Assignment 2
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Savannah State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
4301
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
9
Uploaded by BaronBook6576
Rice 1 Ramiyah Rice
Writing Assignment #2 CRJU 4301 – Jurisprudence of Criminal Law Dr. Lakesha Cole February 11, 2024
Rice 2 Writing Assignment #2
Case 1 1.State the exact wording of the offense Douglas Metzger was convicted of. "It shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Lincoln to commit any indecent, immodest, or filthy act in the presence of any person, or in such a situation that persons passing
might ordinarily se the same," is the relevant part of section 9.52.100 of the Lincoln Municipal Code.
2.List all of Metzger’s acts and any other facts relevant to deciding whether he violated the ordinance.
- For about five seconds, Metzger stood nude in front of his window with his arms by his sides.
During that time, a resident was parking their car when they noticed.
- At 7:45 a.m., Metzger was naked in the window. The only areas that are visible of - Metzger's thighs were the highest point on his body. After that, the resident called the police, who confirmed what the resident had seen. Subsequently, another officer noted the identical results as the first officer who responded to the call.
3.State the test the court used to decide whether the ordinance was void for vagueness.
The court believed that an ordinance with a criminal component ought to be precise and unambiguous in both its implementation and its interpretation. According to this case ordinance, it is illegal for someone to act indecently or immodestly. The two are defined in extremely generic terms, and no proper specification was given to any actions under this law. These elements rendered this ordinance null and void.
4.According to the majority, why was the ordinance vague?
This regulation stipulated that any impolite or immodest behavior in front of others was against
the law. The standards of decorum and modesty set forth by this law will vary depending on individual. One person's behavior could be viewed as impolite or immodest, whereas for Even while some may appear to be neither, this does not render the behavior unlawful.
5.According to the dissent, why was the ordinance clear enough to pass the void-for-
vagueness test? In certain ways, the rule that forbids indecent and immodest behavior when others are around may be too broad and vague. But instances such as baring one's nudeness to others act in
Rice 3 6.In your opinion, was the statute clear to a rea-sonable person? Back up your answer with the facts and arguments in the excerpt and information from the void-
for-vagueness discussion in the text. The statute is unclear, in my judgment, about the warnings that people should receive about conduct that are against the law. It also leads to biased application of the law. People of ordinary intellect would not be able to identify the same acts as the statute does not specifically
list them. According to the statute, reasonable people must be given clear notice of the unconstitutional activities.
Case 2
1.List the facts relevant to whether Gail and/or William Johnson’s were protected by the First Amendment. In the state of Massachusetts, Gail and William Johnson were found guilty of criminal harassment. State laws expressly forbid verbal or physical harassment, which includes the kinds of online harassment tactics employed by Gail and William Johnson. The Johnsons argued that the regulation infringed upon their First Amendment right to free expression by equating their online harassment tactics with verbal abuse.
2.Summarize the Commonwealth’s arguments that the Johnsons’ and their friend’s conduct was cyberharassment. Based on multiple incidences, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts claimed that the Johnsons' actions amounted to cyber-harassment. The politician's home address was posted in a Craigslist
ad in the first instance. The second placed a different Craigslist ad with the politician's phone number. The fourth incident involved a bogus report that was made to the Child Protective Services (CPS) about the politician. The third event involved an email that was sent directly to the politician and contained his social security number and other private information. An unfounded report of sexual abuse constituted the sixth event. The Commonwealth stated that there was proof of malevolent intent and that the behavior—rather than the speech—was the crucial factor.
3.Summarize the Johnsons’ arguments that their conduct was protected speech. The Johnsons contended that the Massachusetts statute under which they were charged was unduly broad and unconstitutional, and that their actions were an expression of free speech that
was protected by the First Amendment.
4.In your opinion should it be cyberharassment or an exercise of First Amendment right?
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Rice 4 Since the behavior was malicious, I believe the courts were right to uphold the conviction. Instances of actual violence could be considered to constitute forms of free speech, but harassment cannot be protected as such.
