DOC PREVIEW
ISU CJS 101 - Chaper 3-4 Elegible for Execution

This preview shows page 1 out of 2 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

CJS 101 1st Edition Lecture 14Outline of Last Lecture l. Search with warrantsII. Exceptions to warrant requirementA. Chimel v CaliforniaIII. Significance of Arizona v Gant and beltonIV. K-9 dog sniffsA. Illinois v Caballes llV. Automobile ExceptionA. Carroll v United StatesB. consent searchesOutline of Current Lecturel. chapter 3ll. chapter 4Current LectureEligible for execution chapter 3The history of execution: New York was the was state to use the electric chair in 1890, followed by many other state, cyanide gas was brought up4 objectives: retribution, deterrence, i incapacitation, rehabilitation-opponents of the death penalty reject that reasoning as a contradiction-advocates of death punishment argue that the death penalty has a deterrent effect-the goal of incapacitation is to reduce future indractions-death penalty supporters believe that death penalty is true method of incapacitation-“cruel and unusual punishment” dates back as far as the magna carta of 1215These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.basic principles and albert trop: designed to bar sentences that inflict great pain or tortureEligible for execution chapter 44 new features of the revised law:1. The new statute allowed capital punishment to be imposed for murder, armed robbery, rape, treason, aircraft hijacking, and kidnapping for ransom or where the victim is harmed. 2. Bifurcated trials: two phases were required for capital cases, a guilty phase and a penalty phase. 3. The law reduced the discretion of the jury by requiring it to consider the presence of aggravating circumstances. (next slide) 4. The new law mandated that all capital sentences be appealed to the state supreme court for review to ensure that the correct procedures were followed. Coker v. Georgia: Supreme crt ruled that the punishment was unconstitutionally excessive by contemporary standardsEmmend v. Florida: Supreme crt ruled against the death penalty for certain felony murdersMcKleskey v. Kemp (1987) Warren McKleskey and 3 accomplices, all armed, attempted to rob a furniture store in Atlanta. One worker set off a silent fire alarm and a white police officer answered the call. He was shot twice and died. Based on ballistics tests and other evidence McKleskey (african american) was convicted of murder and the jury imposed the death penalty Lockett v. Ohio (1978) justices ruled that state laws restricting the number of mitigating circumstances that could be considered in sentencing violated the 8th amendment Ford v. Wainwright (1986) Ford was convicted of the murder of a police officer during attemptedrobbery and was sentenced to death. On death row, Ford developed delusional behavior and wasn’t in touch with reality. Supreme Court justices held that the 9th amendment is violated when state executes persons who are incapable of understanding the punishment and why theyare being


View Full Document
Download Chaper 3-4 Elegible for Execution
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Chaper 3-4 Elegible for Execution and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Chaper 3-4 Elegible for Execution 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?