Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Research paper on plea-bargaining
Literature review on plea bargaining
Research paper on plea-bargaining
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Research paper on plea-bargaining
Were there any instances featured in the film where a plea deal was offered by the prosecution, but not accepted by the defendant, resulting in a significant prison term? If so, explain the case. Do you think the amount of time served in this instance would have been fewer years had the defendant accepted the plea deal? Explain your response. In the case of Patsy Kelly Jarret, she rejected a plea offer offered by the prosecution that resulted in a significant prison term. “In 1973, 23-year-old Kelly Jarrett, a North Carolina resident, drove to Utica, New York with a friend, Billy Ronald Kelly, for a summer-long vacation. It was only when the police showed up at her door three years later, Jarrett says, that she learned that during their New
York stay, her friend had robbed a gas station in a small town near Utica and had brutally murdered the gas station attendant, Paul David Hatch, a 17-year-old star athlete and high school graduate” (Frontline, The Plea, July 2014). Evidence against Jarret was weak and the prosecution offer 5-years- to 15 years for robbery, but she refused the offer. In March 1977, the jury found Jarrett guilty of two counts of murder and robbery, along with Billy Ronald Kelly.
Renee Heikamp, 19, and case worker from the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS), Angie Martin, were charged with criminal negligence resulting in the 1997 death of newborn baby, Jordan Heikamp. The charges were dropped shortly after Jordan’s death, due to a lack of evidence from the investigation of a 63-day inquest. (CBC, 2001). Renee Heikamp and her baby were residing at the Anduhyaun shelter that services Aboriginal women fleeing abuse during the time of his death. Jordan Heikamp had starved to death, weighing only 4 pounds, 4 ounces less than what he weighed at his pre-mature birth, in May 1997; a photograph shown to witnesses at the inquest revealed the corpse of the baby who was little more than a skeleton.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
When conducting research for my project, I came across a website that contained a few primary sources regarding the Salem Witch Trials. One of these primary sources was the photo of a legal document explaining the death warrant and reasons for execution of a woman named Bridget Bishop. Bishop was claimed to be a witch in Salem during the year 1692, and the document explaining her significance involving witchcraft resides in the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts. My thesis for this primary source is that the judge and jury believed they were seeking justice by executing Bishop, a woman whose death was truthfully based on her differences as a person rather than actual crimes she committed.
The court’s decision based on the treatment of young people in this case emphasizes on the concept of social justice, which means the fair allocation of wealth, resources and opportunity between members in a society. The appellant in this case, Louise Gosselin, was unemployed and under the age of 30. She challenged the Quebec Social Aid Act of 1984 on the basis that it violated section 7 of her security rights, section 15 of her equality rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 45 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. For the purpose of this essay, we shall explore the jurisprudence analysis of section 7 and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 states that everyone has the
Everybody had an opinion on what happened at the Ramsey household on December 25, 1996. Most people believed that the family is responsible for killing JonBenet. Ever since that day, the public has held the Ramsey family under a cloud of suspicion. The family did everything they could do to defend themselves. They believe that an intruder must have done it, but most of the public believes that the family should be held responsible for the killing. The main suspect that police keyed in on was the mother of JonBenet. The reason for the suspicion of the mother was the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey the day of the murder. In this 911 call, the mother seemed very suspicious. Patsy said “We have a kidnapping” ( McClish). “It seemed like she knew something she was not telling” (McClish 2001).
After looking over all of the evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case it is
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
“The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
For decades, we have been made to believe that criminals are people who have done harm to our society, violating the laws of the land, and don 't deserve a second chance. They should be locked away, and the keys should throw away. Unfortunately, today, our world is full of crimes and our system is getting overcrowded with criminals. However, with recent laws like the plea bargain proofs that there is hope and a way out to every situation. A plea bargain can be defined as negotiations during a criminal trial between the prosecutor and the defendant which result in a more lenient sentence than would have been recommended with the original charge (Farlex). Some would say that the use, or abuse, of the plea bargain, allows criminals
It was hard to decide if the manager of Sugarland should have been the one that made the decision, or if executive director Cynthia Hoye. Cynthia Hoye was the one in charge of the event, so she should have been the one to make the final decision. The manager of Sugarland was only asked to delay the concert, not to cancel it. The manager of Sugarland denied ever being asked to delay the concert.
In 1970 a woman named Norma McCorvey who took a secret identify of "Jane Roe," filed a law suit challenging the Texas laws that criminalized abortion. Roe vs. Wade eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. This case was described as a pregnant woman who at the time wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion 'performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions'; that she was unable to get a 'legal' abortion in Texas. McCorvey claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy.
The purpose of this case study is to investigate and bring new insight to situations and behaviors within an organization. Case studies are learning tools which utilize social science research to identify and resolve individual and organizational challenges (K. Mariama-Arthur Esq., 2015).