Unit 7 History Short Answer Study Guide

In what ways is Gideon vs. Wainwright a landmark case?

Gideon v. Wainwright was a landmark case because the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves. Gideon could not afford an attorney, so he had to defend for himself, but the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida had to give him an attorney. This established the rule that the state must provide all defendants who cannot afford at attorney, an attorney.

Is the "Exclusionary Rule" is, on balance, good for our justice system? Does it add further protections against abuse or does it allow guilty people to avoid prosecution?

I think the Exclusionary rule is good and bad for our justice system. It adds protections against abuse, because it keeps the police from not exceeding their constitutional rights by searching you unreasonably. However, it allows guilty people to avoid prosecution because if there is really good evidence that points someone to doing a crime, that person will not be found guilty if that evidence was obtained illegally or without a warrant.

How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination to apply to all persons questioned in connection with a crime?

If a person has not been informed of his/her right to remain silent under interrogation and you other rights to prevent you from self-incrimination, his/her Fifth Amendment rights have been violated. This was decided in Miranda v. Arizona. You must be read your Miranda Rights. The confession has to be voluntary and not forced by the interrogator for it to be used as evidence in court.

Why did the Court rule that the death penalty system was unconstitutional in 1972? What was the Court's reasoning in holding that the death penalty itself is not unconstitutional?

In 1972, in the case of Furman v. Georgia, the Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in that particular case and it was considered a "cruel and unusual punishment". The Court's reasoning in holding that the death penalty itself is not unconstitutional is that it depends on the circumstances in which the death penalty is used.

What are some special issues in our right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure?

In our right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, some special issues are that the police needs probable cause to get a search warrant and search a person's area. Also, the police must get a warrant to search you. If the police sees something in plain view, they do not need a search warrant to search it.

What is the rule of inclusion in Mapp v. Ohio

It is that evidence that obtained illegally cannot be used as evidence in court. Previously, the federal government had established the exclusionary rule which said that they cannot used illegally obtained evidence in federal court. This was incorporated into the state level and said that the police need to obtain evidence in a legally appropriate manner for it to be used as evidence in court. The exclusionary rule was a major part of the decision in Mapp v. Ohio.

In what cases can a suspect be questioned, and/or whose answer would be admissible, without having been "Mirandized."

Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn't apply and they're not required to be read. When questioning is necessary for public safety. When asking standard booking questions. When the police have a jailhouse informant talking to the person. When making a routine traffic stop for a traffic violation.

In what ways was Miranda vs. Arizona a landmark case?

Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark case because it established the rule that the police must inform people they arrest with their constitutional rights. It was also a landmark case because Miranda did not know his right against self incrimination and the right to remain silent, so he confessed. The court ruled that a confession cannot be used as evidence unless the confession was voluntary, and not forced. If a person they arrest confesses, without being told their rights, then the confession does not count as evidence. This established the Miranda Rights/Miranda Warnings where the police must inform people they arrest with their rights, and if a person confesses without knowing his rights, then the confession does not count, and the confession only counts if it was voluntary and not forced. The Miranda Rights/Miranda Warnings are "you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?"

Could the government take private property for private use if the argument is that it would provide a public benefit?

No, the government cannot take private property for private use if the argument is that it would provide a public benefit. This is because the government can only take private property for the use of the public, and this is for the private use. Although it benefits the public, it is not for the public use. This is not allowed because it is being taken for private use, that benefits the public, but it is not for public use. This violates eminent domain.

What are some reasons to support or oppose trying juveniles in adult courts for serious crimes?

One reason to support trying juveniles in adult courts for serious crimes is that some people believe that the juvenile system is not equipped to deal with youth who commit serious crimes. One reason to oppose trying juveniles in adult courts for serious crimes is that young people's brains are still developing and they are less culpable for their actions than adults are. Also, juveniles cannot handle all that pressure to be tried in adult courts.

What provisions are made under the Fourth Amendment?

Some provisions that are made under the Fourth Amendment are protections from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant and a good reason. Also, the exclusionary rule.

In what ways does the 4th Amendment apply to modern technology?

The 4th Amendment applies to modern technology because our digital devices have a lot of information that we might want to keep private and searching through them without probable cause would be a violation of our 4th Amendment rights. In the case of Riley v. California, it says that digital data is not excluded from the 4th Amendment because it cannot be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer.

How does our democracy protect the rights of individuals suspected, accused, convicted, or acquitted of a crime?

The Constitution and Bill of Rights protect the rights of people suspected, accused, convicted, or acquitted of crimes with amendments 4-8. The criminal justice process protects the rights of the accused because it includes everything that happens to a person who commits a crime, from arrest through prosecution and conviction to release from prison. The government must convince a judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused committed the crime. There are safeties that ensure trials are fair and impartial. Some of these are the right to have a trial that takes place in public, the right to have an attorney, and the right not to testify against oneself, among others. If you were acquitted, you still keep all of your rights from before you were accused of committing a crime.

Why did the Supreme Court rule against TLO? What reasoning did the Court give to support their judgement?

The Court held that while the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to public school officials, they may conduct reasonable warrantless searches of students under their authority notwithstanding the probable cause standard that would normally apply to searches under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that the search of T.L.O.'s purse was reasonable under the circumstances. They said that school officials do not need to follow the strict standards the police have to meet during searches. They also said that the search of TLO was "reasonable". They said that school officials do not need a search warrant before searching a student who is under their supervision. The court said that school officials only need "reasonable grounds" before searching a student

How does the 8th Amendment apply to capital punishment?

