Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Essay Paper Assignment #3 The essay assignment options below concern content from the third parts of our course, concerning - School Writers

Essay Paper Assignment #3 The essay assignment options below concern content from the third parts of our course, concerning

Essay Paper Assignment #3 The essay assignment options below concern content from the third parts of our course, concerning the jurisprudence of our criminal courts. For this assignment, you are asked to write a formal ESSAY PAPER, on a selected topic of your choice (chosen from a range of designated topics considered by you and your classmates for Discussion Forums that we have conducted in earlier weeks of this Course). You will have the opportunity to augment or intensify your individual research on the selected issue, to elaborate or to embellish your points, and to demonstrate, in formal essay paper style, the reasoning and argumentation that led you to conclusions that you may have posted in one of our classs prior Discussion Forums. Choose one from the two options given here for your third essay paper assignment. Answer either one of the following essay assignment options in an essay paper of at least 700 words (1000 recommended, 4000+ unnecessary). You MUST UPLOAD your essay paper in Microsoft Word format HERE in your Blackboard account. The essay is due by 11:59PM on Tuesday, December 21, the end of the Fall Semester. Essay papers submitted after that date cannot be accepted for credit. ESSAY OPTION 3A. For purposes of this essay option, revisit our Discussion Forum for Week Seven (Oct 1824), and consider all the points made therein. Write a formal essay paper addressing the specific questions presented for discussion therein, showing that you have researched the required assignments and studied them, including the following case: People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15 (1968).pdf. In that matter the California Supreme Court reviewed a first-degree murder conviction and death sentence of a defendant who had killed a ten-year old girl, the daughter of a Mrs. Hammond with whom he had been living for about eight months. This appeal reviewed the trial court’s second conviction and death sentence upon retrial after the same California Supreme Court reversed the earlier conviction because it had been predicated upon a jury finding that the murder was committed in the course of the commission of raping the victim, an enumerated felony under the legislatively defined felony murder rule. The evidence that the defendant had, at the time of killing the girl, the specific intent to commit rape, was obtained by police as a result of denying the defendant a requested attorney, and therefore had been erroneously admitted on the trial in violation of the intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). Consider in your essay whether the defendants second murder conviction and death sentence might have been upheld, had the interrogating officers that interviewed the defendant at the police station after his arrest not violated the defendants right to counsel, but obtained incriminating testimony in a manner not offending the defendants constitutional rights. Be sure to see https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-anderson-24435 [read in particular the transcript quoted in footnote 4 (fn. 4, infra) FN 4. The record discloses the following colloquy between defendant and the interrogating police officers, prior to the time defendant gave his incriminating admissions: …] In preparing your essay, YOU MUST APPLY the California Supreme Courts rule distinguishing firstdegree from lesser degrees of murder, as announced on page four of our reading assignment (People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15 (1968).pdf), which was the defendants second appeal before the California Supreme Court. On page four of the opinion (in my Adobe version of the text), the Court stated: The type of evidence which this court has found sufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation and deliberation falls into three basic categories: (1) facts about how and what defendant did prior to the actual killing which show that the defendant was engaged in activity directed toward, and explicable as intended to result in, the killing–what may [cite] be characterized as planning activity; (2) facts about the defendants prior relationship and/or conduct with the victim from which the jury could reasonably infer a motive to kill the victim, which inference of motive, together with facts of type (1) or (3), would in turn support an inference that the killing was the result of a pre-existing reflection and careful thought and weighing of considerations rather than mere unconsidered or rash impulse hastily executed (cite); (3) facts about the nature of the killing from which the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design to take his victims life in a particular way for a reason which the jury can reasonably infer from facts of type (1) or (2). Analysis of the cases will show that this court sustains verdicts of first-degree murder typically when there is evidence of all three types and otherwise requires at least extremely strong evidence of (1) or evidence of (2) in conjunction with either (1) or (3). For purposes of this Essay Option 3A, you can augment or intensify your individual research, elaborate or to embellish your points, and demonstrate, in formal essay paper style, the reasoning and argumentation that led you to certain conclusions that you may have posted in our