Case 3 1.Summarize the facts relevant to deciding whether Maryland’s “good-and-substantial-
reason requirement” violates the Second Amendment. Handgun ownership is restricted by Maryland's "good and substantial reason requirement," which imposes stringent requirements on permit applications. A permit application does not inherently violate the Second Amendment, even if it appears to be arbitrary, as in the case of the Maryland good and substantial reason requirement. Initially, Woollard filed a complaint with the district court arguing that the "good and substantial reason requirement" was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The district court was overturned, nevertheless,
by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
2.Summarize Raymond Woollard’s arguments that the requirement violated his Second Amendment rights. Woollard claimed that the restriction was against his Second Amendment rights, citing the amendment's protection of both the right to carry a firearm outside the home and the right to own one inside. Woollard also invoked the Fourteenth Amendment and cited the cases District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
3.Summarize the Court’s arguments upholding the requirement against Woollard’s challenge. A "substantial government interest" may be utilized to balance or restrict private nights, according to the theory of intermediate scrutiny, which the Court used to argue against Woollard ("Woollard v. Gallagher Amicus Brief," 2012). It was decided in the Woollard case that a person's freedom to carry arms in a public setting is subordinated to concerns about public safety.
4.In your opinion, is the good-and-substantial-reason requirement “reasonably adapted to a substantial governmental interest”? Defend your answer. Even though the Second Amendment does not specifically guarantee a person's right to bear weapons, the good and substantial condition does not inherently violate it. Furthermore, if maintaining and advancing public safety can be considered a major government interest, then the good and substantial reason is reasonably tailored to that purpose.
Rice 5 Case 4
1.State exactly what the Court decided regarding homosexual sodomy. According to the law, it is illegal for people of the same sex to engage in abnormal sexual activity. The Supreme Court has emphasized that, regardless of whether it takes place in the privacy of their chamber, sodomy is prohibited. Having anal sex with a person of the same sex is the explanation for homosexual sodomy. It is described as "deviate sexual intercourse" by the
court.
2.Summarize the majority opinion’s argument sup-porting its decision. Conduct says that the sexual intercourse between people of the same sex should be forbidden irrespective of the facts that they have performed it discreetly and the people's freedom of liberty. Courts view it as a criminal offense, particularly in cases where there are suggestive sexual encounters.
3.Summarize Justice O’Connor’s arguments in her concurring opinion. Justice O’Connor’s supports the points made by the court. She explains the situation using the Equal Protection Clause as her foundation. The clause states that the sodomy statute discriminates against homosexual behavior. The regulation exclusively targets behavior that is directly associated with homosexuality. Homosexuals face discrimination from heterosexuals because of these kinds of activities.
4.Summarize Justice Scalia’s arguments in his dissent. Justice Scalia believed that homosexual conduct need not be regarded as criminal. Such individuals are excluded from society's social circles. They are viewed as the embodiment of a harmful and immoral way of living. One of the primary causes of this prejudice is the court's negative attitude toward homosexuals.
5.Summarize Justice Thomas’s arguments in his dissent. Justice Scalia's position is being supported by Justice Thomas. He asserts that laws limiting an individual's right to privacy or personal interests—including their sexual orientation—should be repealed. Enforcing legislation of this kind is not the appropriate way to provide effective law enforcement.
6.Whose opinion do you support? Defend your answer
The right of homosexuals to live their sexual lives and to live their own manner is being contested in this case. There are reasons in favor of the court's ruling that their way of life is unlawful. Others who emphasize the right to privacy and liberty agree with them.Sexual preference is essentially a personal decision made by each individual.
Rice 6 Case 5
1.According to the Court, why is death a disproportionate penalty for child rape? Do
you agree? Explain your reasons. In 2007, Kennedy v. Louisiana became the first legal case to sanction the death penalty for child rape. In the end, the court decided that any offense against a person in which the victim is
not murdered would not warrant the death punishment. It would be regarded as an unusually harsh penalty. The offense of raping a child is not punishable by death under the Eighth Amendment.
2.Who should make the decision as to what is the appropriate penalty for crimes? Courts? Legislatures? Juries? Defend your answer. The procedure we now use to determine a crime's punishment is appropriate. As our society matures, so are the norms of decency. The courts bear the obligation of comprehending and interpreting the law. 3.In deciding whether the death penalty for child rape is cruel and unusual, is it relevant that Louisiana is the only state that punishes child rape with death?
Out of fifty states, thirty-six allow the death sentence. Of the thirty-six states only six of those states authorize the death sentence for rape of a child. It appears that the Eighth Amendment, not popular opinion, is in charge when it comes to the death sentence.
4.According to the Court, some crimes are worse than death. Do you agree? Is child rape one of them? Why or why not? Yes, I do believe that child rape is one of them, and I do agree. This is what I think because our children and young people are our future, they are valuable, and they should be protected. It is permanent damage to a child's future and mentality to break them down and cause them such physical and mental trauma.
Case 6
1.Summarize the majority’s four reasons for deciding that Omer Ninham’s sentence to life in prison without possibility of parole is not cruel and unusual punishment.
2.Summarize the dissent’s reason for arguing that “death in prison” for a juvenile is cruel and unusual punishment.
