Law

Abstract

Although the attempts to eradicate any forms of discrimination from every domain of modern life have been taken a countless number of times, the phenomenon persists in contemporary society due to its flaws. Particularly, the imperfections of the present-day justice system create loopholes for discrimination to enter its domain, as recent cases show. Particularly, the case of Foster v. Chapman points to the necessity of introducing more equality into the identified realm.

The details of the case reveal that the prosecutor was allowed to strike all of the African American judges out before the case of an African American defendant was presented. The peremptory changes were against the decision made during the Batson v. Kentucky case. As a result, the environment created by the people involved in the trial served as the breeding ground for racial biases and the following discrimination. Furthermore, the very fact that four African American judges were stricken out without adequate reasoning can be viewed as an act of discrimination.

The case in point shows quite clearly that the discrimination problem remains an integral part of American society, in general, and the U.S. justice system, in particular. Correspondingly, an impetus for improving the current situation must be created and received by the state authorities. Specifically, the case in point calls for taking immediate action as far as the supervision of the court procedures is concerned. It can be suggested that the introduction of a set of more rigid regulations as far as compliance with the legal standards should be provided to avoid similar instances of a mistrial in the future.

Introduction: The Most Controversial Case of 2016

At first glance, it might seem that the American society is mature enough to identify and address the emergent instances of racism in the contemporary environment, let alone the justice system (Reskin, 2012). Indeed, the United States has gone a long way from learning to accept the rights of Black people to create an environment, in which equality may become a possibility. However, the contemporary environment incorporates a wide array of factors that impede the promotion of equity as the foundation for building relationships between the members of society. This is quite upsetting, discrimination trickles even in the areas that affect people’s lives tremendously, such as the U.S. legal system.

A recent court case has shown that America still needs to address the discrimination problem on a statewide level. The Foster v. Chatman case that occurred in 2016 has shown that the present-day justice system remains corrupted and that racial profiling still is a part of it. According to the case details, an African American defendant was tried for murder and faced the death penalty. Four African American judges were appointed for the case; however, under the pretext of the peremptory challenges, the judges were subsequently dismissed despite the Batson claim that Foster made in the process.

In other words, the Batson challenge was considered as the factor that could not be precluded by res judicata, i.e., a case that can no longer be appealed for. The Batson case in its turn stated that “a defendant may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in selection of the petit jury solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant’s trial” (Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79)

Even though the instance of striking four Black judges out of the case can be viewed as purposeful discrimination, the issue has not been raised. Therefore, further analysis of the issue is required. To be more exact, the fact of discrimination needs to be stated, and the measures that will permit reducing the threat thereof in the contemporary justice system in the future will have to be determined.

Source of Data Analysis: A Legal Case (Google Scholar)

The issue of discrimination in the modern justice system of the United States, in general, and one of its agents, in particular (i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court) was addressed by considering a case that has been closed lately. Specifically, a 2016 issue regarding the court discrimination problems (Foster v. Chatman) was viewed as the primary source of information.

The case records were retrieved online. To obtain the required information, the Google Scholar database was included in the list of search areas. The reasons for using Google Scholar as the primary source of information are quite basic; despite its availability to the general audience, the identified resource contains an array of materials that are determined as credible and trustworthy (e.g., academic journals, court proceedings, etc.). In the identified scenario, a court case was retrieved from the Google Scholar database. The case was located after the following search terms were used: “discrimination us criminal justice system.” After the search had been narrowed down to the 2016 cases, the search engine returned 1060 results, among which the Foster v. Chatman case was found.

Analysis and Data Findings: What the Case Has to Offer

According to the case details, Timothy Foster was sentenced to the death penalty after murdering Bruce Chatman, a prison warden, in Georgia. The case details specify that the corpse of Queen Madge White, a 79-year-old widow, was found with severe injuries and the signs of a sexual assault, and strangling, in her house, which was burglarized (Foster v. Chatman No. 14-8349, 2015). Foster was charged with first-degree murder and a robbery. As the case details specify, before carrying out the proceedings, the State “exercised peremptory strikes against all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve” (Foster v. Chatman No. 14-8349, 2015, p. 1).

Afterward, Foster pressed the Barton claim for a retrial under the pretext of the judges having been dismissed from the case unfairly. The judge, however, rejected the claim and considered Foster guilty, therefore, sentencing him to death. Even though the verdict had already been passed, Foster renewed a claim so that a retrial could be arranged. Even though the court denied the motion again, Foster submitted a writ of habeas corpus so that the case could be reconsidered. Finally, the documents were admitted into consideration. However, after the consideration of the evidence, the court denied the motion again claiming that there was no arguable merit in the claim submitted by the accused (Cook & Akegria, 2012).

