Supreme Court Death Penalty Cases Essay Example

by the law and are disciplinary by the trial, fines, incarceration or even death. The attorney on behalf of the state, nation or municipal governance which legally accuses an individual of committing criminal activity is the prosecutor. The defendant is charged with the crime. It is the responsibility of the judge to make sure that the rights of the offender are honored. In addition, the judge makes sure that there are constitutional provision and the statutory needed privileges affordable to criminals.

Actually, certain procedures are followed in the operation of the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that Supreme Court is responsible in determining the judgment, other primary aspects contribute to this. For instance, the arrest is the primary contributor to the Supreme Court operation. An individual is under arrest by a law prosecution officer who might have witnessed the individual attempting crime or has an authorization for arrest when likely cause exist that individual committed criminal activity. When an individual is put under arrest, individual is supposed to be taken before a judge, basically what is called the initial appearance which occurs within twenty-four hours of being under arrest or else be unconfined (Liebman, 2007).

In the arraignment procedure, the accused is taken before the judge to be let know of the charges and the privileges he/she is having. The accused beseeches guilty or not guilt-ridden or in other cases agree with the penalty deprived of admitting guilt. For the case whereby the accused beseeches guilt-ridden or failure of the contest, the trial is not apprehended thereby the lawbreaker is sentenced then or in coming time. If the accused beseeches not guilt-ridden, a specific time is planned

for the trial. In case the plea contract is conveyed, the trial is not apprehended (Mason, & Stephenson, 2015).

Actually what follows is the trial process. This involves some plea agreement. In most of the instances, the cases are solved by the application of plea contract other than an application of trials. The plea contract or agreement implies that the accused has accepted beseech guilt-ridden to one or various charges in compensation to some aspects such as the dismissal of either one or various charges, a lower degree of the imposed offense, an endorsement for a lenient sentence, failure to recommend the ultimate sentence, or passing no recommendation. The decree does not need the prosecutor to let know of the victims on the plea contract or look for their endorsement.

Trial thereby follows whereby it is presented in front of the judge according to with the nature of the criminal activity and other aspects. The public prosecutor and protection attorney reveal the evidence and query onlookers. The judge or jury looks for the suspects guilty or not guilt-ridden on the primary charges or lower charges. Suspects recognized not guilty are let to go. If the judgment is guilty-ridden thereby the judge sets the specific time for sentencing.

Jeffery Mac Donald

Jeffery MacDonald was committed to criminal action of murdering innocent individuals. He even slaughters his expectant companion and two young offspring which was one of the great ugly killings in the year 1970. The criminal issue of MacDonald has been pervaded with disagreement since the murders that occurred in almost thirty-nine years ago as argued by Rachlinski (2010). Via it all, Jeffery has persistently sustained his innocence. He has

served an instance of malfeasance in the examination of the FIB criminal lab misbehavior, and the criminal case was incredibly torturous. It was an injustice and wrongful action of the time (Rachlinski, 2010).

For the duration of defense application in 1983, nevertheless, court opinions by MacDonald advocates speciously frightened the administration prosecuting attorney. He apparently, even without informing the security, took back his opinion and gave the army a chance over the residences, claiming that the inclusions he had required to take care for many years were now of no any use. Since he was a doctor, the government concluded that a surgeon has knowledge on how to injure himself safely. It was not until the emergence of the fatal impartiality that the full extent of McGinnis’s disloyalty was predictable and a lot of the case misconceptions he created were revealed as such (Rachlinski, 2010).

McDonald was tried before the jury being convicted of first-degree killing of the murder of Dr. Louis. Following the consequence phase of the hearing, the jury commented death by a vote of 9 founded on the defendant. The trial high court followed the jury’s commendation and punished McDonald to death. Based on the reviews to the records, in this case, it is found valid, competent and considerable evidence reinforcing the hearing court discoveries as to the aggravating aspects and the no statutory justifying evidence. The evidence revealed in aggravation of greatly considerable, especially in comparison to the minimum evidence of justifying situations. Actually, it is deduced that McDonald’s death decree is proportional to other capital cases where the decree of death was obligatory.

