Pros And Cons Of Right To Try Laws

Yes there’s danger prosecutors might illegitimate seek continuances by using speedy trial, by prosecuting the interest of the defense and society this is viewed as irrespective on weather the defendants interest are in jeopardy. In this case Barker could not be convicted unless his partner manning testified against him. By continuing with the trial an acquittal can only be beneficial to Barker. The right of speedy trial is more vague concept than other procedure rights. The right of speedy trials is relative, not absolute the test would be balancing the test would be balancing behaviors of the prosecutors and the defendants are weighted calling the delay extraordinary. The delay is associated with not many cases the court must procced.th defendant

Justice of the peace courts is low-level courts. These courts are found only in Arizona, Delaware, Louisiana, Montana, and Texas. Justice of the peace courts has original jurisdiction over Class C misdemeanors that include: traffic violations, bail jumping, and bail check writing and minor civil matters that issue search and arrest warrants depending on certain situations. Justices are known for keeping the peace. They can arrest criminals or insane people, order the removal of people who behave in a disorderly fashion in a public place and carry out other duties designed to maintain or restore a peaceful community. The cons to Justices of the peace is that they have limited power in criminal and civil cases. Their powers of civil jurisdiction

The Constitution of The United States of America was created “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” Our rights, as citizens, are protected by the first ten amendments also known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were established due to the strong objections of the British rule on the original colonies. Particularly speaking, the fourth amendment has protected our rights from unlawful search and seizures. With the implementation of “Probable Cause” and the vagueness of the Bill of Rights, the rules have been stretched and some say violated.We the people, need to develop the fine line between Probable cause and an unlawful search.

Whenever an inmate gets incarcerated or is found guilty for a conviction, many of their rights go away except for a select few. The few rights that prisoners get to keep are, but are not limited to, visitation rights, mail services, religious gatherings and studies, medical treatment and care, and access to courts and legal assistance. These services help inmates stay in touch with society and help inmates get treated fairly throughout the facility (Santillan, 2010). In 1969, there were approximately 300,000 people incarcerated in federal, state, and county jails or prisons. Today that number surpasses 2.4 million and to add to it, there are approximately 4 million under parole or probation (People’s Law Office).

In the field of medicine, clinical trials are known to be a reliable source of information. Although ethical issues do arise, to which the theory of equipoise was proposed, which states that there should be a balance of forces of interests (Weijer et al., 95). There are two types of equipoise; clinical and theoretical. Clinical equipoise is the assignment of multiple treatments to be tested on patients with the disagreement in the medical community in which medical professionals have differing views that one treatment is better than the others (Weijer et al., pg. 97). Theoretical equipoise is between a physician and researcher and the belief that the risks and benefits of the treatments are in perfect balance (Wiejer et al., 96). The differing factor of the two, being that clinical equipoise focuses on the difference in views of certain treatments involving much of the medical community to form an insightful conclusion on the procedure to which the evidence supporting each treatment does not have to be balanced, whereas theoretical equipoise focuses on the equal amount of risks and benefits within each treatment (Weijer et al., 97). With that being said I personally believe researchers must be in a state of clinical equipoise to run morally acceptable clinical trials.

Rates of homicides increased by 53% in the states with Stand Your Ground laws, while states without the laws decreased 5% (Mayors Against). Can Stand Your Ground laws ever have a positive effect on this country? Stand Your Ground laws allow a person to take any measures in order to defend themselves. To be more specific, fire a gun, even if the person has a chance to retrieve or the situation can be avoided. This can result in many issues for everyone. Stand Your Ground Laws are unethical and all Americans should be against them in order to eliminate them.

Defendants generally are given plea bargaining negotiations “for one or more of the following reason: (a) reduce a charge, (b) elimination of a possible waiver to the criminal court, and (c) agreement for dispositional program… Any plea deal must be entered voluntarily and intelligently, or the conviction could be overturned on appeal (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, p. 504) There are many pleas that a defendant may choose to enter in court. Guilty, not guilty, an Alford Plea, and also nolo contendere, also known as “no contest”. A guilty plea is when the defendant is admitting their guilt to the crime, and giving up their rights to the trial, “more than 90 percent of defendants plead guilty (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, p. 504).” When a defendant pleads not guilty they are saying that they believe that they did not do anything wrong. An Alford Plea is when a defendant is pleading guilty but still claims their innocence.

