Analysis Of A Shot To The Heart

Whether one particular person happens to be a defendant, a witness, a friend, or even just an acquaintance, murder cases weigh heavily on everyone involved. Huge amounts of evidence must be analyzed, people must be interviewed, research must be done, and a case must be made. Ultimately, all this work comes down to one decision: convict or acquit. The case of Adnan Syed v. State of Maryland is no exception. Syed, at the age of nineteen, was convicted of the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. He was sentenced to life in prison, plus thirty years. However, from the day the case ended, people have had doubts about the verdict. Holes in the state’s argument slowly became more apparent. For example, the state placed a massive amount of trust

In the United State we have many systems, like all others, it is separated the use of some irrelevant or untrustworthy evidence. The system that I am referring to and the one that we will be discussing in this paper is the exclusionary rule. It is the introduction of a good evidence, that it is obtained by a bad law enforcement, is most common in the United State than other countries legal system. To put it in other words, the exclusionary rule is controversial. Therefore, many experts say that it sets criminals free on minor points. In this paper, I will speak about the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule, how it is effecting the criminal justice system of the United State. In addition, I will speak and summarize the case of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott from 1998, this will be a great example of the exclusionary rule and the effects about them. Furthermore, I will show how this case was important with the Exclusionary Rule, and my opinion on the matter.

Gonnerman appeals to the logic of the reader by following Browder’s anecdotes with supportive statistics and investigative findings from reputable sources. She uses the citation of evidence to give weight and help expand on the context of Browder’s experiences. This includes the excerpts of statistical information from studies, such as “in 2011 seventy-four percent of felony cases in the Bronx were older than six months”, which reinforces Browder’s personal experience with the Bronx court system and also clearly indicates that Browder’s circumstance is not an uncommon one. This also includes the citation of the court index card’s text, reading the list of the preposterous amount of delays requested by the prosecutor, which provides tangible and explicit evidence to the reader of the dysfunctionality of the Bronx’s court system, and also helps the reader empathize with Browder’s frustration.

The justice system’s failure to prosecute police brutality is a hot topic since most riots and acts of public violence surround this issue. One of the obstacles with prosecuting police brutality is a lack of evidence. As stated by Andrew Walter in an overview of police brutality, the failure to prove police brutality cases “stems from...difficulty in

Discretion in policing and the court system is a necessary and unavoidable facet of criminal justice work, yet it is still very controversial. Discretion exists when courtroom actors (police officers, attorneys, judges) have the flexibility to choose an appropriate response to a situation. Police discretion is defined as “The opportunity of law enforcement officers to exercise choice in their daily activities” (Nowacki, 2015). This means that actors with a great deal of discretion at their disposal may allow biases to affect their decision-making. These decisions lead to important implications throughout the criminal justice process, especially in the courtroom. The process begins with the decision to arrest by a law enforcement officer in the field. Once the case is forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, multifarious avenues of discretionary decisions are available to resolve a case. Potential issues that could arise and that are ever-present in everyday policing include racism, sexism and socialism (Miller, 2015). These issues ultimately have a negative affect on the criminal justice process, leading civilians to not trust the one process and actors that are there to help them. While discretion should play a role in the actions a courtroom actor takes and cannot be eliminated entirely, instead it should be limited and controlled throughout the criminal justice environment so that citizens can once again trust the process and so that there will be no disparities.

A very significant case in Cook County Courts was the Bridgeport case, known as a “heater” case because of the publicity that surround it, and the racial overtones (Bogira 181). The Bridgeport case involved three white teenagers, Michael Kwidzinski, Jasas, and Caruso that were accused of brutally beating two young black boys who were riding their bikes in the predominantly white neighborhood. The entire summary of the case, in Courtroom 302, was based around the fact that one of the boys, Michael Kwidzinski, was most likely innocent. The question then turns to the boy himself, Michael Kwidzinski; if he was innocent, why did hid then accept a guilty plea bargain?

Shot in the Heart is the shocking story of the life of Gary Gilmore which serves as a portrait of how his parents’ histories of violence, combined with the violence and fear in his everyday life contributed to the notoriety of Gary Gilmore who we know today as a cold-blooded murderer, and the only prisoner who demanded the implementation of his death sentence for his crimes. In this essay, I will discuss how Bessie Gilmore’s Mormon teachings to her sons of Mormon legends as well as his father Gary Gilmore’s regular beatings of his boys as well as his criminal and generally violent histories contributed to development of Gary Gilmore’s own criminal and personal history. When considering what makes a person do the things they do, the

Almost every day, we hear about justice being served upon criminals and we, as a society, feel a sense of relief that another threat to the public has been sentenced to a term in prison, where they will no longer pose a risk to the world at large. However, there are very rare occasions where the integrity of the justice system gets skewed and people who should not have been convicted are made to serve heavy prison sentences. When word of this judicial misstep reaches the public, there is social outcry, and we begin to question the judicial system for committing such a serious faux pas.

