The Case Miller V Davis Case

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were

The Dred Scott Decision was a famous Supreme Court case, deciding over the decision of slavery was legal in the newly discovered territory. It debated over the decision of whether it was legal for slaveholders to take their property into the newly formed territory or whether their property should be freed in this process. The ruling concluded in 1857 and affirmed that slaveholders should have the right to take their slaves to the west . The decision took three attempts to finally reach a conclusion about whether an African American living in recently developed land should be considered free or not. Below I will discuss the life of Dred Scott, the Scott v. Emerson Case, the Scott v. Sandford Case, the eradicating of slavery, and the path to black citizenship in the proceeding decades.

The case of Mills v. Rogers has a significant importance in virtue of the human, civil and constitutional rights of the patients who are hospitalized at mental institutions. Despite the fact whether the patient was there voluntarily or contrary, Rogers believed that the institutions should respect the patient’s decision when it involved antipsychotic drug treatments. Rubie Rogers was a 36-year old black woman who voluntarily institutionalized herself at the Boston State Hospital (BSH). Rogers suffered from hallucinations along with delusions and acquired a history of thought disorder such as violent behavior. Before Mills v. Rogers, a prior lawsuit was filed.

MILLERSBURG — After the victim of an a December assault recanted significant details of the event, her boyfriend on Thursday pleaded guilty to reduced and limited charges.

Duane Buck, a death row inmate, has served more than twenty one years for murdering his ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner and Kenneth Butler. He accused Kenneth for sleeping with Debra and also shot his stepsister in the chest, who survived. After shooting Kenneth, Gardner ran to the street and was chased until she was gunned down while her children watched. Even though the crime should be punished, bucks attorneys argue Mr. Buck was denied a fair trial. Walter Quijano, a psychologist, gave his testimony during the trial stating that Buck was more likely to be a future danger because of his racial color. What surprises everyone is that Buck’s defense lawyer was the one who called Quijano and evoke the testimony. Even though the racial testimony had no place in the trial it still didn’t justify whether they should throw out the death sentence. No racial testimony appeared to be in his early appeals due to his counsel’s impotence for introducing it. Still it was very believable because this was not the first case Quijano made a similar testimony that had violated an inmate’s constitutional rights. Bucks lawyers tried to use this information to fight for Buck but they were not successful because the courts ruled Buck had waited too long to raise the issue. The argument here is if Buck is

MILLERSBURG — A Millersburg area man on Tuesday denied being in possession of firearms as he fled the scene where he was allegedly stalking a donut delivery driver.

According to legal petitions, in Miller v. Alabama (2012), a 14-year old young man by the name of Evan Miller entered the home of his neighbor, Cole Cannon. He is to have allegedly beat and robbed his neighbor. He exited the premises of Cannon’s home. Later in the same evening, Mr. Miller returned to his neighbor’s home, with a friend, Colby Smith searching for drugs within the trailer. They stole a stack of baseball cards and returned to Miller’s home. Miller and Smith, again returned to Cannon’s home where they reportedly found him unconscious. While there, Miller took $300 out of Cannon’s wallet. Miller was in the process of placing Cannon’s wallet back in his pocket when Cannon awoke and began attacking Miller. At that time, Smith struck Cannon with a bat. At some point during the struggle, Miller took possession of the bat, repeatedly striking Cannon in the head. The pair left the home after they covered Cannon in a sheet. According to the coroner’s exam, Cannon was still alive at this time. Miller and Smith returned again to the trailer and set it on fire in an apparent attempt to cover up their crime (Miller v. Alabama, 2012). The interviewing detective, Tim Sandlin read Miller his Miranda rights. Miller denied any event took place, initially, but subsequently agreed that he had stolen money and driver’s license after a fight with Cannon but had not set the fire. According to the autopsy report, Cannon died from smoke inhalation. However, there were “significant

Yes, each state should apply the Supreme Court ruling of Miller v. Alabama retroactively. There were two cases reviewed by the Supreme Court that determined their ruling. Evan Miller and his friend Colby Smith robbed, assaulted, and murdered Cole Cannon on July 15, 2003. Miller and Smith, age fourteen had been drinking and doing drugs the night the incident occurred. Miller and Cannon got into a fight over Miller stealing money from Cannon that lead to Miller repeatedly striking him with a baseball bat. After placing a sheet on Cannon and before striking him in the head for the last time, Miller states “I am God, I’ve come to take your life” (“Supreme Court”, 2011). To destroy the evidence, Miller and Smith set Cannon’s trailer on fire and left him to die.

MILLERSBURG — After serving eight months in prison for going into and stealing money from a Washington Township home last September, a former Wooster man last week was granted early release.

Miller was 14 years old when he committed his crime. He was ultimately found guilty of capital murder and given a life without parole sentence. Miller was denied a series of appeals on the state level, so his counsel filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted the case to be reviewed in November 2011. On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court officially ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of homicide are unconstitutional. However, it doesn’t forbid judges from sentencing young defendants to life without parole if mitigating factors are reviewed. The decision applies to all offenders who are under the age of 18. Miller v. Alabama represents the latest in a series of recent Supreme Court

This paper will demonstrate how Hart’s account of the relationship between law and morality shows an understanding of how they both work together yet can also work as separate entities. It will take a specific look into the internal point of view to aid the understanding of why

Since we were kids and became conscious of our surrounding, our parents and grandparents instilled in us an awareness of what is right and wrong. In other words, it is a trait of all human beings and fosters from our desire to get along with each other to live a harmonious life. Laws are a set of rules and behaviors set by governments that society illustrate on what people can or cannot do. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: it will identify and define what distinguishes law from ethics and what similarities they share. The second is an analysis of examples of where law and ethics either meet or diverge. Third is the role where law and ethics either meet or diverge.

A recent Supreme Court decision ruling that homosexual couples were, by law, allowed to marry sparked great debate when made public. Advocates for same love rejoiced, painting profile pictures in the colors of the rainbow and crying out that reform was attainable. On the flip side, opponents mourned the direction the nation was facing, firing back on social media with firm viewpoints but little else. For its highly controversial standing, the debate on gay marriage brings to light a question buried beneath the subject. How does the individual determine right from wrong? It would seem that a person’s morality is predetermined, but has the ability to change when external influences act upon it. When injustices arise, the person, based on his or her conscience, will step in and take action to right the wrong.

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)