Pros And Cons Of Pronouncing

The Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted”, proposed on 9/25/1789 and approved on 12/15/1791. The cruel and unusual punishment confines the harshness of penalties that state and federal governments may inflict upon ones who have been condemned of a criminal offense. The excessive fines phrase restricts the amount that state and federal governments may possibly fine an individual for a specific offense. The excessive bail phrase limits legal judgment in setting bail for the discharge of persons indicted of an illegal action during the time following their capture but prior to their trial.

The criminal justice system in the United States has traditionally operated under two fundamentally different theories. One theory is the Crime Control Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that criminals should be aggressively pursued and crimes aggressively punished. The other theory is the Due Process Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that the rights of the accused need to be carefully protected in any criminal justice investigation. (Levy, 1999)

Wainwright was unanimous. The right to a fair trial was fundamental under the United States Constitution and the guarantee of counsel was a vital part of it. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clark affirms that there is no distinction between capital and non-capital cases in the Sixth Amendment so counsel should be provided in every

In today’s society the criminal justice system that we live in is flawed in so many ways. Some say that it works while others go to prison or jail for crimes that they didn’t commit. In this paper I will be covering specific examples from the book, The Innocent Man, where the defendant’s rights were violated. John Grisham talks about innocent men being innocent and convicted for murder and sent to unlawful court proceedings. In this paper I will be focusing mainly on the violations of his 6th amendment. The 6th amendment is the right to effective assistance of counsel.

For the past seven and half centuries due process was the mission of men persistent to create justice in the government. The federal courts for years used a method of suspended sentencing as a form of probation which in 1916; the Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional. President Coolidge in 1925 signed the Probation Act that gives the court’s permission to throw out imposition sentencing and give the defendant probation. The Speedy Trial Act was enacted by congress in1974 at the point the United States Courts started the agency of Pretrial Service. The mission of this was to decrease crime by allowing individuals to be release into the community awaiting trial to decrease pretrial punishment. In 1982 the Pretrial Services Act was signed by President Reagan. The extending use of Pretrial Services to all federal courts started a specific milestone that we now know as Pretrial Service and Federal Probation system. As of today, officers are involved in the criminal procedure

The Sixth Amendment ensures many rights intended to make criminal arraignments more precise, reasonable, and honest. However, the establishments of American criminal equity have changed a notable amount over the past many centuries, driving courts to consider how old rights apply to new organizations and methods.

Davis court case ties in with our government class in that Texas has to respect the Bill of Rights and incorporate them in every trial. Texas state courts have applied federal interpretations to provisions in state bills of rights similar in wording to the provisions in the United States Bill of Rights because there is a well-established federal supremacy. Texas has broken its promise to provide the appropriate right to a fair and unbiased sentencing hearing for this individual. With this said we can conclude that Mr. Buck’s right to a fair and speedy trial, under the sixth amendment of the Bill of Rights, has been abused. Therefore making the courts’ decision

Amendment VI – The accused shall have a fair speedy public local jury trial; any witness confrontation

In today’s modern Texan judicial system, traditional fears of centralization that stem from 19th century Reconstruction are no longer appropriate. The demands of population growth place an incredible strain on the highly traditional, decentralized judicial system currently in use, creating massive caseloads and backlogs. These backlogs represent a central problem with the current judicial system, as one of the paramount concerns when it comes to proper dispensation of justice is efficiency and timeliness. In reducing the number of courts and concentrating power, the judicial system reduces jurisdiction overlap, streamlines the judicial process to avoid the problem of having multiple courts within a single trial court, and creates a system that is more conducive to the public’s understanding and interest of the Texas

Back in England the king tried cases as many times as he wanted to so he can get the desired verdict. The founding fathers saw this to be unfair towards the citizen and especially with a biased grand jury.

According to the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. citizens have the right to a “fair and speedy trial.” However, in Alabama, the fairness of these trials are controversial due to state laws permitting judges to override a jury verdict on life sentences and impose death sentences. Now being the only state that allows judges to have this power, the state has been under extreme scrutiny from all sides of the political spectrum. Yet, even after multiple cases against the state and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Alabama law still allows judges to have the ultimate decision on criminal sentencing. (Equal Justice Initiative, n.d.)

“In Barker v. Wingo, the Court stressed the legitimate reasons for the 16 trial continuances. But is there a danger that prosecutors might illegitimately seek continuances?”

Determining what would happen if the criteria for taking a case was more or less stringent is challenging. If the criteria for taking a case were more stringent a good amount of less offensive cases would slip through the cracks. The smaller cases would most likely not go to court at all resulting in depriving suspects of their rights to due process; as suspects have the right to a speedy trial just like every other citizen does. If the criteria for taking a case were less stringent more cases would go to trial causing a backup in the courts and ultimately violating suspect’s rights to a speedy trial. Whether

The problem of judicial corruption in United States is immense. The Sixth Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights refers to the right to a speedy, fair and public trial. Unfortunately, our judicial system does not always maintain these rights. The United States judicial system is very corrupt and most of our country’s citizens do not know how corrupt it actually is. When thinking about the judicial system, words that come to mind are justice, morality, and fairness. Sadly, these words are not accurate descriptions of this system. Correct depictions of today’s judicial system are corruption, rigged courts, extortion, and phony trials. Our legal system does not bring truth or justice to our courtrooms. Overcoming this corruption is not

Stricter rules? Example, charges being dropped if anyone has exceeded more than 6 months waiting for trial.