Newgarth's Decision On The Speluncean Explorers

Would you send an innocent man to prison? Two Judges were faced with this decision.

What would a person who follow the Natural Law School of thought have to say about the Dudley and Stephens’ case and why would they say it?

The reason there is penalty for committing a crime is to deter people from committing the same act again. If you don’t be hard on crime then the crime rate will continue to be on the rise . The citizen wanted someone to represent on behalf of themselves and Justice Penny White was not that person. By Chief Justice Adolpho A. Birch Jr. overturning the death sentence of the criminal on the basis of the fact that rape accompanied by murder is an aggravating circumstance beyond

Comparing these two cases, the legal system did not really work fairly to show justice because if in accordance with the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and the 14th Amendment, Gregg will never be sentence to death; this not only unfair to him but also disrespects for the authority of the legal system. Let us finally look at the case of “Callins v. Collins” in 1994, in this case, even though the convict Callins was put to death by lethal injection, there was a justice stood up to struggle on save Callins’ life, and his name was Harry Andrew Blackmun, who had voted in “Gregg v. Georgia” to restore the death penalty. Blackmun claimed that he had no longer supported the death penalty because he did not believe that the capital sentencing procedures were still working, and restoring the death penalty was a big

In the movie “A Civil Action” Jan Schlichtmann takes on the case of his life as he prepares to take down, deep pockets, Beatrice Co. and Grace Foods. At first Schlichtmann does not see any money in the case and tosses it aside. When he goes to tell the families who lost their children that he can not take the case, Anne Anderson tells him about a tannery in the woods behind the neighborhood. After Schlichtmann goes and sees that these tanneries have deep pockets connected to them, he agrees to take on the case. Soon he gets emotionally invested; which was his one rule: to never get attached to a case and sympathize over the victims. In law he can not cloud his judgment with emotions because he will make irrational decisions based on the victims and forget what is best for

The Court held that the murderer kills; the rapist does not. Life is over for the victim of the murderers but not for the rape victim. The rape victim’s life may not be as happy as it was, but it is not over and in most cases, is not beyond repair. With this, you would think that the Court finds that it is in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment by imposing the death sentence for the crime of rape.

It also deals with the questions of morality and psychology of a person who assumes the position of the judge while offering to judge the innocence or guilt of the accused and how the final holding is affected by the subjective conscience of the

The Court found that Georgia’s system for applying the death penalty was “judicious” and “careful.” Gregg had gone through two trials – one to determine guilt and one for sentencing. Further, specific jury findings of “aggravating circumstances” were necessary to impose the death penalty. There was therefore no Eighth Amendment violation, and the death penalty was constitutional. The Court ruled, “The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance in the United States (n.d.,Web).

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) held that the discretion to impose the death sentence for specific crimes was to be bi-furcated into two separate trials. The first to determine guilt or innocence; the second to determine the aggravating and mitigating factors. The State of Oceana adopted the findings of the U.S. Supreme Court in People v. Wende, 600 P. 2d 1071 (Cal: Supreme Court 1979) In

The cumulative effect of this perspective is that if the judge is hard on the allegedly obscene editors and misrepresents their defence to the jurors, this would only be what you would expect of such a second-rate individual. Robertson’s presentation, based on truth, is heavily influenced by bias and opinion against the judge and, thereby, in favour of the defendants. The eventual verdict of guilty is seen to be inevitable. The editors were sent to prison for psychiatric examination.

In State of Oregon v. Kipland Kinkel, Judge Haselton summarizes the decision to deny Kinkel’s appeal of his sentencing. Kinkel was sentenced by the Lower Court to 111 years and 8 months for the confession of 4 murders and 25 accounts of attempted murder. Several medical personal and parents testified against Kinkel at the hearing stating that, “he is and remains dangerous,” (para. 15). The defense’s grounds for appeal consist of the sentencing being cruel and unusual and that the protection of society was considered more than reformation. The higher court denied it was cruel and unusual because it did not shock the conscience. The presiding judge also denied that reformation was of higher significance than the protection of society because there were multiple victims affected in a public setting.

It is easy to see that the legal factors involved are themselves not perfect. Since the Court is made up of human beings who are similarly imperfect, it is not implausible to suppose that the Court likewise

The courts stated juries were allotted too much power in sentencing, hence prompting the racial bias that dismounted in not only the Furman v Georgia case, but a multitudinous amount of cases in the south. In a 5-4 decision, it was concluded that the implementation of Furman’s sentencing was cruel and unusual. Two justices concluded the death penalty was unconstitutional, while three stated that the method in which the sentencing was being utilized, made it unconstitutional. Justice Douglas also observed that not only were death penalties given to the poor, uneducated, and sick minorities, but that they had been taking place due to miscommunication and lack of guidance and understanding of the law, which furthermore concluded in the use of preconceived notions and prejudices that guided the jurors in

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

The case seems to be strait forward with the fact that State is at fault for the