More handpicked essays just for you.
Correlation between mental illness and crime
Is there a link between mental health and crime
Relationship between mental illness and violent crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Ernesto Miranda grew up not finishing high school. He didn’t finish the 9th grade, and he decided to drop out of school during that year. He also had a criminal record and had pronounced sexual fantasies after dropping out of high school. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix in 1963. He had raped an 18 yr. girl who was mildly mentally handicapped in March of 1963. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. When he was found and arrested, and he was not told of his rights before interrogation. After two hours of interrogation, the cops and detectives had a written confession from Miranda that he did do the crimes that he was acquitted for. Miranda also had a history mental instability, and had no counsel at the time of the …show more content…
New York case, a suspect named Vignera was picked up by the New York police in which Vignera was connected to a robbery of a dress shop that happened three days before Vignera was picked up. He was taken to several precincts and police headquarters before going to trial. He first went to the 17th Detective Squad Headquarters, then the 66th Detective Squad. At the 66th Detective Squad, he orally admitted to the robbery and was arrested formally. He later went to the the 70th Precinct and was questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a court reporter, who typed the questions and answers from the questioning. When the trial began, the reporter gave out the transcript of the questioning to the jury and along with the oral confession. Vignera was found guilty of robbery of the first degree and was sentenced to 30-60 years in prison. The conviction was affirmed without the opinion of the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals ( United States Courts, …show more content…
United States, Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two robberies in Kansas City and taken to one of the local police stations. The FBI received a report that Westover was wanted for a felony charge in California. Westover was interrogated on the night of the arrest and even the next morning. The FBI interrogated Westover at the station. The FBI interrogated for two and a half hours and got two separate confessions prepared by an FBI agent for the two robberies in California. Westover was convicted of the two robberies in California and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on each count. The case was was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ( United States Courts,
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
Conversations recorded by Bugs were enough to indict him on RICO charges once again; however, the final decision to prosecute came when Sammy Gravanno, Gotti’s consigliore, struck a deal and agreed to testify against him. With Gravanno’s testimony and the taped evidence, the prosecution’s case was irrefutable. After deliberating for only 14 hours, the jury found Gotti guilty on all counts (Mustain & Capeci, 1988). Assistant director of the FBI’s New York branch, James M. Fox, is documented in saying, “The don is covered with Velcro and every charge stuck” (FBI, 2007).
In addition, Assef raped Hassan at the beginning of the novel and later presumably rapes or sexually abuses Sohrab. Assef’s rape of Sohrab may be inferred when Sohrab says to Amir, “I’m so dirty and full of sin..they did things…the bad man and the other two…they did things…did things to me”
Fathers have a remarkable influence on their children. Every son looks up to their dad, and dreams of becoming a man just like them. In the novel Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini, Ali and Baba play a tremendous role in their sons lives: Hassan and Amir. Both boys strive to become the man their father is, and would go to any measures just to mirror their fathers. All children need a father figure in their lives, and even though Ali and Baba raised their children differently, they were both loved unconditionally.
Amir takes advantage of Hasan because he is a Hazara and his servant. “When it comes to words Hassan is an imbecile” (29). This is when Amir first starts to belittle Hassan knowing that he is a Hazara therefore illiterate. Instead of helping his friend, Amir chooses to instead downplay him and mock Hassan. “What would you do if I hit you with this?” (92). Amir pelting Hassan with the pomegranate after he asks this question continues his betrayal because Amir knew Hassan would not do anything about it. “A loyal Hazara. Loyal as a dog” (72). Assef of all people acknowledged that Hassan was loyal to Amir. This in some ways makes Amir as disgusting as Assef but it there are worse instances of betrayal by Amir.