3.The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case in 2012. In your opinion, how should SCO-TUS rule? Defend your answer.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Rice 7 Case 7
1.List Gary Ewing’s crimes, and match them to the three-strikes law. Grand theft was a recently recognized criminal that Mr. Gary committed. Due to his history of violent and significant thefts, he was eligible for a sentence under the three strikes legislation for this offense. According to the "three strikes" rule, a person convicted of a new crime who has previously committed significant felonies and received a sentence double the length of the initial punishment must serve at least 25 years in prison.
2.Define “proportionality” as the plurality opinion defines it. Summarize how the majority applies proportionality to Ewing’s sentence. How does Justice Scalia define “proportionality,” and how does his application of it to the facts differ from the majority’s? Summarize how the dissent applies the principle of proportionality to the facts of the case. In this example, proportionality can be explained by how closely the penalty fits the crime. It must determine whether the penalty is appropriate or successful for the specific offense. According to the majority's view, Mr. Gary served more than ten years in prison after being found guilty of many larceny offenses. The three strikes law would permit fresh sentences to be
at least twenty-five years or more of jail based on these records of arrests and sentences for serious offenses and felonies from prior years. The majority can guarantee that Mr. Gary's penalty is proportionate in this way.
3.In your opinion, was Ewing’s punishment proportional to the crime? Back up your answer with the facts of the case and the arguments in the opinions
. I believe that Mr. Gary ultimately came to terms with the decision to punish and imprison him for twenty-five years for his thefts or more than ten years for major and violent charges that he had committed. A lengthier jail term is appropriate given the severity of his offenses and the necessary time to serve them.
4.If Justice Thomas is right that the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality principle, what is cruel and unusual punishment? Justice Thomas argued that the Eighth Amendment does not incorporate the proportionality principle. It describes the unusually harsh penalties that are permitted for the offenders. Justice Thomas stressed that the fact that Mr. Gary was given a 25-year prison sentence does not significantly impact the Eighth Amendment's enforcement.
Case 8 1.Summarize the facts of the case.
Rice 8 The Country U.S. district court found Mr. Gall guilty of conspiring to distribute ecstasy. After that, he received a thirty-six-month probationary term. Mr. Gall was employed by a business that distributed ecstasy. Later on, he quit his work and relocated to a new location. But he was also taken into custody during an investigation into the distribution of ecstasy. After reaching a plea deal with the government, Mr. Gall's probation was shortened to thirty months by the district court. The court of appeals later overturned the decision and remanded the case for a new sentence.
2.Summarize the arguments of the majority opinion, applying the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. The district court has deviated from the applicable parameters range, according to the majority opinion's rationale. The court of appeals points out that the district's punishment is disproportionate and differs greatly from the real penalty. When a variance occurs, it should be made sure that there will be enough evidence to support the degree of the variance. The Sixth Amendment stipulates that a jury trial must be free and fair and that the jury cannot increase the sentence before considering all relevant facts. The district court in this instance exercised its discretion to determine the proper sentence for Mr. Gall. The district court lessened the severity of Mr. Gall's sentence and granted him probation after considering all of his prior and current records.
3.Summarize the arguments of the concurring and dissenting opinions, applying the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Justice Scalia and Justice Souter upheld the district court's decisions in their concurring opinions. They claim that compared to the eight-circuit court's ruling, the court's decision was less unlawful. Mr. Gall was given a 36-month sentence by the district court, with no jail term involved. Only because of Mr. Gall's positive impressions and records over the previous five years was this sentence lenient. According to the minority view, the conviction of the accused person was not adequately punished by the district court because the offense they committed was extremely serious. The district gave Mr. Gall's absence of a criminal history during the previous five years serious thought.
4.Should the right to trial by jury apply to sentencing? Back up your answer with details from the facts and opinions of the Court. The legal system grants defendants the right to a trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees them a fair and impartial trial by the juries. The accused ought to exercise this privilege. The district court did impose a probationary term on the petitioner in the matter under discussion. Certain juries are required by law to determine the sentence. It is illegal for a judge to impose a punishment without taking the jury's assessment of the evidence into account.
Rice 9 5.In your opinion, what is the “fair” punishment Gall deserves? Back up your answer with details from the facts and opinions of the Court.
I thought the district court's sentencing was reasonable and fair. Probation was used as a penalty rather than jail time for Mr. Gall. Mr. Gall chose to live a respectable and moral life in place of his immoral and indecent one. He shouldn't face severe consequences for actions he took in the past. Mr. Gall will undergo more rehabilitation and come to understand the wrongdoings of his methods.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help