Ragland V. Hatfield 591 F. 3d

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).

Introduction to topic: At 19 Ronald Evans got life in prison without parole for conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine. Scott Earle got 25 years in Prison for providing an informant at a bar with a hook up for painkillers, even though the judge agreed the punishment did not fit the crime. Timothy Tyler, a 25 years old who had long struggled with schizophrenia and addiction was caught distributing LSD at a grateful dead concerts and was sentenced to life in prison because of two previous drug related misdemeanors.

Going against the Supreme Court, which is the supreme law of the land, in the Worcester vs Georgia case demonstrates how Andrew Jackson abused his power as president. John Marshall, the chief justice at the time, ruled that the United States did not have possession or legal jurisdiction over Native American land, and no individual states had authority in Native American affairs. However, Jackson went above this, since the court did not order marshals to enforce it. In the Indian Removal packet, it was stated that in May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian removal act to exchange land with Native Americans. To do this, he coerced tribe leaders, sometimes by getting them drunk or high, into signing away their land through removal treaties. In the

Most of us would agree that drug abuse and addiction is no respecter of persons. Regardless of age, race, gender, or economic status drug addiction can rear its ugly head in any situation. Like most Americans, I have personally been affected by the pitfalls of drug addiction from relatives and friends. Therefore, I have witnessed firsthand the devastation that it leaves on family members, friends, and the communities, in which they reside. Since its inception in 1986 the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, as caused more harm than good. At the start of this Act, Congress implemented maximum drug quantities initially targeted at “serious” and “major” drug traffickers. Congress concluded that 500 grams of powder cocaine would trigger a five-year mandatory minimum, and five kilograms would trigger a ten-year mandatory minimum. However, for crack cocaine the triggering quantities were significantly less. Only five grams of crack cocaine would prompt five-years and just fifty grams to prompt a ten-year sentence. This massive gap became known as the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity. Soon after several states began to legislate sentencing disparities between powder cocaine and crack cocaine into their criminal codes. The original targets of

may be sentenced to lengthy jail terms. This is an abuse of drug laws in a great nation. The

A lot of court cases are historically important and sometimes they the result in changing certain laws. For example, the Brown v. Board of Ed court case ended racial segregation in the U.S., and the Gideon v. Wainwright case required the state to provide low-income defendants with an attorney if they could not afford one. These two cases changed the Federal Constitution against racism and made it possible for all citizens to have the same rights in Untied State, and everyone experiences these changes on a daily basis. Another court case made a change in the Federal Constitution is Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker v. Des Moines court case took a big part during the Vietnam War because it brought even more attention to the

The following pages will explore the issue of illegal drug use as it relates to tougher sentencing guidelines in an effort to determine whether stronger sentences are keeping dangerous criminals off the streets and reducing the use of illegal drugs in the US.

Prior to the passage of this legislation, many people convicted with possession of drugs were given significantly long sentences under state laws; often this included individuals receiving life sentences for what is now known as simple possess (Courtwright, 2004). In this regard the Controlled substance act could be viewed as a liberalization of drugs policy by breaking up all drugs into schedules with differencing penalties. This does not mean that the legislation is not without

In the case of the State of North Carolina v. Lester Gerard Packingham, the question of whether a state can restrict sex offender’s from being on social media sites without restricting their constitutional rights is played out. Lester Packingham is a registered sex offender who was caught having a Facebook website profile even though it is against North Carolina state law. This paper will explore the constitutionality of N.C. Gen Stat. § 14–202.5 (2011) and will analyze the legal opinions of this case from both the Court of Appeals of North Carolina and Supreme Court of North Carolina and make an educated decision on whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision should be upheld or reversed.

In the 2001 trial of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s case of Landrigan vs. Stewart was a great example of how behavioral genetics can have both a negative and positive effects on criminal cases Landrigan had filed a petition because he claimed he did not have an effective counsel during the penalty phase of his capital case (Farahany, Beret).. After four years of being sentenced he said he would have been cooperative if his attorney tried to offer evidence, that his biological background ‘made’ him a criminal. Even with his effort to chance his sentence the Ninth Circuit was unmoved. His background showed the court room his genetics will make him still violent in the future, because he cannot change his genetic

Until recently, there was a dramatic disconnect between this research and drug court operations. The consequences of this disconnect included relapse, overdose, and death. While drug courts were designed to accommodate those in need of medical care, most operated under the misguided and dangerous practice of requiring defendants, as part of their successful program completion, to stop taking life-saving addiction medication prescribed by their physicians. This practice, which is at odds with decades of scientific and medical research, put individuals with opioid addictions in the precarious position of either having to stop taking their effective medication and risk relapse or use their medication and face incarceration. To compound matters

The opioid epidemic that has taken over the United States is likely the largest public health crisis that our country has faced in the 21st century. It has torn countless families and small rural communities apart in its wake, and does not currently show signs of slowing down anytime in the near future. In the last couple decades, the United States’ government has addressed the epidemic as a criminal problem. Treating those affected by the opioid crisis like criminals has not yielded positive results overall. For some time, the public opinion has predominantly been that this epidemic should not be blamed on anyone other than those who take these opioids, and that it is their own personal downfalls and bad judgement that is responsible for their specific situation. While opioid abusers certainly deserve some accountability for their actions, there is abundant evidence of greater forces at work that have a lot of influence on their decisions.

Drug abuse is shown to be connected to all different kinds of crime in the United States, and in many circumstances, crime is inspired by drug abuse and addiction. In fact, 80% of criminal offenders abuse drugs or alcohol (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). Also, 60% of those who are arrested test positive for illicit drugs when they are arrested, and 60-80% commit another crime, typically drug-related, after leaving prison (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). And, even after these individuals put in the time in prison that would allow them to go through the uncomfortable process of detoxing, 95% of them will chose to go back to drug abuse after prison (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). Given these overwhelming statistics, it is clear that drug abuse, and repeated or continued drug abuse, are a serious problem facing the criminal justice system.

There has always been a close association between drugs and crime. Drugs have been seen as a way out of suffering in one’s life and so as long as there is suffering there will always be a market for drugs. The struggle to keep one’s self sane when away from a substance they need can cause them to do crazy and even violent things to others. Things like murdering someone because they did not have proper control of themselves is not something unheard of by any means. These people can been seen as both victims and criminals, as they were not in a sound state of mind when doing these actions, however them doing the actions does not mean they should get off scot-free. The users are only one side of the coin, the other is the drug dealers. The dealers do not have to be selling purely illegal drugs, they may be selling prescription drugs too, but in the pursuit of their own survival in a struggling life, they turn to selling substances to others. By doing so they can even amass a fortune, but this is still a crime, and what people will do to try to get all this potential money can span from robbing to murder. The articles I read from different media support the fact there is indeed a tie with crime and drugs, being that an increase of drugs on the street leads to more crime.

Taking the example of drugs and evaluating the battery of response that America has employed to treat the situation, we see that America's endeavors in this regard are largely counterproductive. US penalties for drug involvement are severe. Third felony drug offences involving Substance I drugs carry a mandatory life sentence without possibility of release. The penalties also involve any sample carrying a certain amount of the proscribed drug, regardless of the material of the sample involved.