Mistakes In The Jonbenet Case

The justice system is best known as a pursuit for the truth. It is managed by humans so, it is inevitable not to make errors such as ones that will lead an innocent to be wrongfully convicted. Such a scenario is the David Milgaard case where he supposedly raped and murdered a woman named Gail Miller but really, the foundations of justice were tampered with. The Canadian justice system failed terribly, dismissed millions of dollars and banished the citizens certainty in the system. Most importantly, this even diminished 20 years of a man’s life.

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

clear to me that the Ramsey family murdered JonBenet. I think that Burke, her older

On December 26, 1996 Patsy Ramsey made a phone call to 911 and frantically told dispatch that she found a ransom note on the main staircase of her home and that her daughter was taken. Experts from the CBS special reviewing the ransom note determined whoever wrote it was desparately trying to “sell” it too much and used too many words instead of getting right to the point as most ransom notes do. Also, the amount of money that was asked for was the same amount of money that Mr. Ramsey got for his bonus that year. Linguistic experts also matched most of the handwriting to Patsy and said that parts of the note used maternal language, also pointing to Patsy. While reviewing the ransom note, CBS showed experts also looking at the autopsy report.

To what extent did Dred Scott decision was examined from an incorrect view of the judicial role and viewed as morally incorrect? Due to Chief Justice Taney’s unacceptable error of not reviewing the case through law, the decision led the nation split into two and eventually caused in American Civil War. In this investigation, Chief Justice Taney, who held the majority of votes, actions and behaviors prior of the case will be evaluated for its impact upon a simple freedom case. This investigation will also focus on three questions that Justice Taney claimed after reviewing the case and how it was or was not constitutional. Research will be done in books about Dred Scott’s background and what he has done throughout his life, a reference

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

New Jersey v. T.L.O, a supreme court case that took the stands in 1985, involved a fourteen year old freshman in highschool and a New Jersey public high school in which the minor attended. The minor by which public record only shows her by her initials T.L.O, was caught smoking cigarettes with another student in her high school’s bathroom during the school day. This act of smoking in the bathroom was against school policy as it was only seen fit to smoke in the school’s designated smoking areas. This court case was used to argue students rights in searches in public schools.

The Boulder Police Department’s investigation was not conclusive and left more questions than answers. Also, upon advice from their attorney, the Ramsey’s refused to be interviewed initially. This further let the barriers that hindered a good outcome. All of these unanswered questions led to a media frenzy and speculation that fueled public speculation.

Legal Affairs Reporter, Cristian Farias, in his article, “The Supreme Court Let a Man Die. He Was Executed With The Wrong Drug.”, and columnist, Manny Fernandez, in his column, “Delays as Death-Penalty Sates Scramble for Execution Drugs” describes the conflicting issues involving the use of certain drugs for the death-penalty. Farias’ purpose is to demonstrate the disastrous decisions the Supreme Court and Oklahoma made. However, Fernandez’s purpose is to inform the readers about how the execution drugs is affecting states all over the country. Both authors were informative and gave intriguing facts, but Farias connected with the audience more and Fernandez created a serious tone to convey to the readers how it is impacting people’s lives.

The murder of a little girl has haunted Boulder, Colorado. Many people have heard of the famous case of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. However nobody knows what truly happened the night of her murder. There have been an abundance of conspiracies to what really happened the night of december 25th. 1996. Finding out there was a significant amount of evidence was great news to the DA of Boulder county, and also the many cops of Boulder; but the question still lingers nearly twenty years later who killed JonBenet Ramsey?

I believe that it´s the same offender in the Parkinson case and the Johnson case, which is making the offender a serial killer because he has killed 3 people and it has been over a period over 30 days. By looking at different serial killer typologies my firm belief is that this offender will fall into the lust serial killer typology. I concluded this by firstly looking if the crimes were act-focused kills or process kills, I concluded it was process kills because the offender had taken the time to abduct both Parkinson and Johnson and didn 't just kill them right away like an act-focused killer would do. With the offender being a process killer he could only be organized as well because process killers cannot be disorganized. The offender would either be a lust killer, power-control killer or a thrill killer. I concluded that the offender in this case would not be a thrill serial killer, since this kind of murderer gets off my seeing his victims suffering, which is the most important factor for this type of offender. In the Parkinson and Johnson murders there were no signs of torture on the victims bodies and therefore I do not believe that this offender would be a thrill serial killer.

The opinion of Justice BINDEROFF: According to Article I, Section 8(3) of the United States Constitution, Congress is granted the power “to regulate commerce with foreign countries, as well as among the several states…;” this enumerated power is what the Commerce Clause describes. This Article has been used to justify many instances in which Congress has exercised its power to regulate commerce, especially among states. In this regard, there has been a myriad of instances in which such exercise of this congressional power has been challenged. The first instance, was in the case of Gibbons v Ogden (1984), where two men who had been given exclusive licenses by the state of New York to carry passengers to Elizabeth Town from New York, filed a suit in court to block another steamship operator, Gibbons, who had been newly granted a license to carry passengers on that very route, from competing with them. In this case, the Chief Justice found out that Congress was right within its powers – granted by the Commerce Clause - to grant the ferrying license to Mr. Gibbons. The Chief Justice, Marshal, argued that commerce was more than just the selling and purchase of goods, but included other parts of the commercial intercourse between states, such as transport. The argument by the Chief Justice in this context is important in understanding the extent of commerce that falls under the Commerce Clause as intended by the framers.

were the bodies of both Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. There was a large amount

Hi Lori, I’m with you on this, I believe that the Lawrence case made more sense in terms of the Court’s approach. As I stated in my initial post, it felt like that the Bowers case was centered more on what was morally accepted by society at that time, which was demonstrated in the Court’s decision. Homosexuality has been a controversial topic along with abortion, and most likely it will always be. As you alluded to, we have come a long way from when the Bowers case was first heard; this year marking its 30th year anniversary. Nonetheless, I felt that Lawrence approach was more appropriately handled as the Court established that the issue was not based on the right of homosexual sodomy, but an individual’s right to privacy, especially if the