Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay over the death penalty and the 8th amendment
Capital punishment history
Capital punishment history
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay over the death penalty and the 8th amendment
Sometimes in life people are not given their rights, the rights that are supposed to be given fairly to them under all circumstances. Although the rights of the people are extremely important in some cases, people tend to change them. The Ford v. Wainwright case is a great example of this it shows even the government can sometimes break rules just to get their point across. This case shows many different ways of how things can be broken down into something it is not, this case shows the importance of how things really get handled behind closed doors of the government. “Ford’s” case was not properly handled because the court system decided to go against the eighth amendment, which made this case unfair. In the case Ford v. Wainwright the court chose to side with Wainwright. Wainwright won this case since the courts felt the need to go against the eighth amendment since the amendment was not set in stone according to them. Yes, Ford was insane he shot the cop and must have not been held up to it or at the most being executed according to the eighth amendment. Was executing Ford a slightly over the top existence that he was insane? Although ford died while awaiting his execution he was still going to be executed, he still lost the case. Although Ford was convicted from killing a cop the detail that he was insane still doesn’t change so should the amendment? Ford v. Wainwright is historically important for the reason that it shows the concept the insane can really be executed, also that although there are rules and regulations they can be broken by people without any sort of power or people with more power than others. Although things are set for everyone to follow some people break those to break other people down. The amendments ar... ... middle of paper ... ...ot follow the rules because they had the power to do so. Works Cited "Ford v. Wainwright - 477 U.S. 399 (1986)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. JUSTIA US Supreme Court, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014 "Ford v. Wainwright | Capital Punishment in Context." Ford v. Wainwright | Capital Punishment in Context. Capital Punishment in Contex, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014 "FindLaw | Cases and Codes." FindLaw | Cases and Codes. FINDLAW, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014 "FORD v. WAINWRIGHT." Ford v. Wainwright. Chicago-kent College of Law, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. "Ford v. Wainwright." Http://www.apa.org. American Psycological Association, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014 "Ford v. Wainwright." LII / Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. "The Invigorated Mind." : The Execution of the Insane: Ford v. Wainwright (1986). The Invigorated Mind, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
Cozzens, Lisa. "Plessy v. Ferguson." After the Civil War:. N.p., 17 Sept. 1999. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
Interpretation of the Eighth Amendment-Rummel, Solem and The Venerable Case of Weems v. United States. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1984:789. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2886&context=dlj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2886%2526context%253Ddlj%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm0U6qTJJcBT1EoWmQVHDXIojJgBHw%26oi%3Dscholarr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2886%26context%3Ddlj%22
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Texas v. White. Cornell University Law School Supreme Court Collection, 1850. Web. 03 Dec. 2009.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
"Stop and Frisk." Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 9. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 391-392. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
Since Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s death penalty due to infrequencies and the randomness of the imposition of the death penalty. (Mandery, 2012, p.135). The two justices who switched sides between the Furman case and the Gregg case, both expressed mayor concern in Furman with the infrequency and randomness with which juries imposed the death penalty. “For Justice Potter Stewart, the arbitrariness was a matter of fairness. For Justice Byron White, the concern was utilitarian a randomly and infrequently imposed death penalty could not possibly deter” (Mandery, 2012, p.135), they both expressed similar concerns about the apparent arbitrariness with which death sentences were imposed under the existing law, each found the unpredictability of the original statute fatal, it seems only fair to ask whether the revised Georgia statute has created greater rationality. (Mandery, 2012, p.135) The Supreme Court realized that the process in which defendants were being persecuted was not based a fairness practices; it was administrated in a different way by different judges, juries, prosecutors, etc. The Supreme Court found only how the death penalty was applied was cruel and unusual; it was too uneven and inconsistent. As a result of the 1972 Furman decision, hundreds of inmates on death row had their sentences commuted to life, and a significant number of those inmates have now been
State V. Fisher. Wisconsin Supreme Court. 17 May 2006. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 04 May 2014. .
The final clause of the first section of the fourteenth amendment explains, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 2 The 1976 ruling of Gregg v....
The United States of America has debated the topic of whether the rights of the majority should outweigh the rights of the minority from the time before the nation was formed. The idea of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness was placed in the Declaration of Independence because these ideals were what the colonies based their decision to part from Great Britain on. This idealism carried on into the creation of the Constitution and many of the laws that followed. This is evident throughout the United States’ history with specific events such as the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, Brown v. Board of Education decision, and the Japanese-American Relocation during World War II. In more current events, the Patriot Act must be considered.
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
As the case in Illinois clearly demonstrates, concerns about the fundamental discrepancy between a government's authority and what that government's authority guarantees are still being resolved. Cases like Tinker still have meaning and relevance to the situations of today, but at the same time, the lesson of Slotterback and innumerable other cases is that precedent can be defied, that every new generation requires a new interpretation of the provisions and guarantees made in grand terms vague enough to allow just such reinterpretation. History shows that censorship can be unfolded into either prior restraint or public forum, the approach from liberty or the approach from authority. Judicial sympathies have swung from one to the other with some regularity. With an issue as contentious as this, we can safely expect they will continue to do so.
"Romer v. Evans." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437703853.html