Criminal Law and Supreme Court; McLachlin J.
Facts
An aboriginal by the name of Victor Daniel Williams, was charged in the year 1993 with the robbery of a pizza parlour. He was elected a trial by judge and jury where he pleaded not guilty to the crime. His defence was one of mistaken identity, claiming he was not involved in robbery, and that the robbery was committed by someone else. Nevertheless the jury convicted him of robbery . At his first trial, Williams argued that his rights under the grounds of sections 7, 11(d) and 15(1) of the Charter had been violated, given that he was denied the right to challenge potential jurors for cause to determine whether they displayed a racial bias against aboriginals, which might impair their impartiality. Williams challenged that potential jurors were racially biased under s. 638 of the Criminal Code of Canada; which states that “an accused is entitled to any number of challenges for cause on the ground that . . . a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused.” Judge, Hutchinson J, ruled to accept the jurors be challenged with two questions regarding if their competency to critically decide on the case without bias, or if they would be effected by the fact the accused is of Indian decent.
The Crown applied for a mistrial on the grounds of procedural errors and the “unfortunate publicity” of the selection of jurors. The trial judge granted the Crown’s application. Williams submitted a motion for an order
There are three significant issues concerning law enforcement, namely enacting the law, police discretion, and assessment of criminal behavior. Different entities create and enact laws that are specific for the societies those laws represent.
The main role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law. In terms of a criminal justice process the court serves as the place in which a trial is heard and a sentence decided.
In order to keep a safe society, it is important to establish a nation with
In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?
Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.
As the jury consists of various people, chosen randomly, their verdict is one the public generally displays willingness to accept. This creates a sense of fulfillment and that ‘justice has been served’ within the
The United Sates Supreme Court heard Schuette to determine whether an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Michigan, approved and enacted by its voters, was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which provides: ““No state shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. (U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §1.)
When it comes to the United States, (U.S), the majority of the American people love their seconded amendment rights. As stated in the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, the second amendment of the United States Constitution, for the most part, protects the U.S. citizens rights to “keep and bear arms” (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 167). That being said, each state in the U.S. will vary in their firearms laws. For instance, some states make it easier for their residence to purchase or use a firearm; other states may have stricter laws that require a more scrutinized screening process. To be more specific, most states vary in elements, such as the exceptions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, the waiting period on purchasing firearms; if someone needs a license to own or purchase a gun; if registration is required; and if a record of the firearm sales is sent to the local police. Other factors that will differ from state to state would include, if some firearms are permitted or not allowed to be sold or owned by a state, the concealed carry laws, hunter protection laws; range protection laws, and finally, not all states have firearm injury lawsuit preemption.
Most likely not. The reasoning underlying the court’s choice in the case was, in part, that “the State’s prohibition of the labels does not materially advance its asserted pursuits in insulating youth from vulgarity and is not narrowly tailored to the pastime regarding children.”The court’s reasoning was supported in part through the truth that kids cannot purchase beer. If the label advertised toys, however, the court’s reasoning would possibly have been different.
In regard to mythmaking, those who have a vast amount of power and control over the people are typically the ones responsible for fabricating such accounts in order to avoid certain areas of concern. The criminal justice system as a whole, embodies thousands of authoritative figures that citizens confide in. Myths that are fabricated within criminal justice play a vital part in coercing American society’s thoughts and perception, which by its nature, can serve as an advantage to some and destructive to others (Griffin, Woodward, & Sloan, 2016). According to Griffin, et al., individuals who perceive that these myths serve a purpose will seek to achieve ideals. In making this attempt, if at first they do not succeed, their ambition heightens and they try again. In contrary, others may take such myths as an attempt to guard an already biased, and unethical justice system (p. 126).
This paper will describe my understanding of the text and of the lectures provided in the class. Unlike most classes, where I understood only my view of the text, this class was geared so each student would understand each other’s view. 3 An organization is a collective that has some boundary and internal structure that engages in activities related to some complex set of goals. Members of organizations attempt to meet their psychological, ego and emotional needs within the organization. Criminal justice organizations are particularly unique compared to other public or private sector organizations because of the governmental granted authority. Management within these organizations can be defined as the process by
This paper points out the reasoning for why and how the Supreme Court and judicial system became what it is known for today. The Supreme Court was not always a perfect and well organized system. The court early beginnings started out after a decision at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 was establish. This decision called for a national supreme court. With the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress made the US Supreme Court possible. One key person who had a role in developing the Supreme Court into a court of “judicial review” was the fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall. Today the judicial system is broken down into three levels; local, state, and federal. And within these levels are different levels of the court system that handle civil and criminal cases. Each level has a different role to play in the court system but, they all serve the same purpose.
president for legitimizing gay marriage would require some individual who shares that point of view. Regardless, there are a huge amount of issues to worry over, and it is practically hard to find the assurance that is a "faultless fit" on each one of them.
In 1789, the final draft of the constitution of the United States came into effect. In article three it calls for "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the article it neither says the duties, powers, or any organization of the supreme court. If left this up to congress and to the justices of the court itself for these details.
Criminal procedures are safeguards against the indiscriminate application of criminal laws and the wanton treatment of suspected criminals. Specifically, they are designed to enforce the constitutional rights of criminal suspects and defendants, beginning with initial police contact and continuing through arrest, investigation, trial, sentencing, and appeals. The main constitutional provisions regarding criminal procedure can be found in Amendments IV, V, VI, and XIV to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court for the first time began to extend the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to exercises of power by state and local governments.