Even though the evidence of Foster’s guilt provided during the proceedings can be considered overwhelming and pointing to the fact that he was responsible for the murder, the fact that the four judges were dismissed without any legal justification for it makes one question the fairness of the U.S. justice system, in general, and the supposedly unbiased position of the court toward certain racial and ethnic groups, in particular.

Furthermore, the outcome of the case serves as the foundation for promoting change in the context of the American legal system so that the rights of every party in court could be acknowledged. Specifically, the case of Foster v. Chatman demonstrates that there is a necessity to reconsider the image of a criminal that the state officials have so that the specific traits of a certain ethnicity, race, nationality, or culture could not be attributed to it.

Discussion: The Racism Issue and the Means of Addressing It

As stressed above, there is a plethora of controversy about the case. On the one hand, the defendant was guilty and deserved the punishment that he received. Indeed, according to the case details, the evidence is quite plentiful, and it points directly to the fact that Foster is the murderer. Therefore, the sentence passed by the judge seems quite fair (Wasserman & Connolly, 2015).

On the other hand, one must admit that the environment, in which the trial occurred, can be deemed as biased due to the removal of every African American judge. Although all pieces of evidence available point to the fact that Foster must be the one that committed the murder, it would be unfair to sentence the accused to the death penalty without exhausting every possibility of proving his innocence (Hurwitz, Peffley, & Mondak, 2015).

In light of the ideas mentioned above, the effects of the judges’ removal from the trial need to be considered. Seeing that the lack of objectivity and racial biases were the primary sources of concern for the people involved and the key point of the defendant’s appeal, it begs the question of whether the admission of the judges to the trial would have tipped the scale toward a different outcome (Lima‐Nunes, Pereira, & Correia, 2013).

Arguably, the fact that the outcome of the court proceedings would have been the same disregarding whether the judges would have been present or not can be deemed as valid in the identified situation since it implies that the unbiased atmosphere should only be provided only in specific cases. In reality, however, the existing set of democratic principles requires that an unbiased and prejudice-free environment should be provided to any citizen of the United States, no matter what they are accused of. It is imperative to make sure that every person appearing in court should be provided with equal opportunities for defense (Beaver et al., 2013).

In the case in point, the issue of culture clash could be viewed as the primary source of conflict. Although Foster was unlikely to be proven not guilty even in case the African American jury has been admitted to the proceedings, the very fact that the defendant was not offered a chance at being represented in a bias-free environment shows that the contemporary U.S. legal system is very flawed. Put differently, the Foster v. Chatman case could be interpreted as an instance of racism in the Supreme Court.

When considering the means of managing the problem, one should bring up the fact that there is a strong need in representing each side of the case in a fair and unprejudiced manner. In the case in point, the issue of discrimination concerns primarily depriving the accused of the right to have his case considered by the representatives of his culture Indeed, dismissing one or two judges that were of the same cultural and ethnic descent that the accused was could have been determined as a coincidence that was not worth paying special attention to. However, the fact that every single black judge was removed from the case points to the conclusion that the attempt at creating a biased environment did take place (Colquitt et al., 2013).

Conclusion and Implications: What Needs to Be Addressed

Although the case of Foster v. Chatman can hardly be seen as a prime example of an African American falling victim to the crooked justice system, and that the defendant had to be guilty of the crime, the fact that there is an ongoing discriminatory issue in the modern U.S. justice system can hardly be denied. Both public and private legal agencies suffer from the lack of objectivity in their actions when it comes to meeting the needs of the people belonging to different ethnic and racial communities; as a result, the outcomes of the trial can be viewed as biased and, therefore, not trustworthy.

Furthermore, the lack of clarity and the increasing discrimination levels in the U.S. criminal justice agencies affects the very fabric of the social justice system, shaping people’s concept of a criminal in a very specific manner. As a result of the given tendencies, the threat of attributing specific racial or ethnic characteristics to the portrait of a criminal may become tangible to the point where the race will serve as a pretext for accusing people of crimes that they did not commit.