A man in Bentonville, Arkansas, named James Andrew Bates is being accused of the murder of Victor Collins. Victor Collins was found in the hot tub owned by Bates in November of 2016. Police had found other suspicious evidence including the use of 140 gallons of water during the middle of the night, on the night that Collins was murdered. Alexa is designed to continually listen to words, specifically “wake up” words that catch her attention. Police are hoping that words were said during the night that could have triggered Alexa to begin recording what it heard. Amazon refused to allow the investigators to have access to the records because they believe it violates their user’s privacy and it seems to be overboard or inappropriate in their opinion.

The Good faith exception issued by the Supreme Court of the United States v. Leon recognized evidence that has been collected in violation of the privacy right protected by the Fourth Amendment to be used in a trial in case the police acted in good faith as answered on detective search warrant (Hall, 2014). During Leon case, the judge issued a warrant which was facially deficient, but without officer recognizing the language as long as there is reasonable reliance on that warrant police officials believe they could execute. (McDonald, 1986) The Court held illegally seized evidence may be used in federal and civil trials to impeach statements made by a defendant who lacks standing on the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court uses the term good faith when referring to the objective reasonableness of the police in the belief of the existence of a warrant that is non-existent benefits. The Court concluded that evidence should not be suppressed where it is discovered by officers in the course of actions that are taken in good faith and reasonable belief that they are authorized. (McDonald, 1986)

Miscarriages of justices occur due to many variables including faulty or wrong confessions, faulty identifications, wrongful DNA evidence, and the police’s overreach of power. On February 9, 1978, a student from the College of William and Mary, located in Williamsburg, Virginia was sexually assaulted at gunpoint. When the police arrived at the scene, she described her assailant as an African-American male about 5’6 in height and weighing around 145. Having gathered this information, the victim agreed to identify her assailant through photo arrays at the police station. Bennett Barbour was identified arrested and in the span of about two months was charged with rape on April 14, 1978. Despite having an alibi, not matching the victim’s description, and having brittle bone disease Barbour was declared guilty by a jury. Barbour’s case is representative of the many cases in which wrongful eyewitness testimony produces miscarriages of justice. Bennett Barbour served 5 years in prison and 29 years of parole until he was cleared of his charges due to DNA evidence when the Virginia Supreme Court cleared his charges.

When there is a bad person under suspicion I want the police to throw the rules out the window. When it is an innocent I think the police can get to excited, and abuse this power, and understandably so. Seeing the past it is easy to figure out, but in the situation how is one to know? "It appears that the greater number of searches, as well as the vast number of arrests, take place without warrants" (CRS annotated constitution, n.d. para. 1). How can the law use this idea the wrong way. Is there not supposed to be a proceedure? Then again I want the bad people off the street and secreting getting to them might be the only way sometimes.

he right to a speedy trial is the first of the seven rights. Having a speedy trial is essential while you are being under investigation for the simple fact that one would not want to spend an infinite amount of time behind bars without being heard. For example if one is being held behind bars for five years before their case is even brought to trial and defendant happened to be innocent, there is no way the court can grant the person those five years that the person had lost. Another reason for a speedy trial would be for the obvious reason that it is expensive to house an individual behind bars while he waits for trial. Finally the most important reason would be that as time goes by the accused memory may become cloudy and would most likely damage his defense. The right to a speedy trial was proposed by James Madison while trying to defend the constitution to the anti-Federalist. Madison proposed twenty amendments in what is known as the bill of rights on June 8, 1789 (Revolutionary War and Beyond, 2008-2010). Madison gave a speech to the very first congress

Animal testing - this issue is one of the most controversial issues discussed around the world today. Many argue that animal testing is inhumane, and that animals should no longer be used for testing. However, I strongly agree with the point that animal testing is, in fact, the best way to prove a product to be safe. In a survey done in the US, 99% of the active physicians thought that animal testing should be continued - for the present, no alternative for animal testing is accurate enough to replace it. Without animal testing, human beings themselves will become the subject of experiment. People should be aware that without any alternative in place, it would be the same as saying that human rights are less important than animal rights. Human beings desperately need animal testing for the development of cures as well as for the sake of civilisation.

3.It’s wasteful. Animal experiments cause huge delays for people waiting for effective cures because of false experiments and it also wastes money, time, and resources that could rather have been spent on human-related research.

Humans are animals, and as such it is morally wrong to use them to test pharmaceuticals intended for use by humans. Those who support animal experimentation believe it is a necessary evil, in part due to the false information put out by the media. The so-called benefits of animal testing have not helped humans for years, yet in many countries the law still requires researchers use animals to test their medications. In fact, although alternatives have been found, few steps have been taken to put an end to animal experimentation. Unfortunately, the way the activists present their argument that is one main reason they are not taken seriously, even though their points are valid. Animal testing is morally wrong and has not benefited humans as the media has claimed, but there are alternatives, such as new technology, if only humans would take the first step.