The case Graham v. Florida (No. 08-7412), which consists of the seventeen years old teenager Terrance Graham as the appellant and the Florida Supreme Court as the appellee, was decided under the Eighth Amendment by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the U.S. Supreme Court on May 17th, 2010.
Terrance Graham was sixteen years old when he first committed armed burglary in Florida and was sentenced to three years of probation by the Florida Court. A year later, Graham committed another crime of robbery before he turned to eighteen years old. Since it was within the prosecutor’s discretion whether to charge 16-and 17-year-olds as adults or juveniles for felony crimes under the Florida Law, the prosecutor elected to charge Graham as an adult. The Florida
…show more content…
Court argued that Graham had violated his probation and showed an “escalating pattern of criminal conduct” and could not be rehabilitated, and then recommended a sentence without parole for Graham for 45 years. Graham appealed his sentence and claimed that the decision of the court violated the Eighth Amendment which stated “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. He argued that the decision of the court was cruel and unusual punishment and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Graham referred to the juvenile death sentence which was abolished by the U.S.
Supreme Court from Roper v. Simmons (2005) while he appealed to the Supreme Court. In the prior case, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that sentencing a person to the death penalty for a crime committed before age 18 was a violation of the Eighth Amendment for the juveniles lacked maturity and other capabilities while they committed the crime and in the crime itself. And he argued that life without parole was really the same as the death sentence, which Roper prohibited for juveniles. So he argued the Florida Supreme Court violated the Eighth Amendment hand down the decision. However, the Florida Court believed that a life without parole sentence is not the same as the death penalty, and the crime Graham committed itself could not be overlooked. Also, the State Court believed that the Supreme Court should respect the rights and decision the State Court made toward Graham to set its own sentencing laws and judges’ decisions to determine the appropriate sentence. And finally, Justice Kennedy delivered the final decision of the Supreme Court after reviewing the current sentencing practices, which rarely involved sentencing juveniles without parole, that the decision the Florida Supreme Court made of not granting parole for a life sentence for Graham violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Also, it ruled that sentencing any juvenile to life in prison without parole is a non-homicide crime. Graham’s appeal was
affirmed. I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. A life sentence of 45 years is definitely too cruel for this juvenile for the crime of robbery he committed. And as how the Court looked at the case, it was even crueler to give a sentence without parole. Graham should’ve been granted the right to parole. The precedents of sentencing juveniles hardly excludes parole nowadays, so the case should be the same with Graham. Also, I think the goal of any U.S. Court is to educate juvenile criminals wisely instead of punishing them severely. Juvenile criminals lack maturity when they commit crimes, and the society and government should really give them a chance to achieve salvation and redemption, instead of making them feel desperate and hopeless wasting their juvenile time in prison for half a century.
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
.... Madison was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unusual punishment to Graham. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. Therefore Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
James Desmond Booth, who is presently 30, had received good grades all throughout all his years in school and had a good family life, after being adopted by his grandparents. He also played varsity basketball in his hometown, at New Smyrna Beach High School. His grandmother, Beulah Booth, stated that her grandson was also a good father to his daughter and infant son, while other family members suggested that he loved his young children and he continues to make contributions in their lives. It is peculiar that a man with these beginnings and familial connections went on to receive seven felony convictions, with some including “possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon” (Frederick 2014 p.1: Sept. 29, 2009). After sitting in on the current trial brought against Mr. Booth and taking notes, sociological theories of crime were utilized to help to interpret the previous actions of this particular man’s history of misconduct.
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
In the same year that Zimpfer was rejected, Palm Beach County filled only 4 percent of managerial positions with persons over 55 years of age and only 16 percent with persons over 39. Do these data indicate illegal discrimination using disparate impact theory? Should Zimpfer's lawyer use disparate impact theory for his claim of age discrimination?
Furman v. Georgia was a landmark case in the annals of American Law because it was the first time the Supreme Court turned to the controversial question of capital punishment. Capital punishment has always been a hotly debated issue in the United States. When this issue is coupled with the issue of racial discrimination, the matter becomes hotter than ever. And this is precisely what Furman v. Georgia was all about: a black man convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
A court case that made it to the Supreme Court was the case of Kevin Nigel Stanford, who was convicted in 1981 of a murder committed in Kentucky when he was 17 years and 4 months old. Stanford and an accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized a 20-year-old woman during the robbery of a gas station where she worked. The men took her to a wooded area, and Stanford shot her straight in the face, then in the back of the head, to prevent her from testifying against him. Stanford's case first came to the Supreme Court in 1989. In the decision Stanford vs. Kentucky, a narrow Supreme Court majority ruled the execution of death row inmates who killed before they were 18 was not then cruel and unusual punishment, following the 8th amendment of the Constitution.
In the case Florida Vs. Royer two narcotic officers approached Royer for a quick discussion, letting Royer know that they are officers. Royer was not told if he was going to be arrested or aware that he would be searched. The two detectives walked with Royer into a larger storage room and began searching he’s property without having sufficient facts to lead the officers into a search and seize operation. The two detectives did not fit in any of the reasoning for probable cause, for starters First hand knowledge requires facts such as finger printing, DNA, evidence in which indicates the person is committing a criminal act. The detectives were not told by a reliable source in which Royer was in fact carrying marijuana. Making an arrest without
“Criminal Law and Procedure -Eighth Amendment- Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences: Graham v. Florida” (2009) Harvard Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
Fair sentencing of youth state's “Children sentenced to life in prison without parole are often the most vulnerable members of our society” The Gail Garinger article, “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences” discusses about children deserving a second opportunity. According to Garinger, children should receive a second chance and help so they could be mentally stable. According to Justice Elena Kagan she discusses that Juveniles without parole affects the way he develops throughout his life time. I agree with the majority decision that Juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison and that they should be given a second chance because they deserve to fix their mistakes.
In June 2012, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life in prison. In July 2014, in California, the death penalty was removed. The 8th amendment banned the use of cruel or punishments. The reason why this rule has been imposed or banned is because many believe that they deserve a second chance. There are many reasons why juveniles commit crimes such as murder.
By the mid-1960s, however, public opposition to the death penalty had reached an all-time high, and the practice was banned by the Supreme Court in the 1972 Furman v. Georgia(Furman) decision. The Court held that state death penalty statutes were devoid of any standards, and that they therefore gave too much discretion to individual judges and juries to exact the ultimate punishment. Soon after the Furman decision, states began passing new laws that provided sentencing guidelines for juries. The Supreme Court was given another opportunity to address the issue of capital punishment in 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, and it ruled that "the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution." Since this ruling, capital punishment rates have grown exponentially in the United States.