It could be argued that the problem described above has become dominant in modern society would be quite a stretch. As explained above, the case of Foster v. Chatman represents a rather ambiguous situation, in which the defendant was guilty, yet, based on the principles of democracy and equal rights, he had to be offered an opportunity to prove his innocence. However, a closer look at the contemporary legal system and the agencies operating in it will reveal that the problem of prejudices and biased attitudes toward people of other ethnicities and nationalities, i.e., ethnic and racial minorities, has been in existence for years (Frank et al., 2014). Therefore, there is an urgent need to take action so that the subject matter could be managed in a manner as efficient and expeditious as possible (Gabbidon et al., 2014).

The case described above also shows quite clearly that the issue of employment in the contemporary justice system needs to be considered closed. Employing people that have a very rigid set of values and are not prone to corruption deserves to be viewed as the issue of the highest priority for the U.S. justice system at present. Furthermore, the problem of the lack of diversity in the American criminal justice agencies should be discussed and managed.

The significance of the subject matter can be supported by the necessity to represent the case of each party appropriately in the court, eliminating the slightest chances for a culture clash or a misconception during the proceeding. Because the life of a person often hinges on the opinion that the judge will have of the defendant (e.g., when considering the possibility of a retrial), it is imperative to make sure that everyone has equal chances of being properly represented in court.

Reference List

Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (2009).

Beaver, K. M., DeLisi, M., Wright, J. P., Boutwell, B. P., Barnes, J. C., & Vaughn, M. G. (2013). No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Personality and Individual Differences, 65(1), 29-34. Web.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., & Conlon, D. E. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199 –236. Web.

Cook, B. L., & Akegria, M. (2012). Racial-Ethnic Disparities in Substance Abuse Treatment: The Role of Criminal History and Socioeconomic Status. Psychiatric Services, 62(11), 1273–1281. Web.

Foster v. Chatman No. 14-8349. (2015).

Frank, J. W., Wang, E. A., Nunez-Smith, M., Lee, H., & Comfort, M. (2014). Discrimination based on criminal record and healthcare utilization among men recently released from prison: a descriptive study. Health and Justice, 2(1), 6-13.

Gabbidon, S. L., Jordan, K. L., Penn, S. B., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Black supporters of the no-discrimination thesis in criminal justice: A portrait of an understudied segment of the Black community. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(5), 637-652. Web.

Reskin, B. (2012). The race discrimination system. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 17-35. Web.

Hurwitz, J., Peffley, M., & Mondak, J. (2015). Linked fate and outgroup perceptions: blacks, Latinos, and the U.S. criminal justice system. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 505-530. Web.

Lima‐Nunes, A., Pereira, C., & Correia, I. (2013). Restricting the scope of justice to justify discrimination: The role played by justice perceptions in discrimination against immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 627–636. Web.

Wasserman, L. M., & Connolly, J. P. (2015). United States Supreme Court justices’ voting in systemic racial discrimination cases in education. The Urban Lawyer, 47(1), 1-82.

According to Glen R Hanson and Peter J Venturelli, “There is a long-established close association between drug abuse and criminality.” There are two contrasting views in this approach. The first one is that criminal behavior develops to support a drug addiction, and the second one is that criminality is inherently linked to drug users’ personalities but occurs independently of drug use. This raises two questions.

The first one is: Does drug addiction cause a person to engage in criminal activities such as theft, burglary, and larceny to pay for the drug habits? On the other hand, a question emerges: Does the criminal behavior of a person have to do with the already existing criminal personality and that drugs are used as an adjunct to commit such crime? In other words, are drugs related to crime, or are they used to sedate and give confidence a person may need to commit a daring law violation. (Hanson G. & Venturelli P. 2006)

There has never been a clear answer to these questions since the finding whose views contradict each other continues to mount on both sides. Studies have been conducted in different cultures and settings, using different research methods and focusing on addictive drugs. This happens to be the reason behind the controversy in the relationship between drug abuse and criminal activities. As a result, there are too many factors involved in helping us distinguish cause from the results. Each type of drug has a unique, addictive potential, and there is a variation of exactly when to consider a defiant act offensive.

Furthermore, people think differently under drug influence. Therefore, it remains unclear whether criminal behavior is directly caused by poor drug use or even peer influence and socialization work in concert to cause criminal behavior. (Dantzker M.L 1999)

Directly systematic observation of crime is difficult due to the system for reporting crime as weak and uniform due to its inherently stealthy nature. A good example is the one from the FBI, which gets the root of crime in two ways. The first one is where individuals confess their own criminal convictions or involvements, and the second one is the victimization survey known to report the general criminal activities. Through these, one can tell or assess the criminal information. (Rasmussen D.W & Benson B 1994)

Also, some examples of the findings show the connection between drugs and criminal activities, such as the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ’s), Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM), which conducted urine tests on females in 21 and males in 23 cities. There was a range of 51.4% in San Jose to 80.5% in Manhattan of all those who tested positive at the time of the arrest. A female arrestee who tested positive in Indianapolis was lower, but that for Manhattan was the same as that of the males.