Stanley Tookie Williams

In the year 1971, Williams indulges in Crips

street gang in Washington. He was thereby one of the original leaders in that organization. He was among rival gang colleague murderer in Washington in the year 1979. His trail occurred in the state of California which brought about his death sentence in the year 2005 (Barnett, Brodsky, & Davis, 2004).

Stanley Williams illegally entered into the workplace of Brookhaven and murdered three individuals of the migrant cluster who subjugated and were runners of the motel. A ballistics expert links a shotgun shell at the Brookhaven to Stanley’s gun. Some Owens assassination had also been conveyed two weeks before. Williams had apologized for the assassinations done in the Brookhaven Motel. Facets of lie and illegal attempts were testified among Williams’s colleagues. Despite the allegations, Williams maintained guiltlessness in the young murders.
In the year 1981, Stanley Williams is taken to trial and found guilty in Los Angeles Supreme Court for the four assassinations together with two more numbers of robberies. He has been put in unsociable confinement for six and half years after attempting a string of fierce incidents behind bars as well as assaults on sentries and other inmates. Williams together with three colleagues were under use of PCP drugs with motivated their murder actions (Barnett, Brodsky, & Davis, 2004). This facilitated the shooting made on security monitor whereby Owens and two execution-styles were murdered.

In accordance with what the judges at clemency stated, Stanley Williams had a consummate credibility as an envoy commanding young people to decline the aspects of gangs. Although the policy enforcement leaders and victim’s privileges officials argued that Stanley Williams was jeopardy whose impact and effect on would-be criminals was overblown. The

prosecutor also claimed that the Williams incidence being deprived of confession, and Stanley Williams denialto formally cut ties with the Cripsby applying his experience of gang procedures and techniques with the commanders condemned his claim of reintegration (Schmalleger, 2009). This is a bad message to the public.

According to Barnett (2004), with the death sentence put across, Stanley Williams appealed for clemency. In this case, Arnold the California Governor made an attempt of assisting Williams to choose whether the sentence is supposed to be shuttled or commuted to life in custodial. Stanley Williams prosecuting attorney and protectors pleaded for the incidence to Arnold. Despite all that, Arnold Schwarzenegger went against Williams attempt of clemency thereby referring to the forensic prove connecting Williams to the killings in 1979 (Schmalleger, 2009).
The court proceeding made on Stanley Williams was definitely suitable for his murder actions. The nature of offense declares a thorough action to the offender. Killings and a bad influence to the public had to be halted with a thorough punishment to the defendant. This could pose a warning to the other gangs and offenders to stop their wrongdoings hence changing their life. The background of the offender had a great influence to the surrounding public hence the death sentence significantly serves as a testimony to the colleagues Williams used to operate with. In addition, as an implication to the young people of the penalty and punishment behind the murder and law breaking indulgent (Barnett, Brodsky, & Davis, 2004).

Woodson v. North Carolina murder case (1976)

During the adoption of the eighth constitutional changes, all the United States Nations enacted mandatory death sentences for specific offense. The North Carolina’s mandatory

death sentence statute of the first-degree murder, which was given rise from the state adoption of the legislature suggests that Furman needed the severance of the discretionary character of the ancient law, is a constitutional impermissible departure from contemporary standards in respect to the enacted unique and irretrievable punishment of death (Cochran, 2016).

The evidence of the case established that some four men had been talking about a possible robbery for a long period of time. On that action day, Woodson had been taking some alcohol heavily. His friends, Waxton and Tucker arrived at the trailer where Woodson had been living for some time. When Woodson came out of the trailer, Waxton struck him in the face and made a threat to kill him, making him to be sober so that the robbery can go along well. Carrol, their friend, met them at the trailer and after they were all armed adequately, the four men set out by automobile to robe the store (Camacho, 2016).

