Introduction
The government implements legislation that is purposed to maintain order within the country, and also ensure safety to the civilians, their rights are protected from violation of either fellow citizens or the government. On the other hand, implementation of laws ensures that the government is in a position to monitor and control the events taking place whether civilians or government personnel perpetrate them. The criminal constitution is the outlined amendments that are geared towards protecting suspects and criminals from all forms of harassment, or entirely the violation of their rights.
Mapp v. Ohio
This was a case of Dollree Mapp and the State of Ohio that was argued in 1961. Being the appellant, Mapp was convicted for being in possession of obscene photos after the police were in search of a bomber whom the police believed that Mapp was secretly hiding. The search was conducted against the will of Mapp and without a warrant making it the reason for her to seek an appeal from the Supreme Court. In consideration of the Fourth Amendment that protects suspects and criminal from any form of unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, the police in charge are required to first get a warrant from the courts before making any searches in the properties of the criminals in question.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Robinson v. California
Under this case, Robinson who was the appellant was accused of addiction and use of and convicted with a sentence of at least three months in jail. According to the Eighth Amendment in collaboration of the Fourteenth Amendment, the jury ruled in favor of the appellant because the constitution requires that the sentences and punishments allocated to the convicted individuals must most be cruel but fair and just (US Courts, n.d). Furthermore, in reference to State Action clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the state is not in a prohibited from making laws that deny the citizen immunities. In this case, the jury was not in a position sentence Robinson to 90 days imprisonment because of the habit and use of narcotics. While it may not be a healthy habit, the conviction was violating his right as a citizen of the American nation.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon was arrested, tried and jailed for breaking into a bar. During the trial, he could not be in a position to get an advocate probably because of financial reasons. He requested the judge to get one for him, but he refused. As a result, he defended himself in court but was found guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment. During his tenure in the jail, Gideon studied law from the prison library and identified that the judge and court violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment. Consequently, he appealed and the Supreme Court accepted to hear his case which was later ruled in his favor. According to the Sixth Amendment, the constitution affirm a criminal and guarantees them the right to defendants, a fair public trial without delay, and the right to identify one’s accusers, the evidence, and charges against them.
Miranda v. Arizona
A Mexican immigrant, Ernesto Miranda was arrested because a woman identified him in a queue and accused him of kidnap and rape. During the questioning by police, he confesses to being guilty of the crimes leading to conviction and sentence to between twenty to thirty years in prison because the police used his confession as evidence against him. The attorney to Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court since it was evident that the police had not informed Miranda of his rights under the Fifth Amendment that protected him from self- incrimination. Moreover, the police did not inform him of his right to an attorney as highlighted in the Sixth Amendment. It is Miranda’s appeal to the Supreme Court that initiated the ‘Miranda Rights’ where the police in the process of arresting a suspect or criminal read their rights to them.
Johnson v. Avery
The petitioner Johnson was serving a life sentence because of violating the rules of the prison that require inmates live independently without supporting the other in any way or form. Moreover, in case of false incarceration due to innocence, the prisoner is expected to write their complaints about purposes of seeking a hearing. Following these outlined rules; Johnson appealed seeking relief from the confinement in the maximum security building that he was taken to after violating some of the rules. This case highlights the writ of habeas corpus where inmates have a right to report incidences of unlawful detentions and request for custody from the court (Johnson v. Avery, 1968).
Furman v. Georgia
Furman was convicted of murder after his gun went off and killed a resident of a home he was burglarizing. He was fleeing away, and he tripped and fell when the gun went off. Furman was sentenced to death. On the other hand, two more death penalties were decided along with his and they included Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. The other incorporated cases were of respectively death, rape and murder convictions. The case violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment which prohibit cruel punishment that was also unusual and a violation of the constitution. Despite the controversy over the fact, the court was forced to rethink of the statutes that were concerned with the death penalty.
Writ of Habeas Corpus
About the case of Johnson v. Avery, prisoners have a right to appeal for leniency in case they feel oppressed in any way in the prison. Like in the case of Johnson, he was seeking to be removed from the maximum prison section probably because of the poor conditions and incarceration in locked room rooms. Moreover, while prisons are supposed to be correctional places for the criminals, they have a right to safety and protection while in prison. Many times inmates seek a writ of habeas corpus especially when they are imprisoned without a trial. On the other hand, they can seek a writ of habeas corpus in cases where they are secluded from the rest of the inmates.
Conclusion
Different factors determine the way the jury can decide a case because of the existence and outline of the constitution. Following the different amendments, despite the evidence provided and the confessions of witnesses or the accused, the court will have to adhere to all the criminal constitution and legislation for purposes of making the right and just decisions. On the other hand, it is advisable for citizens to be aware of their rights to be sure that not even the government or senior people in authority violate them. It is easier for an individual to appeal with the full information of what is expected of them when they are informed of the constitution and their rights. Furthermore, prisoners too have the right to safety, protection and correctional measures or punishment that are not cruel and oppressive. In case of incidences that do not meet the requirements of the constitution concerning inmates, they have a right to forward a writ of habeas corpus to ensure that they are not denied their rights even while in prison.
References
Johnson v. Avery, 40 (District Court November 14, 1968).
Mapp v. Ohio. (1961). Oyez . Retrieved November 17, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236
US Courts. (n.d.). Supreme Court Landmarks . Retrieved November 17, 2017, from United States Courts: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks
