Procedural History Summary

In 1971 one of the key cases in United Sates History and also the state of Georgia was Furman v. Georgia. Furman was an African American male that broke in to a home to steal another citizens items. During the robbery the victim woke up and scared Furman. While Furman was fleeing the seen the owner gave him chase, and Furman accidentally drop his handgun and it went off killing the victim. When Furman was arrested he was told that if found guilty, he could be facing the death penalty. Furman appealed the execution to the Supreme Court, and argued that under the 14th amendment he would not be allowed pursuit of happiness, and liberty the American way. The Supreme Court heard his case and overturned the

INTRODUCTION Each day in America, some of the most innovative minds are kept sealed in a box up to twenty-three hours a day, receiving only the minimum of basic human needs. Inmates have become some of the most notoriously ingenious visionaries in the modern world. From smuggling components into a facility

The Innocence of Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute On July 16th, Emerson Jones, an inmate at the Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute, engaged and incited in a prison riot between two gangs. During the full-scale riot, Jones fractured his wrist. Now, Plaintiff Emerson Jones is prosecuting the Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute, BJCI, for violating his eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The two elements that will be called into question is whether or not Guard Mendez acted in sadism and maliciousness and whether or not Nurse Robin Rodgers acted recklessly while knowing the substantial risk of harm. However, the preponderance of the evidence and the law clearly proves that BJCI is not guilty of violating

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

MADDOX V. MONTGOMERY United States Courts of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit 718 F.2d 1033 (11th Cir. 1983) Facts: Jimmy Maddox was convicted of rape in a Georgia state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Having unsuccessfully pursued his direct appeal and the state post-conviction remedy, Maddox filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence in violation of the

The Furman v. Georgia case has set a precedent on how the courts deal with the disputable issue that is capital punishment because it was the first time the Supreme Court addressed the problem. Both racism and the morality of the death penalty have been relatively controversial issues in the United States for several years. The Furman v. Georgia case conjoined both matters. The case declared that if capital punishment were to be used, it was going to be used for all the right reasons, not due to any prejudices or discrimination by reason of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Additionally, the case placed a moratorium on the death penalty because it was argued that the application of Furman’s sentencing would be an example of “cruel and unusual

Religious Freedom in prison cannot be taken away to any inmate as under Federal Law it states everyone can exercise his or her religion. Congress has passed two statutes that increase the protection of inmates’ First Amendment rights. These are the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Both statutes provide that government officials cannot execute a considerable problem on inmates’ religious rights unless they show their rule serves a compelling government interest in the least preventive way. Inmates have enjoyed the success of religion dietary practice where an inmate has the right to diet in accordance to their religious beliefs. Also, prisoners can avoid foods that are not allowed to be eaten per such belief. So, for some inmates who practice different believes, the court has ordered that certain diets be made available to inmates. This way they are not forced what they are not allowed to eat in their countries.

Defendants, Mark and William Schenkly, have not satisfied the elements required to invoke the shopkeeper’s privilege defense. Conduct by the suspect which lead a shopkeeper to believe that the suspect is attempting to steal is enough to establish reasonable cause. In assessing reasonable cause to detain, Arizona courts consider whether appearances are sufficient to justify a shopkeeper’s belief is reasonable. Kon v. Skaggs Drug Center, Inc., 563 P.2d 920, 922 (1977); Gau v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., 901 P.2d 455, 459 (1995). Defendant Mark Schenkly did not see Mr. Flynn take beer from the cooler, nor did he observe that the beer was missing from the cooler. The statute setting forth the requirements for asserting the shopkeeper’s privilege provides that detainment may only take place for the sole purposes of questioning or

On the above date and time I responded to Walmart, reference a fraud. Upon arrival, I made contact with Walmart Loss Prevention Officers, Fabiano Estrela, and Marion Edwards. The defendant, later identified as Derrick Warren Jordan, was located in the loss prevention office with Estrela and Edwards. Estrela advised me that he

California V. Yagman 1. The case I read about stated that inmates were forced to sleep on the floor due to overcrowding in the jail. Many inmates found this inhumane and not right. It was not the inmates choice to sleep in the floor of their cell but they were being forced to. A defense attorney was hired to look into this case and solve this problem.

ARGUMENT ANY STATEMENTS GIVEN BY MR. JONES AFTER HE REQUESTED AN ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSABLE AS EVIDENCE. According to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), unless the defendant waives his right to an attorney knowingly and intelligently, all questions are to stop until there is an attorney

The Accused There are various sections in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that articulate the rights of Alotta Gannja. According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right now to be deprived

A claim that prison officials used excessive force on an inmate and thereby inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment involves both objective and subjective elements. Stanley v. Hejirika, 134 F.2d 629, 634 (4th Cir. 1998). The objective element of the analysis requires a determination of

Conclusion: The Eighth Circuit of United States Court of Appeals did not apply the law correctly and the honorable Supreme Court shall rule in favor of the defendants. Rules: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), subsection one “No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner

Bird, while imprisoned the plaintiff engaged in four incidents of agreed to sexual activity with the defendant who was employed as a correctional officer, consisting of kissing, sexual intercourse, and the plaintiff performing oral sex on the defendant. Id. at *3. At the conclusion of the relationship, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendant violated her civil rights because she was a prisoner and, as a matter of law, could not consent to sexual activity. Id. at *7. Defendant moved for a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff had no cognizable claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment because plaintiff agreed to participate in the sexual acts and the sexual acts did not inflict pain or injury. Id. at *6-7. The court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant’s conduct caused her pain and that the inmate voluntarily and willingly had sex with the guard, which did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment simply because it occurred within the walls of the prison. Id. at