On arriving at their destination, Tucker and Waxton went inside the store while Woodson and Carrol were left inside the car as lookouts. Once in the store, Tucker was the first person to request a packet of cigarettes to the woman cashier. Progressively, Buxton followed and by the time the cashier turned to pick the cigarettes, Waxton shot her to death. He took the money box and proceeded outside, pushing a customer who was entering from the door’s direction to where their friends had been waiting for them. On reaching the destination, Woodson having remained inside the store, shot another cashier and took all the available amount of money. They got inside

the car and drove away with the money (Robinson, 2016).

The petitioner’s verification come to agree in large part with this version of the situation of robbery. It contrasted diametrically in one important condition: Waxton claimed that he never had a gun, and both the cashier and the customer had been shot down by Tucker. During their trial, Waxton requested to be granted sometime to plead guilty to the lesser offenses to which Tucker had pleaded guilty. Unfortunately, the solicitor refused to accept Buxton’s fake lies. Woodson, by distinction, remained throughout the trial that he had been pressured by Waxton, therefore he was innocent and he would not deliberate pleading guilty to any crime (Lyman, 2016).

The four guys were found guilty on all charges, and sentenced to death according to the statute. It is a shocking ordeal for the petitioners since they knew the consequences behind their wrong choice of idea. Furthermore, it against the human rights and freedoms to kill someone irrespective of the state and position in the society. Hard work should be granted the first priority to escape the attitude of stealing from the others who have been busy with their work, in search of money and products at least to bring a positive change to their lives (Baumgartner, 2016).

Effects of death penalty are largely spread and uneasy to determine specifically. One negativity about the death penalty consequences is that they vary across different cultures as well as Nations and they might be not the same in specific cases and crimes. In order to determine the impacts of death penalty, research should be enacted to get the exact results. When a lot of

individuals think of the scope of death penalty, the question asked every time is whether crime is being reduced overall. The interrogation can be well taken care of only in concerning to exact areas and only for specific time period. The rate of execution makes death penalty more effective as a crime deterrent (Jenning, 2016).
Other various means of looking at this includes social, ethical and the economic effects of the death penalty. The cost of the action when compared to the cost of peeping prisoners in jail, for example, has an impact on the system of the prisoners in general. The consequences of putting prisoners into death are different than the effects of a mere existence of death penalty.

Basically, death penalties are against the human right charter of the United Nations. In addition, many are the situations whereby the energetic and able people are being killed as the law undertakes. Significantly, there is population decrease when prisoners are turned to death, hence families losing their important relatives who would in one way or the other, bring some changes to curve the difference in their lives (Robinson, 2016). The constitution should abolish the section and correct wrong doers following the right measures to avoid mass killing of those related to serious crimes.

Wrong doers should as well change and become good people who can be depended on in the future, but not to stick to their initial characters. A positive change should be identified, by being the first people to fight for the rights of the others as well as their freedoms. To sum up, it is against the rights and freedoms of each individual to be

punished with a death penalty, something which cannot be compromised to the current world. It reminds people about the past history, whereby prisoners could be killed openly, because of their bad behaviors and bas contact between them and the rest of the people. Everybody should adhere to the rules and regulations to be in the safe side. The four gentlemen would not have committed such a crime. Intact, they could have gone in search of carrier opportunities to enable them earn a living instead of participating in wrong doing.

In conclusion, mass killing constitutes to decrease in population hence loose of very important people in the society. Severe justice should be taken on the cap rites to reduce the action. Jeffery McDonald could have taken the right step instead of making a wrong decision. There is a functional impression in crime oppression since it is an essential aspect to guide efforts in the creation of education and learning strategies for the victims. Educational approaches purposed at places of employment can be of great importance to lower onsite violence and specifically significant for victims of certain violence and their associates to discourse potential security risks. Williams’s incidence serves as an insight to the public.

References

1. Liebman, J. S. (2007). Slow dancing with death: The Supreme Court and capital punishment, 1963- 2006. Columbia Law Review, 1-130.
2. Barnett, M. E., Brodsky, S. L., & Davis, C. M. (2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral sciences & the law,22(6), 751-770.
3. Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
4. Rachlinski, J.
   

J. (2010). Evidence-based law. Cornell L. Rev., 96, 901.