FACTS: Graham, 16 years old, was sentenced to three years' probation, with the first year to be served in the county jail. Less than six months after being released, he was arrested for a home-invasion robbery with two accomplices. After that, he was sentenced to life imprison without the possibility of parole.
My perspectives mirror the dominant part sentiment on this case since I thought the time limitation mandate was unlawful. I do trust a city may have an enthusiasm for passing laws deminishing conduct for the general's wellbeing and security. Be that as it may, I don't think this was the situation; the law was not sufficiently contracted in Pinellas Park. It did exclude every single sensible exemption, and it positively didn't target just exercises well on the way to bring about wrongdoing. Or maybe, I think Pinella Park was doing the inverse. The disagreeing assessment, then again, felt that the check in time statute was protected. They thought it was impartial, additionally calling attention to that I, alongside the
In the Gregg v. Georgia case in 1976 tells how the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment on terms that it was no longer administered in an arbitrary and capricious manner and that it also serves to important social objections deterrence and retribution (Class notes, Module 10, Pg 2-3). I agree with the court's ruling, I believe if someone murders an innocent person by stabbing them to death because, they needed some drug money then why should that person have the right to continue living their life in prison and be able to get a education and be able to go to the doctors? They do not, because they killed an innocent person why do they get a chance to continue living a nice life, they should be punished by the way they killed or harmed
While appealing to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, the petitioner argued, “that the trial court erred in failing to disregard the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue and in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The petitioner argued that “because he introduced expert witnesses to demonstrate mental retardation and the State did not introduce its own expert witnesses in rebuttal, the trial court should have disregarded the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue or granted his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The Texas court found that the burden of proof to determine intellectual disability fell to the petitioner and that there was “no authority,
His representation motioned to set aside Simmons previous charges and conviction (Roper v. Simmons, 2005,p.4). The federal courts denied Simmons petition for a write of habeas corpus, due to finding no Constitutional violation, on grounds from ineffective assistance of counsel; thus denying his motion for post conviction relief (Roper v. Simmons, 2005,p.4). The Simmons case came to a halt later in 2002, when the Missouri Supreme Court “stayed Simmons’s execution”(Oyez, p.1); during which The U.S. Supreme Court decided upon Atkins v. Virginia. The Atkins V. Virginia case dealt with the execution of mentally ill persons (Oyez, p.1); The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally ill violated the Eighth and 14th Amendment’s prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, mainly in addition to the fact that several Americans deemed it cruel and
The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.
Ethics, or also referred to as moral philosophy, helps determine when things are right and when things are wrong. To kill or not to kill? To abuse or not to abuse? To hurt or not to hurt? In the nursing profession, as in all major health professional fields, nurses are bound to a certain Nurse’s Code of Ethics (Kelly, 2010). Obey the code, and a registered nurse can potentially live a long healthy career in the nursing field. Violate the nurse’s code of ethics, and one can seek penalties including but not limited to fines, fees, revocation, license suspension, probation, and even imprisonment. So what exactly happens to a Nurse who disobeys the code of ethics? The case between the State of Florida vs Mr. D.R.O. helps in getting a better understanding of what happens when a registered healthcare professional, in this case a Nurse, challenges the nursing code of ethics. Is the verdict appropriate in the defendant’s case? Were the consequences adequately applicable to the damages the defendant imposed? How can future and active registered nurses avoid situations like this in their career? Although the concept of ethics and the answers to some of these questions can seem common sense to most of us, in some cases, our minds can be clouded or disturbed
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.
In the Case State of Florida vs. Fernandez, Cristian, June 2, 2011, Fernandez, a 12-year-old Jacksonville, Florida boy, is charged as an adult with first-degree murder in the beating death of his 2 year old half-brother and the sexual abuse of his 5 year old half-brother. The State of Florida is seeking a “to life without parole” conviction.
On a beautiful day in 1965, June 4th, President Lyndon B Johnson spoke at the commencement at the prestigious Howard University commencement. He can be quoted saying “ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race saying ‘ you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair.”(ECS1) Shortly after giving this address President Johnson, “Put his money where his mouth was” and signed executive orders mandating that all government contractors take “affirmative action” to hire minority groups (Brunner 2002). In responses to this many professional schools, colleges and university’s followed the governments
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
Although Texas may argue that the standards set forth by the Briseño Factors meet the requirements set by the Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia and that the Court’s findings in Hall v. Florida may not seem to directly contradict the standards set forth by the Briseño Factors, I believe that the “outdated” standard used by Texas to measure the intellectual disability of an individual is in fact unconstitutional. The Briseño Factors may at first glance appear to fulfill the requirements of the Atkins v. Virginia ruling, however, “the Briseño factors, are not recognized by a single clinical or scientific body,” because there is no number assigned to the level of disability demonstrated by the individual, the factors give rise to the possible
On the other hand, one could easily argue that the standards set forth by the Briseño Factors are unconstitutional, due to the fact that the standards do not require the court to consider the individual’s IQ when determining the whether the individual does indeed have an intellectual disability. However, in 2002, the Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia stated that “an IQ of under “approximately 70” demonstrates disability.”