Discussion Forum for Week Seven. ESSAY OPTION 3B. For purposes of this essay option, revisit our Discussion Forum for Week Eight (Oct 2531), and consider all the points made therein. Write a formal essay paper addressing the specific questions presented for discussion therein, showing that you have researched the required assignments and studied them, including the following cases and materials [1] Randall Kennedy, Race, Crime, and the Law (New York Pantheon Random House, 1997), in David M. Adams, Philosophical Problems in the Law (4th ed.) p. 494500].pdf, and [2] [caselaw) Brown v. Sanders, 546 U.S. 212 (2006).pdf. You should consult the following also: [3] [Per Curiam Opinions of Douglas and Marshall in part] Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).pdf, [4] [Dissenting Opinions of Brennan and Marshall only] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).pdf, [5] [CRS pub] Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, codified to 18 USC Ch. 228 (2011).pdf, and [6] [CRS pub] Federal Capital Offenses An Overview of Substantive and Procedural Law (2011).pdf. The questions presented that you must address in your essay are these. First, is it not true that the substantive law imposing the death penalty for capital offenses is rational, and therefore an ethical policy where it is not inconsistent with the public morality of persons within the jurisdiction of the several states that have not abolished it? Second, is it not true that those several states, the states of Alabama and Florida in particular, by denying defendants a unanimous jury vote in order to receive the death penalty in cases in which they are tried for capital offenses, violate the federal constitutions 6th and 14th amendment guarantee that In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ? In planning your essay, you may consider my own position in reply to the questions presented above (as I stated it in my opening post to the discussion forum), and then offer your best arguments in opposition to that position. Here is my own stated opinion: I think first that the substantive law imposing the death penalty for capital offenses is rational, and therefore an ethical policy where it is not inconsistent with the public morality of persons within the jurisdiction of the several states that have not abolished it, first, simply because it is, in our democratic society, the proportional punishment for a defendant duly convicted of a capital offense for which he is on notice under the public laws. I think also that such punishment is hardly cruel in the sense of contravening the natural and eminently humane, however lacking in divinity, and concomitant with the right of the collective citizen public to exact the strongest measure of crime preventative deterrence in reciprocal retaliation for the defendants use of the strongest measure of coercive force, namely murder in the first degree, in opposition to societys preservation of the public peace and safety. I think that punishment of this kind is hardly unusual in the sense of contravening the original intent of the drafters of the articles of amendment to the Constitution, who neither drafted any promise, nor tendered any anticipation, that future generations of persons, lawyers or courts of law, might regard the accepted, if not worldwide, practice of capital punishment for capital offenses as any less customary than as it was during their own time. I think also that the risk of error in prosecuting accused capital felons with knowledge of assuming the risk of putting at least one innocent man to death, a consequence which I do not underestimate, is however not so great as others which a society should not be in a position to afford to undertake, such as failing to exercise due diligence in the enforcement of laws the neglect of which serves to undermine their crime preventive effect. I think that the irreversible execution of the ultimate measure of punishment hardly exceeds, within the bounds of due process, the degree of harm judged to have been inflicted by the sufficiently vast majority of duly convicted felons, and therefore that in such cases the imposition of a commensurate reciprocal force neither amounts to an excessive demand of submission nor an unreasonable assurance in furtherance of the public peace and safety. In respect to the principles of due procedural regard of accused capital felons subject to the death penalty, however, I would demur that the emergent practice in the states of Alabama and Florida denying such a defendant the right to forbearance of a death sentence in the absence of a unanimous jury verdict irreparably impairs the accuseds right to a trial by an impartial jury as guaranteed by the 6th and 14th amendments, for the only available recourse must be the reweighing by a trial or appellate court judge of the aggravating and mitigating facts about the murder, as proved beyond a reasonable doubt, by the States attorney and by the defense counsel respectively, and in such a case either (1) the possibility of the State proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty was deserved has already been precluded by virtue of the reasonable doubt of a dissenter on the sentencing jury, which reasonable doubt, however small, must survive the non-unanimous determination, or (2) the trial or appellate court judge must presume that the dissenter could not have weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors reasonably of his own accord, in which case the defendants right to the forbearance of a death sentence by a duly impaneled trial jury, as guaranteed by the 