Correction Commissioner V. Smith

This paper will address the Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S551 (2005); it will specifically address the arrest, trial and the legal issues that arose. It will explain and identify the holdings of the lower courts and it will explain and identify the decision of the U.S Supreme Court.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

On the morning of January 8th 1962, the Supreme Court received mail from prisoner 003826 of Florida State Prison, also known as Clarence Earl Gideon. In the envelope contained a hand written letter with questionable grammar from Gideon claiming that he was denied a fair trial due to the absence of a lawyer. Gideon’s writ of certiorari was an in forma pauperis petition or pauper’s petition. Due to the fact that most paupers’ petitions are from inmates who do not have the legal means to properly file a certiorari, the Court had special methods of handling cases such as Gideon’s. Paupers’ petitions according to Justice Frankfurter were “almost unintelligible and certainly do not present a clear statement of issues necessary

The State, by its attorneys, files this memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s motion to suppress, and states the following. The state charged Defendant with Interstate Bookmaking on June 6, 2015. The state contends the search was reasonable in inception due to the viability of the source of the allegation, sufficient corroboration and an appropriate amount of time between the accusation and its search.

The Supreme Court is not infallible. At the same time, the Supreme Court can do no wrong. Here is the social paradox that is the Supreme Court. They are supposed to declare an act constitutional or not, but that is fundamentally flawed based on the cultural atmosphere at the time. Each justice is a victim of society, just as every person in the United States and the world is, therefore they are subject to the whims of their culture and how they grew up, leading to some less than optimal results. The Supreme Court is intended to work as a moral compass for the nation, deciding what is good and bad, but society can be fundamentally flawed, as illustrated by many cases brought to the Supreme Court. The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford is a clear

The summary of the judgment claims it had improperly granted the respect for the plaintiff claims for the paper restriction inside his cell and with having his First Amendment rights violated. After the disciplinary proceeding, the subject of the plaintiff had deprived his protected of aspects of the district court dismissing his disciplinary proceedings. As for the plaintiff’s he received for merit for his claim of having his rights being violated in the California Department of Corrections. His case wasn't continued based on the judges ruling because there wasn't any evidence for him to provide that his rights were violated. I think this is a tough ruling because it's like a man vs the jailhouse which he has no other witnesses while the jailhouse officers could be witnesses for the guards that went into the cell to take down all the paper off the plaintiff's wall. While he claims that his first amendment rights were violated, the retaliation for the plaintiff is that”the Eighth Amendment requires only that prison officials not be"deliberately indifferent" to the safety of their inmates.”Overall this plaintiff had a couple of other cases that he took to court which he stated in most of them that his constitutional rights were violated in all of his

White primaries were used to disenfranchise minority voters primary African Americans. White primary help Democrats in one party state like Texas. Democrats end up getting elected due to low minority turnout. White primaries remain in play until a 1944 Supreme court case Smith v

Question 7: Despite the wording of most statutes proscribing the offense of escape, courts increasingly require the prosecution to prove the defendant’s specific intent to avoid lawful confinement. Are courts justified in imposing such a requirement on the statutory law?

Throughout the nineteenth century, penology was characterized by a debate between two 'schools'. The first was the system of "solitary" and "segregation" proposed by the Pennsylvania penitentiary. The second, that of which will be discussed in this paper, the "silent" and "congregate" system was designed for the Auburn penitentiary in New York State.

Two Muslim inmates filed a complaint in federal court, which they argued that the policy violated their constitutional rights to free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The district court held, however, that the policy was constitutional: 1) it plausibly advanced the goals and security, order and rehabilitation and 2) no less alternatives could be adopted without compromising the institutional objective. The third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the prison policy was valid if: 1) if it served the penological goal of security 2) no judicious methods existed by which (inmates) religious rights could be housed without creating a bona fide safety problem.

Mondae, while the current approach to prisoner’s rights through lawsuits certainly is taken advantage of, it remains necessary as a viable option for the rare occasions for which it is intended. Moreover, in severe cases of gross negligence or deliberate indifference a lawsuit may be the only resort an inmate has at their disposal to garner the attention of high-level administration to make them aware of such violations. Conversely, the system is negatively affected in the wake of every frivolous lawsuit, resulting in legitimate claims bearing less weight. Our text describes frivolous lawsuits as “lawsuits with no foundation in fact. They are generally brought for publicity, political, or other reasons not related to law” (Schmalleger & Smykla,

The reader agrees with the Lockhart’s decision because of the facts that he found. Established on the lack of counsel within the plan administration and the assessment of the lack of justifiable decision criteria. One may also believe that one’s judgment of being drafted could be an infringement of an individual's right. The project was organized with the goal that people were interested in "more discipline than they may have been if the system had not been founded. The project had an ethical, lawful and established commitment to endeavor to guarantee consistency in the activity of prosecutorial attentiveness, and disregards the necessities of equivalent assurance if one neglects to try. Lockhart also believed that the program should not induce

Your grievance appeal has been reviewed at Central Office and the Deputy Warden's response is affirmed. Pursuant to DEPARTMENT ORDER 919 INMATE RESOURCE CENTER/LIBRARY SERVICES

A prisoner’s right to have access to the courts is considered by most to be their most important right, “because it is the right upon which all other rights turn” (Carlson & Garrett, 2008). Without this right, most prisoners would not be able to appeal anything or file lawsuits challenging poor conditions, policies, or violations of their rights (Carlton & Garrett, 2008). “These rights include the Eighth Amendment right to be protected against cruel and unusual punishment, the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under the law and to due process protections in prison disciplinary hearings” (Carlson & Garrett, 2008).

This Article is brought to you by the Faculty of Law at ePublications@bond. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bond Law Review by an authorized administrator of ePublications@bond. For more information, please contact Bond University 's Repository