The case of Bowers V. Hardwick in 1986 is considered a landmark case since it was the day that someone first challenged the anti-sodomy laws. The officer that was sent to arrest Michael Hardwick on the charges for public drinking reported that he saw Hardwick and his partner committing sodomy (Thornton, 1986). The district attorney did not take the case before the grand jury, and hence the charges were dropped. However, the case was pursued later, and Hardwick was the plaintiff against Michael Bowers, who was the attorney general (Thomas, 1993). It was during this case that Hardwick challenged the anti-sodomy law since it went against one's right to privacy which was based on the court decision in 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut. At the time, many states around the country had laws banning sodomy even though there had been no such case in the privacy of one's home. However, with that challenge, the case was dismissed.
Topic 6:
The 2003 Lawrence V. Texas case is significant to gay people. This is because it was during this case that the court struck down a statute in Texas that prohibited homosexuals from engaging in individual private sexual acts such as anal sex (Wardenski, 2004). As a result, the court ruled that the law on privacy protected gay sex as long as both parties’ consent to it. By doing this, the court overturned its 1986 ruling on Hardwick V which was a controversial case. Bowers even though it broke the constitutional right on equal rights of protection. In both cases, the defendants argued based on the constitutional law on privacy (Eskridge, 2004). The supreme court in Texas ruled following the anti-sodomy laws that were passed during the Bowers case. As a result, the defendants had to appeal, after which the supreme court granted certiorari and struck down the state statutes that prohibited sodomy.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Topic 7:
Philosophically, two general theories explain why offenders should be punished. These are; utilitarian and retributive theories. Utilitarian philosophy explains that punishment is necessary for offenders since discourages future offences and crimes (Banks, 2018). On the other hand, the retributive theory seeks to clarify that offenders are punished because they deserve to be punished. Whereas the utilitarian approach bases its reason for punishment on the social good of the society, the retributive theory bases its reason for punishment on the transgression or the crime itself (Garland, 1991). According to the retributivist rationale, an insane person should not be punished. However, any sane person can make rational decisions and hence should be punished for their crime. Besides, the utilitarian theory states that the amount of punishment an offender receives must be equal to his crime. Therefore, a murderer should be punished with a life sentence or even death. The utilitarian theory thus explains the rationale for the death penalty.
Topic 7:
The supreme court believes that the state should not give itself the right to kill, especially with ceremony and premeditation in the name of its people. Besides, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that the death penalty should be minimal since it is an unusual punishment that inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel punishment. Moreover, it violates one's equal rights to protection under the law (Mackenzie, 2001). Also, capital punishment is inconsistent with the fundamental values of the state's democratic system, not to mention the fact that very many innocent people have been given a death penalty in the past. Moreover, in some cases, punishment may be given but does not result in a reduction of the crime (Girelli, 2019). Hence, it is inhumane to sentence someone to death for nothing since it has no public safety benefit, and it is a waste of taxpayer funds. In some cases, in the past, it has also been found that the death penalty is an unfair judgement based on the amount of money one has and his attorney.
References
Banks, C. (2018). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice . Sage Publications.
Eskridge Jr, W. N. (2004). United States: Lawrence v. Texas and the imperative of comparative constitutionalism. International Journal of Constitutional Law , 2 (3), 555-560.
Garland, D. (1991). Sociological perspectives on punishment. Crime and Justice , 14 , 115-165.
Girelli, G. (2019). The Death Penalty for Drug Offences.
Mackenzie, D. L. (2001). Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the Future . University of Maryland, College Park, Md., Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Evaluation Research Group.
Thomas, K. (1993). The Eclipse of Reason: A Rhetorical Reading of Bowers v. Hardwick. Virginia Law Review , 1805-1832.
Thornton, J. R. (1986). Bowers v. Hardwick: An Incomplete Constitutional Analysis. NCL, Rev. , 65 , 1100.
Wardenski, J. J. (2004). A minor exception: The impact of Lawrence v. Texas on LGBT youth. J. Crim. L. & Criminology , 95 , 1363.
