The Crime Of The Century

The entire trial was a sham, extremely corrupt due to jury manipulation from the defendant. The jury was allowed to go home to deliberate, giving them time to be threatened, and create a biased opinion from family, friends, media, ect. Also in the court, the judge had suppressed both the wire tape recordings and the lie detector test, throwing away crucial evidence. Not to mention that the only survivor of the

Throughout history, various cases have not been properly executed in such a way that rightful criminals are taken to justice (hence the creation of courtrooms). The result of improper trials have led to the death of innocent lives which is unfortunately not unprecedented. A trial that epitomizes such unfair charges, leading to the execution of an innocent, was the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping Trial. Bruno Richard Hauptmann was not guilty of the murder pertaining to the Lindbergh’s baby; he was wrongly convicted under circumstantial and biased evidence. The kidnapping of the baby had led to widespread speculations, and caused the case to spread amongst the

Many people are hesitant on deciding whether they support the death penalty and in turn use other factors, like expenses, to determine their answer. They prefer to crunch the numbers and see what works better economically for society. Economically, it is actually cheaper to house an offender in jail for the rest of their life compared to the pricing to execute them. The reason is due to the pre-trial costs; in general, capital cases are far more complicated than non-capital cases and therefore require more money for the overall process. Several experts are needed to evaluate the forensic evidence, mental health and the social history of the defendant. Another expense is the procedure of jury selection. With the death penalty in question, the jury selection in capital cases are much more time consuming and expensive. In

In the last several years, too many people in the United States have been wrongfully sentenced with the death penalty. Several accused have their sentence overturned or they have been totally exonerated. There are at least 8 people who were executed by United States and later proven innocent (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org). Over a 20 year period, 68% of all death sentences were reversed (http://karisable.com). A noteworthy example is of Jerry Banks who was convicted and sentenced with the death penalty for two counts of murder in 1975. Five years later, in 1980, Banks' conviction was overturned on the basis of newly discovered evidence which was allegedly known to the state at the time of trial. Another example was the case of Lawyer Johnson who was sentenced to death in 1971 by an all white jury for the murder of a white victim. Later in 1982, Johnson’s conviction was overturned and Johnson exonerated when a previously silent eyewitness identified the state’s chief witness as the real murderer. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org) Human error is inevitable, particularly

To start off, according to the 2010 annual report from the office of the United States courts, bench trials have acquitted 137 cases out of 394, while jury trials have acquitted 286 cases out of 2,352. This evidence indicates that with bench trials, the chances of being acquitted are higher than jury trials.

This is something that I feel like could have been taken care of long before it was. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that everyone has the right to a speedy and public trial and since the system is so backed up, this concept barely exists. Another thing that could have been taken care of quicker was how the guards treated the inmates.

Simpson stood trial in December 2008 for the 2007 robbery. Simpson, along with another man was found guilty on 12 counts in the Las Vegas robbery case and Simpson was sentenced between 9 to 33 years in prison. Simpson was recently granted parole back in July of 2017 and released on October 1st, 2017.

A college athlete, known as Brock Turner, age 20, raped an intoxicated woman in a public setting; he was arrested in 2015. There were two witnesses who caught Turner in the act. The victim came before the jury to express how Turner took advantage of her. The sex offender was convicted of 3 felony counts and the prosecutor ruled for him to serve a minimum 6 years in prison. Turner’s father made a statement to the judge saying, "This is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of actions out of his 20 plus years of life". The judge sentenced Turner to 6 months in prison, but he only completed 3 months as he didn’t serve his full initial sentence in prison.

“It emphasizes efficiency and the capacity to catch, try, convict, and punish a high proportion of offenders; it also stresses speed and finality. (Cole & Smith, 2010). The prosecutor in this model looks at the evidence, and chances of getting a conviction. If there is a slight chance, then the state will not move forward with prosecution of the case. If there is a preponderance of evidence then the prosecution will begin bargaining with the defense, agree on a jail term, and the defendant then usually pleads guilty to the charges. This is a fast and efficient method, which saves money by keeping many trials out of court. On the other hand there is a higher likelihood that innocent people who are facing a long sentence, would plea out to a lesser sentence rather than risking getting the longer time in jail. Think about it, if you were innocent of a charge, and facing life in prison, but were offered a five-year sentence with parole, what would you do? You could simply take the time and move on, or risk a jury trial, where there is a possibility you would still be found guilty. These are the tough decisions that some innocent people have to actually face. Many people that are guilty of crimes also benefit from this system, by getting a lesser sentence. Is the cost of saving money, worth letting a guilty person back on the streets sooner? I do not believe it is worth saving the money, and feel that if you are guilty of a crime then you should

In today’s society of law it is preferable to have a jury trial than a bench trial. For many reasons a jury trial is preferable than a bench trial because there are 12 mind's that decide if the defendant is guilty or not. The defendant only needs one juror to save their life because it would be a hung jury. The jurors need to be 12 to zero to have the defendant guilty or not guilty. It is easier to have a jury a trial than a bench trial because in a bench trial the defendant has to look like they did the crime while in a jury trial 12 jurors are hearing the testimony and they could decide from there if the defendant is guilty or not. All the jurors need is a reasonable doubt to say the defendant is not guilty while the bench trial the judge

There are many cases in which people spent years in prison for the crimes they did not commit. Death penalty is permanent and cannot be undone. Many people have been proven innocence after the execution is carried out. If an innocent criminal has received a life sentence then he has the opportunity to be proven innocence in future with more advance investigation. For example in U.S as of September 11, 273 people including 17 death row inmates were exonerated by doing DNA testing. The use of DNA testing helps to confirm if a person is innocent and not sentence him to death. Likewise, in near future with more advance technologies someone can be proven

The lack of proper resources during a trial can make the difference between the innocence and guilt of a person. The death penalty does not always show the innocence or guilt of a person. It shows how much he or she is willing to spend to help the trial go his or her way. The death penalty is an unfair system to those who cannot afford the “evidence” they need to help free them.

The OJ Simpson case has been hailed "The Trial of the Century." One of the longest running court trials in history, this case was filled with conspiracy, controversy, and the power of celebrity. The biggest part of the trial was the evidence. The submission of the blood samples, the DNA testing, and the articles of clothing made the case what it was. Amidst all the accusations of planted evidence and conspiracy plans against Simpson, the jury and Judge Ito had to try to sift through and find Simpson guilty or not guilty.

The Criminally Accused are given a public trial to discourage the abuse of prosecutorial power. If you weren’t given a public trial you could be put to death, and no one would even know why. That is also the reason that you have a trial by jury. They determine if you are guilty or not guilty by the evidence presented at trial. They also have the power to acquit an accused if it believes that he is accused of violation an unjust law (Hornberger, np).

Many prisoners in the past have been known to be killed before they were proven innocent. Many documented cases where DNA testing showed that innocent people were put to death by the government. This sometimes happens because there are defendants who are given minimal legal attention by often minor qualified individuals. The government has made many mistakes which are being wrong about convicting someone for something they didn’t do, and killing this person for the wrong reason. Putting the wrong person to death is the biggest mistake that can be made and the government cannot afford to make this mistake.