Background:
Christopher Simmons planned and executed a plot to murder an older lady. He was 17 years old and sentenced to death. However, when Atkins v. Virginia was being reviewed (over the issue of giving the death penalty to the mentally ill), he brought up the case again for minors saying that the national opinion had changed and that the majority of Americans were opposed to the execution of minors.
Issue:
Does the 8th Amendment, by way of the 14th Amendment, declare that the execution of minors is unconstitutional?
Decision:
5-4
The Court ruled that giving the death penalty to minors is in violation of the 8th Amendment in that it is cruel and unusual. They said it was a disproportionate punishment for minors.
M - Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg
C - Stevens
D - Scalia, O'Connor, Thomas, Rehnquist
Opinion:
I agree with the Court's decision that the execution of minors is cruel and unusual because I believe it doesn't pass the four prongs. I think giving the death penalty, especially to a minor, is degrading to human dignity because it's basically telling you that "you're not fit to live in our society - we want you to die." In addition, it is vastly rejected throughout society because 'minors' includes not only 17 year olds, but also toddlers and elementary school kids. Because executing minors doesn't pass all of the prongs (because it for sure doesn't pass two of them), it is deemed a cruel and unusual punishment.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Kyllo v. United States (2001)
Backround:
There was suspicion that Danny Kyllo was growning marijuana in his house. To gather more information, the government flew a thermal-imaging device over his house to detect high-intensity heat spots that are commonly caused by the heat lamps used to grow marijuana. The imaging showed that there were high-intensity spots, and the government proceeded to get a warrant to search Kyllo's house. Through the search, they found that he indeed was growing marijuana and was federally charged.
Issue:
Is it a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment right to use an air-bound thermal-imaging device to detect amounts of heat radiating from a person's house?
Decision:
5-4
The Court decided that the means by which the information was obtained was an unwarranted 'search' and was therefore against Kyllo's Fourth Amendment rights.
M - Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer
D - Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy
Opinion:
I completely agree with the Court's decision. The use of flying the thermal-imaging device over his house is not a 'plain sight' action; it's not something that's in the general public use, and therefore is more intrusive on a person's privacy, thus requiring a warrant. Along with this idea, the fact that the government was using this device "to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion" further demands that a warrant should've been issued beforehand. A person can't just tell if an unsusal amount of heat is radiating from a home without either using a special device or going into the home, so any further exploration other than simply using something that is in general public use constitutes as a 'search'.
There was suspicion that Danny Kyllo was growning marijuana in his house. To gather more information, the government flew a thermal-imaging device over his house to detect high-intensity heat spots that are commonly caused by the heat lamps used to grow marijuana. The imaging showed that there were high-intensity spots, and the government proceeded to get a warrant to search Kyllo's house. Through the search, they found that he indeed was growing marijuana and was federally charged.
Issue:
Is it a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment right to use an air-bound thermal-imaging device to detect amounts of heat radiating from a person's house?
Decision:
5-4
The Court decided that the means by which the information was obtained was an unwarranted 'search' and was therefore against Kyllo's Fourth Amendment rights.
M - Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer
D - Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy
Opinion:
I completely agree with the Court's decision. The use of flying the thermal-imaging device over his house is not a 'plain sight' action; it's not something that's in the general public use, and therefore is more intrusive on a person's privacy, thus requiring a warrant. Along with this idea, the fact that the government was using this device "to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion" further demands that a warrant should've been issued beforehand. A person can't just tell if an unsusal amount of heat is radiating from a home without either using a special device or going into the home, so any further exploration other than simply using something that is in general public use constitutes as a 'search'.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Backround:
The District of Columbia passed legislaton that required people who owned handguns to store them unloaded and disassembled. Private gun-owners opposed this new legislation, saying that it infringed on their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The D.C. federal trial court, however, said that the Second Amendment strictly applies to militias only, and not to people who wish to privately own handguns.
Issue:
Does a law requiring handguns to be kept unloaded and disassembled violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who want to privately own a handgun, who are not part of a militia?
Decision:
5-4
The Court decided that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess firearms, even if they are not part of a militia, and to use them for self-defense and protection.
M - Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
D - Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg
Opinion:
Some of the Court's basis for the decision came from the text of the Second Amendment, stating that the amendment allows individuals the right to bear arms. However, I disagee in that the beginning clause states, "A well regualted militia being necessary to the security of a free State". The Amendment only then proceeds to say, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The way I see it, that beginning clause sets the circumstances for when the people are allowed to keep and bear their arms. Thus, I disagree with the Court's general ruling.
However, if I were to be persuaded to accept that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to privately keep and bear arms, then I would fully agree with the Court in that it is unlawful to pass legislation requiring the handgun to be kept disassembled, because of practicality. Yet I do believe the handgun should be kept locked up and unloaded, to prevent accidents or impulsive activity, but the disassembled requirement is pushing it too far.
The District of Columbia passed legislaton that required people who owned handguns to store them unloaded and disassembled. Private gun-owners opposed this new legislation, saying that it infringed on their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The D.C. federal trial court, however, said that the Second Amendment strictly applies to militias only, and not to people who wish to privately own handguns.
Issue:
Does a law requiring handguns to be kept unloaded and disassembled violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who want to privately own a handgun, who are not part of a militia?
Decision:
5-4
The Court decided that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess firearms, even if they are not part of a militia, and to use them for self-defense and protection.
M - Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
D - Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg
Opinion:
Some of the Court's basis for the decision came from the text of the Second Amendment, stating that the amendment allows individuals the right to bear arms. However, I disagee in that the beginning clause states, "A well regualted militia being necessary to the security of a free State". The Amendment only then proceeds to say, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The way I see it, that beginning clause sets the circumstances for when the people are allowed to keep and bear their arms. Thus, I disagree with the Court's general ruling.
However, if I were to be persuaded to accept that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to privately keep and bear arms, then I would fully agree with the Court in that it is unlawful to pass legislation requiring the handgun to be kept disassembled, because of practicality. Yet I do believe the handgun should be kept locked up and unloaded, to prevent accidents or impulsive activity, but the disassembled requirement is pushing it too far.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)