Miller Vs Alabama Case Study

The United States’ attention was captivated on the Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama during the 1930s. During the time period, this case revealed the brutal treatment towards African Americans more than any other event. The case began on March 25, 1931, when a group of young white and African American youths were traveling on a train to find a job. A physical encounter broke out between them and the white youths were thrown out of the train. Then they reported the incident to a stationmaster, who stopped the train. The police arrived to gather the nine African Americans and brought them to jail. Nine young African Americans were recognized as the “Scottsboro boys”. They were accused of rape of two white women on that train. The white jury convicted eight of them, all except one, the youngest at 12-years-old, and were sentenced to death. These youths were falsely charged with raping two white women in Alabama. Although there was no evidence that linked the African Americans to the white women, they were still charged with sexual assault. The two women -- fearing prosecution for their sexual relationship with the white men agreed to testify against the black youths. The Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama is crucial in both Civil Rights history and in the evolution of the Constitution.

In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

Facts: In 1974, Ehlich Anthony Coker, who was serving a number of sentences for murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault, escaped from prison. He broke into Allen and Elnita Carver’s home, raped and kidnapped the woman, and stole their car. Coker was convicted of rape, armed robbery, and the other offenses. The Georgia courts sentenced him the death penalty.

Kuntrell Jackson was also 14-years old in November 1999 when he and two other youths attempted to rob a video store and in the process shot and killed Laurie Troup (De Vogue, 2012). Jackson did not do the shooting but was an accomplice to the act; therefore, he received a sentence of life without parole (2012). As for mens reus and actus reus in Jackson’s case, Arkansas court conceded Jackson did not commit the homicidal act nor did he intend for the death of the store clerk occur; however, the State argued Jackson’s culpability rested with his reckless indifference to the value of human life (Supreme Court Rejects Mandatory Life Sentences Without Possibility of Parole for Juveniles, 2012). Lippman (2010) explains the requirement for actus reus of accomplice liability is satisfied by even a relatively small amount of material or psychological assistance to the perpetrator of the crime. Furthermore, the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability only requires intent to assist in the commission

The Court apprehended that conducting a DNA buccal test as a part of the arrest process and it does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the test serves from a state that does not require a warrant for a search. The Court apprehended that determining an arrestee's character and criminal background is an essential part of the arrest process and that a DNA test is just as lawful as fingerprinting. Determining a suspect’s criminal background serves the legitimate state interest of determining what level of risk the person positions in the community and what circumstances should be established on his or her discharge from

According to legal petitions, in Miller v. Alabama (2012), a 14-year old young man by the name of Evan Miller entered the home of his neighbor, Cole Cannon. He is to have allegedly beat and robbed his neighbor. He exited the premises of Cannon’s home. Later in the same evening, Mr. Miller returned to his neighbor’s home, with a friend, Colby Smith searching for drugs within the trailer. They stole a stack of baseball cards and returned to Miller’s home. Miller and Smith, again returned to Cannon’s home where they reportedly found him unconscious. While there, Miller took $300 out of Cannon’s wallet. Miller was in the process of placing Cannon’s wallet back in his pocket when Cannon awoke and began attacking Miller. At that time, Smith struck Cannon with a bat. At some point during the struggle, Miller took possession of the bat, repeatedly striking Cannon in the head. The pair left the home after they covered Cannon in a sheet. According to the coroner’s exam, Cannon was still alive at this time. Miller and Smith returned again to the trailer and set it on fire in an apparent attempt to cover up their crime (Miller v. Alabama, 2012). The interviewing detective, Tim Sandlin read Miller his Miranda rights. Miller denied any event took place, initially, but subsequently agreed that he had stolen money and driver’s license after a fight with Cannon but had not set the fire. According to the autopsy report, Cannon died from smoke inhalation. However, there were “significant

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was approved amid the Reconstruction period to ensure the privileges of minorities, is the law within the Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges case. In a Houston, Texas apartment five years back, nearby police were dispatched to answer reports of gunfire. They legally entered the apartment of petitioner John Lawrence, who was engaging in sex with another man. The two were arrested, convicted and fined $200. Texas statue making it illegal for two individuals of the same sex to partake in sexual relationships with one another violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court justified that Lawrence and Garner were allowed to exercise their liberty by engaging in private relations under the Due Process Clause.

In the case of Johnson vs. Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson was brought to court for burning the American Flag outside of the convention center during the Republican National Convention. The incident occurred in Dallas Texas in the year 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President. The report stated that Johnson was protesting against Reagan’s policies in America. Johnson was proved to be a member of a private institution that promoted the communist movement. His protest against Reagan expressed his dissatisfaction. Johnson was arrested and charged for violating a Texas statue fined $2000 dollars for his actions. In response to the fine, Johnson appealed and took his case to the United States Supreme Court.

John Adams appointed 200 men for 16 spots called the “midnight appointments” during the latter part of his presidency. The Organic Act allowed Adams to appoint 42 Justices of the Peace. Marshall as Adam’s outgoing secretary of state failed to deliver all of the commissions. The new secretary of state, Madison, refused to deliver five of the remaining commissions. Mr. Marbury and three others were denied their commission went straight to the Supreme Court to appeal.

MILLERSBURG — After serving eight months in prison for going into and stealing money from a Washington Township home last September, a former Wooster man last week was granted early release.

As an important landmark case in Congress and the Supreme Court History, McCulloch V. Maryland. Which set the guidelines for how much power congress really had as well as how much power the constitution had over state laws. It put attention the issue of a state taxing a federal bank in 1816. Maryland imposed a law that called for the taxation of banks in the state that was not chartered by state legislature during the depression of 1818. The second bank of the United States had refused to pay the tax claiming that it was unconstitutional. Leading the case to be taken to state court then the Supreme Court.

Montgomery vs Louisiana case referres to juveniles who obtain life sentence must be allowed parole opportunities. Additionally, the Miller v. Alabama's is basically implemented retroactively to Montgomery vs Louisiana. The Miller v. Alabama ruling concludes that juveniles acquiring “life without parole “is unconstitutional. These sentences include incidences such as homicide conducted by a juvenile delinquent. In addition, life without parole violates the “Eighth Amendment”. This amendment implies “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Legal Information Institution). Therefore, Montgomery vs Louisiana was significant since juvenile delinquents fail acquiring fully developed brains until age twenty-five. Furthermore, juveniles obtaining life sentences must be reviewed for parole.

In Miller v. Alabama in the year 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that when it comes to giving a sentence to a minor, it was unconstitutional to give a mandatory life sentence without a chance of parole. During this time, data show that general assembly were working diligently and made several efforts to have a more updated version of the sentencing laws as it applies to juveniles. (States News services, 2015). This led to a plan that was negotiated among many other stakeholders including Senator Don Harmon, state attorney and criminal justice reforms groups. The main goal of the plan was to allow judges more discretion in the legal process of sentencing juveniles that are defendants of serious criminalities like murder and rape.

The state of Mississippi has not passed many laws, which are named in honor of crime victims. A check of the state legislature’s web site, which shows the status of bills passed during each legislative session, shows that, since 2006, only three laws have been passed, which are named in honor of crime victims (Miss. Bill Status, 2016).