6th and 14th amendments, has been irreparably impaired. (C.K.) There is my own stated opinion. In preparing your essay, please regard the following points in review of the lesson that I presented. Brown v. Sanders, 546 U.S. 212 (2006), traces the development of the Supreme Courts weighing and non-weighing jurisprudence since Gregg v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court decision which approved revised sentencing procedures introduced not only in Georgia (referred to as a non-weighing state in Brown v. Sanders), but also in Florida (referred to as a strict weighing state in Brown v. Sanders). The difference between the two sentencing schemes was first clarified in Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, at 874 (1983), where the Court explained that in Georgia, the finding of an aggravating circumstance does not play any role in guiding the sentencing body in the exercise of its discretion [to impose the death penalty], apart from its function of narrowing the class of persons convicted of murder who are eligible for the death penalty. The difference thus delineated became important when state appellate courts, both those in strict weighing states such as Florida and Arizona, and non-weighing states such as Georgia and California, alike, began striking down certain statutorily specified aggravating circumstances of the murder as unconstitutionally vague, prone to permit juries that were instructed to consider them during the sentencing phase to indulge in potentially prejudicial capricious and arbitrary sentiments, such as in the case of Californias hitherto invalidated eligibility factor couched in inflammatory terms referring to certain special circumstances of the homicide showing that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Convicted murderers sentenced to death row by juries that had in fact been instructed to consider such eventually invalidated eligibility factors began appealing their death sentences as skewed, manifestly in violation of their fourteenth amendment due process rights, so that they should be entitled to a reweighing of the aggravating and mitigating factors by an appellate court on review of their sentencing decision to test for the presence of constitutional error in their death sentence. In weighing states such as Florida and Arizona, such skewing, and so the potential for constitutional error, is presumptive, since sentencing juries in such states are by law instructed to consider the statutorily specified eligibility factors, including any such factor(s) as may already have been identified by the appellate courts in such states as constitutionally invalid. Convicted murderers sentenced to death row by juries that had in fact been instructed to consider such eventually invalidated eligibility factors began appealing their death sentences as skewed, manifestly in violation of their fourteenth amendment due process rights, so that they should be entitled to a reweighing of the aggravating and mitigating factors by an appellate court on review of their sentencing decision to test for the presence of constitutional error in their death sentence. In weighing states such as Florida and Arizona, such skewing, and so the potential for constitutional error, is presumptive, since sentencing juries in such states are by law instructed to consider the statutorily specified eligibility factors, including any such factor(s) as may already have been identified by the appellate courts in such states as constitutionally invalid. Preserving the Courts weighing and non-weighing jurisprudence, the majority opinion in Brown v. Sanders (2006) limits the power of appellate courts to reweigh the aggravating and mitigating facts in harmless error review, which review not only supplants a power entrusted to a sentencing jury, but increases the costs of successive and sometimes interminable appeals by death row felons. The Court ruled (546 U.S. 212, at 220, 221): An invalidated sentencing factor (whether an eligibility factor or not) will render the sentence unconstitutional by reason of it adding an improper element to the aggravation scale in the weighing process unless one of the other sentencing factors enables the sentencer to give aggravating weight to the same facts and circumstances. As we have explained, such skewing will occur, and give rise to constitutional error, only where the jury could not have given aggravating weight to the same facts and circumstances under the rubric of some other, valid sentencing factor. The questions presented for purposes of this essay option, again, are these: First, is it not true that the substantive law imposing the death penalty for capital offenses is rational, and therefore an ethical policy where it is not inconsistent with the public morality of persons within the jurisdiction of the several states that have not abolished it? Second, is it not true that those several states, the states of Alabama and Florida in particular, by denying defendants a unanimous jury vote in order to receive the death penalty in cases in which they are tried for capital offenses, violate the federal constitutions 6th and 14th amendment guarantee that In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ? For purposes of this Essay Option 3B, you can augment or intensify your individual research, elaborate or to embellish your points, and demonstrate, in formal essay paper style, the reasoning and argumentation that led you to certain conclusions that you may have posted in our Discussion Forum for Week Eight  

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?