Roper Vs Hammons

This paper will address the Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S551 (2005); it will specifically address the arrest, trial and the legal issues that arose. It will explain and identify the holdings of the lower courts and it will explain and identify the decision of the U.S Supreme Court.

Stare Desis is Latin for “Standing by decided matter.” According to the Legal Dictionary, the doctrine of stare decisis also known as the precedent law, began in 12th century England, when King Henry II established the common law. According to stare decisis the decisions of a higher court, such as an appellate court, or Supreme Court become obligatory stare decisis, on lower courts which means that whatever the higher courts say is usually what the lower courts have to follow. It is a rare thing for the Supreme Court to overturn one of its own decisions that has been held as binding precedent. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, when it looked at the case that allowed racial segregation in public facilities. This decision held stare decisis for nearly 60 years, until the case of Brown v. Board of Education was heard in 1953. Brown v. Board of Education was a case that took place 1951. In the case thirteen parents filed a civil law suit in U.S. District Court in Topeka, Kansas, regarding their 20 children. The plaintiffs, which is the parents of the children, demanded that the school district take away its policy of racial segregation that was set by the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson which stated that the children would have separate facilities but would still be equal (which they never really were). After a long and unsuccessful road with the lower courts, the case was taken to the U.S.

In 1960, the Oceana Supreme Court, in State v. Fenny, refused to the extend the 1803 statute to protect "homosexual marriage". This case is not applicable to Clark because the matter involves a homosexual act not a homosexual marriage.

Three juries had convicted and imposed the death penalty on their accused without any guidelines to go by in their decision. This case (Furman vs. Georgia) represents the first time the Supreme Court ruled against the death penalty. The dissenting Justices argued that the courts had no right to challenge legislative judgment on the effectiveness and justice of punishments. The majority however held that the death penalty was cruel and unusual

b. State laws may not violate the U.S. Constitution and all state courts must uphold (through

There are many controversial issues in our world today, and each of those issues is well debated by people who either support it or absolutely loathe it. One of those highly debated controversial issues is the juvenile death penalty. Since the Roper v. Simmons case in 2005, sentencing juveniles to death is considered illegal on the grounds that it violates the Eighth Amendment rights (Babcock 6). Although it is considered illegal in the United States, it is still a highly debated problem. There are people that believe the juvenile death penalty is an effective punishment and should not be illegal. On the other hand, many believe that the juvenile death penalty is an extreme punishment and should not be an option when it comes to sentencing juveniles. With such a critical issue, it is only considered fair to understand both sides opinions about the juvenile death penalty.

In addition, Case Law Reasoning was used to determine the outcome. Case Law Reasoning is when courts take prior cases, also known as precedents, and apply these cases to guide in the decision making processes. This application of taking prior cases to assist in the conclusion of current cases is known as stare decisis. Because case facts often vary, several cases are usually brought up to expand and make it possible to have a factual determination. In addition, several cases are brought up because moral ideas and the acceptance of such will change over time. Having

The rules of precedent themselves are judge made, except where a statute has intervened. Occasionally, judges have to decide on a case where there is

Some justices advocate using logical reasoning, creating logic-based syllogisms to draw a conclusion from a major and minor premise assumed true. The problem with such an approach stems from the possibility that one of the premises is incorrect, and if such is the case then the conclusion will be similarly flawed.

27). By following this doctrine of precedent, stare decisis, judges are bound to follow the ratio decidendi, the reasons given, for the rulings in previous cases from higher up in their jurisdictional hierarchy. Rulings from other jurisdictions can also be used as persuasive force and argument, as can the obiter dicta, the judges’ comments other than those given as the reason for the ruling. In this way Judge made law resolves conflict and injustice by ruling consistently with rulings made in previous, characteristically similar cases. An inconsistent approach to similar situations cannot equate to being fair, just or equitable. In this way the ALS is not biased or prejudice, is applied equally to all, and ensures that the law is based on fairness and justice.

Consider Exhibit 10 on page 22 of the case; does it include the factors you consider most important in the selection process? Which factors would you be inclined to weight most heavily?

Stare decisis “to let the decision stand” operates in a pyramid-type fashion and is the doctrine that judicial decisions stand as precedent for cases arising in the future. It is a fundamental policy of our law that, except in unusual circumstances, a court’s determination on a point of law will be followed by courts of the same or lower rank in later cases presenting the same legal issue, even though different parties are involved and any years have elapsed.

Legal cases are generally decided upon when a judge applies the law to the facts of the case; however, the Constitution is ambiguous which means it can be comprehended differently. The way the Constitution is translated in today 's society and applied to modern laws is a responsibility that the Supreme Court justices must uptake. Many factors are believed to play a role in how exactly justices finalize and make their decision, which is why political sciences created three different models of judicial decision making. The legal model, attitudinal model, and strategic model help us grasp a better understanding of what may influence the decision making process. As stated earlier, some decisions are based on the law being applied to the facts, and this decision process is explained in the legal model. The legal model also expresses how justices, in addition to using facts and the law, can use information from previous and almost equivalent cases helping them determine their decisions. Unlike the legal model, the attitudinal model explains how justice’s policy preferences can influence their decision. This model shows how legal text of the Constitution could possibly be ignored, and instead the justices’ own opinions, just like politicians, would guide them through the decision making process. According to Unit 8 Video Engager, it is believed that the justices may take this approach due to the fact that they are entitled to a

Complainant alleges that Respondents refused to rent an available apartment to her based on her source of income. Complainant alleges that Respondent never processed her application. Respondents assert that there were no one-bedroom apartments available when Complainant submitted her application. Respondents also assert that it could not have discriminated against applicants, including Complainant, based on source of income, because over half of their residents receive the same or similar sources of income as Complainant.

The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The law also requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants and employees sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business.” The other law for pregnancy discrimination is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. According to EEOC’s (2009) article, this law makes it illegal to discriminate against a pregnant and is makes illegal to retaliate because a person complained about someone getting discriminated in the workplace or involved in a workplace discrimination lawsuit or went to court and was a witness of workplace discrimination. In all these cases these women were discriminated just because they were