Assef is the character responsible for Amir’s guilt. He is the one who raped Hassan and if he did not, the story would be changed drastically. He is the source of evil in the novel. The sociopathic qualities he demonstrates are very evident. Assef if very different from the other characters in the sense that he never feels guilt and has no conscious. Baba and Amir both are able to redeem themselves but Assef has no remorse after his actions. Assef believes that “Afghanistan is the land of Pashtuns … we are the true Afghans, the pure Afghans, not this Flat-nose here. His people pollute our homeland.”(40) Assef bullies Hazara’s such as Hassan as he believes people like him should not be in Afghanistan. His actions are very rude and he never apologizes
Since it was impossible to tell if he knew his rights, Ernesto Miranda solidified the 5th amendment when his court conviction was over-turned in 1966 (McBride)”, which has effected every aspect of arrest ever since, by establishing rights of the accused and responsibilities of law enforcement officers (McBride). Miranda was arrested early march 3rd 1963. (McBride)” He was found guilty of rape and kidnapping (McBride). The women he had allegedly raped, said she was a virgin, which was disproved in trial (1966). The main piece of evidence was Miranda’s verbal and written confessions (McBride). The confessions were obtained during a 3-hour interrogation in which Miranda had no communication with an attorney (McBride). During this interrogation he was also falsely told he had been positively identified (1966). His conviction was over-turned in 1966 (McBride). The conviction was overturned when the Supreme Court ruled that his confession was obtained unconstitutionally (McBride). Something needed to change.
To show an unbiased and educated examination of the five cases involving questionable interrogations, I will give information on the crime that occurred, the problems with the interrogations and other evidence, who is at fault for problems within the case, how the defendant was cleared (if he was), and the compensation and future changes that were a direct response to these cases provided that they occurred or are in the process of occurring. The five cases that I will examine involve the accused: George Allen, Hunter Johnson, Peter Reilly, Michael Crowe, and Reggie Clemons. Each case is significantly different yet showcases many acts of injustice within the justice system.
Miranda came about in 1966, when a 23-year-old, name Miranda, was arrested and transported from his home to the police station for questioning in connections with a kidnapping and a rape case. Miranda was kind of poor and uneducated. At the station the police questioned him for two hours. After this two hours of questioning the police obtained a written confession that in turn was used in court against him. Miranda was undoubtedly found guilty.
Two police officers began interrogating him, and after two hours later the police officers came out with a written confession signed by Mr. Miranda. On the top of the confession was a paragraph that stated, “that the confession was made voluntarily, without threats or promises of immunity and "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." Once at the trial the officers presented this evidence to the judge. With this explicit evidence the judge found Miranda guilty of kidnapping and raping. He was sentenced to jail from 20 to 30 years on each account. The Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that his constitutional rights were not violated, and also emphasized that Miranda never requested a counsel during his interrogation.
This is where, Chief Justice Earl Warren established guidelines about what is and what is not permissible in the interrogation room. With Miranda’s conviction overturned, he was then retried in a court of law in a trial that lasted from February 15-March 1, 1967. But, this time, it was Miranda that basically brought all the guilt on himself. He had basically confessed to his common law wife about the rape. His wife went to officials prior to the trial and told them of the conversation that had took place between she and Miranda. It was decided that a common law wife can testify against her common law husband. Once again, Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to 20 – 30 years of jail
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
The case of Marbury v. Madison centers on a case brought before the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Shortly after Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the election of 1800, Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams sought to fill these new vacancies with people who had Federalist backgrounds. To accomplish this, he used the powers granted under the Organic Act to issue appointments to 42 justices of the peace and 16 circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. Adams signed the appointments on his last day in office and they were subsequently sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall. However, many of the appointments were not delivered before Adams left office and Jefferson ordered the deliveries stopped when he took charge. Marbury was one of Adams’ appointees for justice of the peace. Marbury brought a case before the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the appointment.
Throughout Khaled Hosseini’s novel The Kite Runner, Hosseini depicts a character unlike any other, Baba. Baba is portrayed throughout the novel as a tough man who is always willing to help someone in need. Baba seems to love and care for everyone in the novel except his son, Amir. Amir is always trying to pursue eminence in Baba’s eye and give Baba a reason not to loathe him. Amir thought Baba hated him because when Amir was born, it killed his mother, Baba’s “princess.” Baba’s transformation throughout the novel is very clear as he transforms from a father who despises his son, to accepting his son and finally being a true father to Amir.
I think that you bring up a valid point about Baba not referring to Ali as a friend, but this does not affect their relationship as greatly as Amir's decision to not help Hassan. I also think that Baba and Ali's relationship is different from Amir and Hassan's, in the sense that Amir falsely accuses the Hassan of theft, whereas Baba has so much trust in Ali and Hassan that he wants them to stay, even after Hassan agrees to stealing, to protect Amir. Amir realizes that his Hassan does this because he was aware that Baba would believe him if he told Baba the truth that he did not steal anything, which would consequently result in Amir being scolded or punished by Baba.