For the past 50 years, America’s criminal justice system has encountered several significant changes dealing with courts and policing. According to Marion and Oliver (2006), the historical Supreme Court rulings like Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona mold the way courts and law enforcement handle individuals charged with committing crimes. This paper will discuss the evolution of courts and law enforcement reflects the diverse and changing need for today’s population which is first importance, the urgency for cooperation and communication among criminal justice agencies and law enforcement within the country. Individuals must

Using the example of the case of Damon Thibodaux, he was taken for questioning after a girl who they were last seen with went missing. She was found strangled and naked (Leo, 2008). A homicide officer took over the case, and Thibodaux was interrogated for several hours. Although Thibodaux repeatedly said he knew nothing about the murder, the interrogation kept going, eventually the officer was able to record a statement from Thibodaux pleading guilty of consensual and non-consensual sex with the victim, beating, and assassinating her. Thibodaux was condemned to death, and was to spend fifteen years on death row and sixteen years in jail before DNA examination confirmed that he was not guilty (Kassin, 2013). Thibodauxs exoneration proceeding concluded that fatigue and exhaustion from the overnight search for the girl, the long interrogation, psychological vulnerability, and fear of the death penalty led to the false confession by Thibodaux (Leo, 2008). This case is a great example of

“Wrongful convictions happen every week in every state in this country. And they happen for all the same reasons. Sloppy police work. Eyewitness identification is the most- is the worst type almost. Because it is wrong about half the time. Think about that.” (Grisham). Wrongful convictions can happen to anyone, at anytime. Grisham implies wrongful convictions happen for the same reasons, careless police work as well as eyewitness identification. An eyewitness identification is a crucial aspect in detective work because it essentially locates the person at the crime scene. This is the worst cause of wrongful convictions because it is wrong half the time.

Since 1923, when Judge Learned Hand said that the American judicial system “has always been haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted,” the issue of wrongful conviction has been acknowledged to man (Halstead, 1992; Huff, Rattner, Sagarin, & MacNamara, 1986). After the judge made his innocuous statements, serious study of this phenomenon began. Contrary to the statement the judge made, time and technology have revealed that an unquantifiable number of wrongfully convicted persons have served prison terms and even been executed for crimes they did not commit and some that did not even occur. Research into wrongful conviction was virtually nonexistent until Professor Edward Brochard of Yale University published his book Convicting the Innocent in 1932. This book documented 65 such cases, addressed the legal causes of miscarriage, and offered suggestions to reform. Subsequently, numerous other researchers began conducting case studies and publishing findings that affirmed that wrongful conviction represents a systematic problem within the American judicial process (Huff, 2002).

The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.

Being accused of a crime is one thing, but being wrongfully convicted of the crime is another. In fact, according to a research done by a National Geographic journalist, Virginia Hughes, about 4.1 percent prisoners convicted were wrongfully imprisoned. The justice system in modern society has its own flaws that can impact the outcome of whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. It is a reality that the legal system faces and that we draw our attention to details why it failed on some people. Wrongful conviction is the occurrence of an innocent defendant who goes to a trial and is found guilty due to different circumstances. The people of the jury and the people behind the investigation of a case can lead to such convictions. In

Different forms of media, such as television, films, books, and newspapers, have similar ways of portraying the criminal justice system. The media constructs representations of crime and justice and in doing this, it presents an often dramatized representation of the criminal justice system; and this does not just influence on the public’s lay view of crime but also for criminal justice experts (Marsh, 2014). In the media it is commonly known that they are a business, and businesses need to make a profit. Because of this, the media’s portrayal of the criminal justice system has been very negative. With the news, their main purpose is to produce what sells. So many of them would edit the information they have gathered and make a story that will sell. Also the media does not show the full process of the criminal justice as a quick process, while in fact it is not. For example, last year, Netflix released a short series called “Making A Murderer”. Most people claimed that they feel like they can solve a crime when they finished watching a series. While that series is very factual, it does not hit every single step of the criminal justice process.