Supreme Court is the uppermost legal court in any nation. It deals with individuals who found or assumed to have done a crime. Crime is an aspect of violating the law. Different people are engaged in criminal activities for diverse reasons. A risk issue in crime is anything in individual’s psychology, which can somewhat upsurge possibility that one will get engaged in criminal action. These may involve conduct disorder, illiteracy, media impact, underprivileged personal temperament, and decreased intelligent quotient, antisocial beliefs, and influence of community or reduced incorporation of it, and poor parenting. This paper aims at critically evaluating and analyzing Supreme Court matters encompassing policies, laws enforcement, and judgment aspects by presenting three cases pertaining to death penalty cases in the past thirty years. In addition, it will demonstrate different perspectives concerning the findings of and the impositions of the capital punishment by the Supreme Courts together with the underlying impacts on those three cases. The three cases for our analysis are based of Jeffery Mac Donald, Stanley Williams, and Woodson v North Carolinas case in the year 1976.
In Supreme Court, there exist two main kinds of court cases which are criminal and civil cases. Hearings in both penal and civil c
ases are carried out in the same way. When all the evidence is revealed, and the judge has described the law connected to the case to a bench, the jurors make a choice over the truth in the situation and offer a verdict. In absence of the jury, the decision, in that case, will be done by the judge (Mason, & Stephenson, 2015).
These kinds of cases encompass commission of acts which are banned 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