5th Amendment Case Summary

According to the Court, the Fourteenth Amendment was only concerned with legal, not social, equality.” Justice John Marshall Harlan was the only man who was in favor for Plessy. Harlan thought it was unconstitutional and believed segregation had the effect of creating classes. As used the same article, according to Harlan, “These laws promoted and perpetuated the belief that African Americans were inferior to whites.”

Constitutional Question: Is the Louisiana state law mandating racial segregation on its train unconstitutional based on the protection given by the fourteenth Amendment?

In the case of Atkins v. Virginia, Daryl Renard Atkins is accused of the kidnapping, robbery, and murder of Eric Michael Nesbitt. Atkins was also charged with use of a firearm while committing each of these offenses ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.”, 2017). Atkins was convicted of capital murder and related crimes, by a Virginia jury and sentenced to death, but his case was appealed to the Virginia Supreme Courts, on the grounds that it is unlawful to put to death a person who has intellectual disabilities (Mental Retardation). Virginia Supreme Courts upheld the decision of the Virginia courts

Plessy argued that the segregation law violated the Equal Protection clause of the fourteenth amendment as well as the

In other words, Billy White would have been classified as mentally retarded or intellectually disabled. In 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruled that executing mentally retarded individuals violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately, during the time White was executed there was nothing in place to protect the intellectually disabled.

Question: Does Louisiana's law requiring segregation based on race on its trains violate the Thirteenth Amendment and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Concurrent Justice Antonin Scalia begins his opinion pointing out the fact that these petitioners bring their “case” to the Court, crying that their sentences are violating the Eighth Amendment, despite being cruel and unusual themselves. “They were charged by a sovereign State with murder. They were…tried twice, once to determine whether they were guilty…and whether death was the appropriate sentence…And now, acknowledging that their convictions are unassailable, they aske us for clemency, as though clemency were ours to give” (Justice Scalia,

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? These are all questions evolving from the recent Miranda V Arizona court case. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home on March 13th, 1963 and brought to a police station. They had reason to believe he had connection to a kidnapping and rape, along with theft and armed robbery. The victim of the kidnapping could not recognize Miranda as her attacker, so the police escorted Miranda to an interrogation room. Miranda was interrogated for two hours, and during these two hours the police acquired a written confession to the crime from Miranda. Of course, Miranda went to trial for his actions, but during the trial, Miranda’s attorney argued in court that since the police admitted to not explaining Miranda’s rights to him, this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights. Even with all of this Miranda’s written confession was still used as evidence against him in court.

In 1892, Homer Plessy rode in a “white’s only” car on a train on the East Louisiana Railroad and would not move to the colored car. He was then arrested. Although he was seven-eighths white and could pass as such, Louisiana law still considered him to be “colored”. Louisiana, a few years previously, had created the Separate Cars Act, making it legal to separate whites and blacks in railroad cars. Plessy sat in the white section as defiance to such act through a civil rights organization.

Atkins v. Virginia is a case regarding execution of mentally retarded person and if it would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment. The definition of mentally retarded is an intellectual disability, below average intelligence, and lacking skills for day-to-day living, they can learn new skills, but they comprehend material slower than the normal person. Death sentence is to be put on death row for a capital crime, they include offenses such as murder. They are mainly known as crimes against humanity. The American Law institute model penal code states that a person with a mental disease cannot necessarily be held accountable for a crime they commit unaware of their actions, beginning college as a Government major looking at the death

Ernesto Miranda’s written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn’t have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn’t know he didn’t have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn’t voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn’t voluntary he was forced to “witness” against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.

The Supreme Court founded their decision on the Fifth Amendment rather than the Sixth Amendment due to the intimidating nature of the custodial interrogation by law enforcement. No admission could be permissible under the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had relinquished their rights. The person in custody must, prior to being questioned be clearly informed of their right to remain silent and that whatever they say will be held against them in court. They must be informed that they have the right to consult with an attorney and that

Virginia, in which a mild mentally retarded man named, “Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder” ("Atkins v. Virginia."). He was sentenced to death twice but that was overturned by a 6-3 vote by the United States Supreme Court and Justice Stevens had this to say when the verdict came : “Construing and applying the Eighth Amendment in the light of our 'evolving standards of decency,' we therefore conclude that such punishment is excessive and that the Constitution 'places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life' of a mentally retarded offender” ("Atkins v. Virginia."). What Justice Stevens is saying is it was no longer socially acceptable to put a mentally retarded person to death any

In the Plessy v. Ferguson case, the statute of Louisiana, acts of 1890, c. 111 requires train companies to provide separate but equal usage for colored and white races. Plessy was a resident in the state of Louisiana which he was of mixed race as he was seven eighths caucasian and one eighth black. He tried to use the whites only train section and was arrested. Plessy then sued Louisiana State Supreme Justice, the Hon. John H. Ferguson for violating his 13th Amendment which prevents slavery and his 14th Amendment which is equal protection under US laws. (“Plessy v. Ferguson”, 1).

This paper will discuss whether or not mentally retarded criminals should be held accountable for their actions with the punishment of execution when the crime is murder. I do not believe that mentally retarded criminals should have a blanket exemption from the death penalty because of their mental incapacity. Although all cases of murder involving a mentally retarded suspect are unique, the lives extinguished by these murderers are of no less value than those whose lives taken by mentally competent murderers. Presently, the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the execution of mentally retarded defendants and holds the belief that capital punishment does not violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the