The Eighth Amendment applies to capital punishment because the Eighth Amendment prevents "cruel and unusual punishments". The Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment (the death penalty) is constitutional. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed. This means that you cannot get the death penalty for robbing a bag of chips from the store. The 8th Amendment prevents "cruel and unusual punishments", and this applies to capital punishment because people who are mentally disabled or under the age of 18 cannot be given capital punishment (the death penalty).

What rights are made under the Fifth Amendment?

The Fifth Amendment guarantees to the suspect that they can't be tried for a serious crime unless a grand jury has decided there is enough evidence to justify a trial. A person found innocent may not be tried again for the same offense. They can't be forced to testify against himself or herself. People questioned by the police, standing trial, or testifying before a congressional hearing can refuse to answer questions if their answers would connect them with a crime. People cannot be forced to convict themselves. They can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. The Fifth Amendment also defines the government's right to eminent domain. The government must also pay a fair price for the property and must use it to benefit the public. 1. no self incrimination 2. no double jeopardy 3. right to a grand jury 4. Due process, right to a fair trial, and innocent until proven guilty 5. eminent domain

What laws regulate government surveillance in national security? What do these laws do?

The Fourth Amendment regulates government surveillance in national security. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, and this stops the government from coming into our homes and searching us illegally. The government needs a warrant, probable cause, or something needs to be in plain view for the government to search our property. The Patriot Act also was passed after 9/11 and it expanded the tools used to fight terrorism and use surveillance in order to fight terrorism and improved communication between law enforcement and intelligence agencies

What rights at trial are protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?

The Sixth Amendment protects the right to a jury and the right to an attorney. The Sixth Amendment provides a right to a speedy and public trial in all criminal cases. Without this, an innocent person could await trial for years. The Sixth Amendment provides people accused of crimes with the right to confront the witnesses against them and to ask them questions by way of cross-examination. Defendants also have the right to call their own witnesses, and to get a court order requiring witnesses to testify. The Fifth Amendment protects the freedom from self-incrimination means that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself in a criminal trial.

How does the criminal justice process protect the rights of the accused?

The criminal justice process protects the rights of the accused because it includes everything that happens to a person who commits a crime, from arrest through prosecution and conviction to release from prison. The government must convince a judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused committed the crime. There are safeties that ensure trials are fair and impartial. Some of these are the right to have a trial that takes place in public, the right to have an attorney, and the right not to testify against oneself, among others.

The Court has repeatedly held that the death penalty is not "cruel and unusual" under the 8th Amendment. Yet the legal canon also accepts the notion of "evolving standards of decency." Attempt to justify these two potentially contradictory ideas, stating your agreement or disagreement with the Court's ruling in this case.

The death penalty is not "cruel and unusual" because the circumstances in which a crime was committed may be huge enough to where the death penalty was necessary for the public safety or the crime was just too big. That being said, since the court has accepted the notion of "evolving standards of decency" it is entirely possible that there may come a day where the court decides that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" because times may change and people's opinions may change. The country, like every other person, changes its mind on things as time goes on.

How does the 5th Amendment apply to Miranda vs. Arizona? How was Miranda coerced?

The fifth amendment applies to Miranda v. Arizona because Miranda did not know his Fifth Amendment rights, which caused him to confess. He did not know his right to no self-incrimination. Since he did not know his right to no self-incrimination, he confessed. The court ruled that the confession cannot be used in trial unless the confession was voluntary. Miranda also did not have an attorney in the interrogation room to tell him he didn't have to talk. Miranda was coerced because we wasn't told his rights, which caused him to confess because he did not know his right to remain silent and his right to no self-incrimination. He also did not have a lawyer in the interrogation room. He did not know his fifth amendment rights which caused him to confess.

Why is the presumption of innocence an important protection in our criminal justice system? How does this effect the way a suspect is treated?

The presumption of innocence is an important protection in our criminal justice system because it prevents the accused from being guilty until proven innocent, which I think is much more difficult to prove. It is also important because the only way the accused can be proven guilty is if there is a "burden" of evidence that proves to them being guilty. They can only be proven guilty if there is beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The accused does not need to prove that he or she did not commit the crime. It is this way because the defendant's liberty, and in some cases life, are in jeopardy. This affects the way a suspect is treated because, in order to prove a defendant's guilt in a criminal trial, each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not need to prove that he or she did not commit the crime. The defendant does have the opportunity to respond to the government's claims and to introduce evidence that casts doubt on the government's claims.

Is there "equal justice under the law" for rich and poor defendants in this country? Explain. If not, what do you think needs to be done to ensure that all people receive "equal justice under the law?" Explain.

Yes, I believe that there is "equal justice under the law". This is because, in court, everyone is given the right to an attorney, and even though some attorneys may be better than others, they are still given an attorney, as required by law, and this applies to everyone. Also, everyone is given the right to a jury. This applies to everyone, by law, and everyone is treated fairly in court. The jury in court is supposed to be unbiased so that everyone in the jury has not pre-decided their ruling, and they have to hear everyone's cases, so that the ruling is fair, as required by law. Although there may be a disproportionate percentage of racial minorities in prisons, this does not mean that there is not equal justice under law. We do not know the circumstances in which the crime was committed, and we cannot confirm that there is not equal justice under just by the percentage of racial minorities in prison. I think the laws are written to give everyone equal justice under law. However, people with more money can hire very good attorneys, and people with not as much money won't be able to get as good of an attorney because they would be given public defenders. People with more money are more likely to win a case because they will have a more experienced attorney. I think something that needs to be done to ensure that all people receive "equal justice under the law" is that there could be more public defenders available that will have enough time to defend their clients. A more experienced public defender will have a better chance of winning a case for the defendant.