolescents to view the situation from a different perspective, making long-term planning and considering the consequences of an action. The third factor is temperance- this comprises the ability to avoid impulsive actions and having a higher level of self-control (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000).  In the criminal justice system, it is important to consider these psychosocial elements to reach a ‘maturity judgment.'  Rather than focusing on age alone, it is important to consider responsibility, perspective, and temperance since they influence both social and antisocial decision-making.

 There should be an across-the-board age limit for criminal responsibility. The role of age limit for criminal responsibility is to create productive members of the community through providing them with successful rehabilitation and allowing them to engage in the community service opportunities (Cipriani, 2016).   For example, if the age limit is raised to 17 or 18 years old,   it means that the juvenile orders aged 18 years and below will be rehabilitated thereby reduce recidivism, increase economic productivity and reduce the costs of law enforcement. Conversely, the case-by-case basis will mean that there will be no age limit and young offenders will be imprisoned in the adult prisons thereby denying them the employment and education opportunities.  There is also a probability that the juvenile will commit suicide due to physical abuse.  Thus, it is important to establishing the age limit for delinquency jurisdiction.  It is also important to consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that there should be moral considerations for all people (Cipriani, 2016). The international juvenile justice standards also offer greater details based on children's rights and protection.

  The ‘international opinion' should influence the decisions of the US Supreme Court.  Referring to the 2005 case of Rover v. Simmons, the Supreme Court applied the foreign laws and the international opinion to decide whether the offenders who were under the age of eighteen were subject to the death penalty.  Concerning the case and other cases, the Supreme Court should use foreign sources in making decision-based on the national matters or in other words, the ‘international opinion' should influence the decision making. It is important to use the international practices and adopting the appropriate measures for the United Sets (Sidlow & Henschen, 2007). The international opinions serve a significant purpose in shaping the undressing of the issue.  Besides, it is important to consider the international opinions when interpreting the constitution since there will be an ‘international consensus' which comprise the majority opinion on issues affecting the human race (Sidlow & Henschen, 2007).  It is important to note that there is no binding law or a binding contract but, the purpose of using the international opinion is to find the majority opinion or the consensus on national matters such as death penalty.

Juvenile court procedure in South Africa

 According to the Child Justice Act 2008, a person under the age of 10 is not responsible for criminal acts and cannot be prosecuted.  A person who is aged 10-14 years lack criminal capacity and in case of accusation, it is the role of the probation officer to assess the child to determine whether he or she understands what is right and wrong.  A person aged 14-16 years should be imprisoned under these conditions; if the bail has been denied,  if the child commits a serious offense such as murder,  if the imprisonment promotes the public safety and if the issued a certificate with sufficient evinced for the imprisonment (Skelton & Tshehla, 2008).  The juvenile justice system has a diversion program which comprises thing such as a family time order, a good behavior order and a reporting order. 

   There are important aspects of the South African juvenile system that the U.S should adopt to improve its system.  U.S juvenile system faces numerous challenges since the majority of the children in the juvenile justice system suffer from mental problems and emotional issues. To address this problem, it is important to re-establish or reform the diversion programs to promote reconciliation and reintegrating the young offenders to the family and community (Skelton & Tshehla, 2008).  In addition, rather than incarcerated the young people, U.S should provide community-based services to meet the unique challenge and help the offenders improve the mental health.  Besides, U.S should shift to restorative justice which is based on forming a reconciliation between the victim and the family or community (Skelton & Tshehla, 2008).  Rather than using a punitive approach which contributes to negative consequences such mental disorder, it is important to focus on addressing the psychological needs of the young offenders.

Conclusion

  Juvenile criminal justice system plays a significant role in protecting the community from crime, promoting youth development and rehabilitating the young offenders to prevent future crime. However, there is a dilemma facing the juvenile justice system in determining the age of criminal responsibility.  Before setting the age limit, it is essential to consider the factors that influence maturity and ethical development.  After understanding the age at which child develop moral reasoning, it will be easier to set a minimum age of responsibility.  It is also essential to apply the foreign laws or international human rights for guidance.

References

Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: why adolescents may be

less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 18(6), 741-760.

 Cipriani Don. (2016). Children’s Rights and the Minimum Age of Criminal Reasonability: A Global

Perspective.  Routledge

Sidlow, E., & Henschen, B. (2007). America at odds. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Skelton, A., & Tshehla, B. (2008). Child justice in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Institute for

Security Studies.