As A Journalist, You Are Constantly Writing Stories To Get P

As A Journalist You Are Constantly Writing Stories To Get Peoples At

As a journalist, you are constantly writing stories to get people’s attention. Your boss recently asked you to take things to the political sector. You have been tasked to write an article to address the four amendments that you feel have the most significance on the criminal justice system. You must include an outline of one landmark case to each of the amendments you choose to write about. Find two with which you agree and explain why the ruling is solid from a legal reasoning perspective. Find two with which you would have ruled opposite of that decision rendered by the Court. Be sure to offer a legal rationale or reasoning (no opinion) for why the Court got it wrong. Make sure that these rulings are based on a legal principle and not the facts of the case. Example: Roe v. Wade was not an abortion case, it was about privacy, and the fact that there was a pregnancy is completely secondary. In reality, the pregnant woman, Norma McCorvey, who brought Roe, could not possibly have benefited from the case because she had given birth long before the case arrived in the U.S. Supreme Court. Your article must be a minimum of two pages in length.

Paper For Above instruction

The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights encompasses several amendments that are instrumental in shaping the criminal justice system. Among these, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments stand out for their profound influence on law enforcement practices, legal protections, and judicial procedures. In this article, I will examine these four amendments, analyze landmark cases associated with each, and provide a balanced perspective by discussing two rulings I agree with and two I would oppose based on legal principles.

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring law enforcement to have probable cause and a warrant to conduct searches. One landmark case interpreting this amendment is Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which established the exclusionary rule at the state level, preventing evidence obtained unlawfully from being used in court. The Court held that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible, reinforcing the protection against illegal searches.

I agree with the Court’s ruling in Mapp v. Ohio because it upholds the fundamental principle that the government must follow constitutional procedures, thereby deterring illegal searches and protecting individual privacy rights. The legal rationale emphasizes the importance of the rule of law and judicial integrity in maintaining constitutional protections.

However, I would oppose the Court’s decision in Georgia v. Randolph (2006), which allowed police to enter a home without a warrant if one occupant consents, even if another occupant objects. From a legal perspective, this ruling can be challenged because it undermines the privacy rights of non-consenting residents, potentially leading to unconstitutional searches. The Court’s reasoning, prioritizing consensual entry over individual privacy rights, conflicts with the core principles of the Fourth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment safeguards individuals from self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and mandates due process. The landmark case Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is critical here, establishing that suspects must be informed of their rights before interrogation, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. This ruling ensures that confessions are voluntary and that individuals are aware of their rights.

I agree with the Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona because it reinforces the fairness of the criminal process and prevents coerced confessions, aligning with the legal principle that individuals must be protected against self-incrimination and government overreach.

Conversely, I would oppose the ruling in United States v. Nixon (1974), where the Court limited executive privilege, compelling President Nixon to release tapes related to Watergate. While I recognize the importance of accountability, from a legal standpoint, the separation of powers and executive privilege are fundamental constitutional principles. Overruling Nixon’s claim could open the door to unchecked executive influence, threatening constitutional checks and balances.

The Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to a speedy trial. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) is a landmark case where the Court ruled that states must provide counsel to defendants who cannot afford it, ensuring fairness in criminal proceedings.

I agree with this ruling because it supports the legal principle that justice must be accessible and equitable, regardless of a defendant’s financial status.

However, I would oppose the decision in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), which prohibits racial discrimination in jury selection. While the Court’s intent is to promote racial equality, some argue that the decision overly restricts trial judges’ ability to assess juror credibility and consider peremptory challenges, potentially impacting procedural fairness.

The Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Court held that the death penalty, as applied at the time, was arbitrary and capricious, violating Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

I agree with the Court’s decision because it emphasizes the necessity of consistent and fair punishment standards, preventing arbitrary executions.

However, I would disagree with the ruling in Coker v. Georgia (1977), where the Court held that the death penalty for rape was unconstitutional. From a legal standpoint, some argue that the Eighth Amendment should allow capital punishment in cases of heinous crimes such as rape, considering the severity and societal impact.

Conclusion

The amendments discussed—Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth—are central to safeguarding individual rights and ensuring just legal procedures. Landmark cases like Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Furman v. Georgia showcase the pivotal role these amendments play in shaping criminal justice. While I support some rulings based on foundational legal principles, I also recognize areas where judicial decisions could be reexamined to better uphold constitutional safeguards. Emphasizing adherence to these principles is vital for a fair and equitable justice system.

References

• Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
• Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
• Maranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
• Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).
• Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
• Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).
• Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
• Legal Principles in Criminal Justice, Smith & Young (2020).