These findings were later affirmed in 1997 by the Bureau of Justice statistic who released information that about half or rather over half of the inmates committed their crime when they were under the influence of some drugs: this is a clear indication that some drugs have an effect on crime or rather that there is a relationship between drug abuse crime and criminal activities in our society. Also, the same survey indicated that over three-quarters of the inmates in the local jails had reported using drugs at one time in their life.

Though they may not have been under the influence of the drugs by the time of committing the crime, they were at one time involved with drugs, and this may have had an effect on their engagement in criminal activities www.drugpolicycentral.com

In that research, 33 percent of the inmates had been jailed for a drug offense. Sizeable proportions were incarcerated for a property offense, violent offense, and public order offence-Public intoxication, loitering, distributing the peace, and so on. However, something common came out of these findings; that all the parties involved were under the influence of some drugs at the time of the occurrence of the offense. www.interpol.int/public/Drugs

There was another little recent study by Robert Wood Johnston Foundation in 2001. This study showed that there was a dramatic correlation between crime and drug use. The study, which was conducted on criminal cases concerning theft, assault, and homicide, revealed that at least half of the people, especially the adults arrested, were under the influence of drugs by the time they were committing the offense. From those findings, approximately 30% of state prisoners and 40% of federal prisoners were drunk or were under the influence of drugs by the time they were committing the offense. This shows that drugs directly affect the rate of criminal activities. (Dantzker M.L 1999)

There are some situations where drugs do not have a direct relation with criminal activities. We also find that drugs have an indirect relation to criminal activities. That means that some people may commit a certain type of crime to have some money. This is evident to those people who are addicted to drugs. Sometimes they find that they do not have money. They are addicted, and thus, they can not live without drugs. So what they do is that they engage in some criminal activities such as robbery so that they can be able to get money and buy drugs. Approximately one out of every six major crimes is committed since the offender needs to get money for drugs. (Allen C 2007

Drugs can be classified into legal and illicit drugs, as under a study conducted by the US household survey of Drugs Abuse. They were found to commit a crime or linked with criminal activities had a link to illicit drug use. This shows that there is a correlation between drug use and criminal activities. The research revealed a difference in the occurrence of the crime and the type of drug used. (White L. W 1996)

Drugs can be related to criminal activities in many other ways. We find that there is also an indirect correlation between drugs, crime, and criminal activities. We find that some people are known to commit criminal activities to cover up some drug deals. Such is common with the mafias or those other great drug barons in a certain state. Some of these happen to be drug tycoons, and they are wealthy. They have dealings of a lot of drugs and a lot of money. These tycoons are known to kill people who stand by their way and prevent them from achieving their goals. They also have rival groups where we find them (the drug dealers) fighting among themselves. They sometimes result in the death of these people, which can be considered criminal activity. (Rasmussen D.W & Benson B 1994).

Some of these people are these tycoons who may commit some other types of crimes. In some cases, these people are involved in high-profile criminal activities. They may be involved in dealing that has gone too far that the government is involved. In some corrupt states, these tycoons are known by the police department. These people keep doing their business despite their business being illegal.

In most cases, these people do bribe the department so that they can still do business underground. Corruption is a criminal offense that is prosecutable by law, resulting in an underground drug business. This also shows a relationship between drugs and crime. (Hanson G. & Venturelli P. 2006)

There are two types of drugs. These are licit and illicit drugs. The licit operate in the open and legal world, and the illicit one operates in the dark and illegal world. This means that they use the illegal market and the black market. The black market is considered a criminal offense, and one can be charged in a court of law. Thus this means that if illegal drugs have to be a black market which is considered a crime, meaning that criminal activities will have to be there. Also, this shows a clear indication of the connection or the relationship between crime and drugs. (Hanson G. & Venturelli P. 2006)

Addiction to drugs makes people commit a crime. Most of the lower socio-economic class of people who takes drugs find themselves in this mess. After some time, they are addicted, but they do not have enough money to cater to their addiction. That means that they have to engage in some criminal activities, or rather, they find that criminal activities or committing a crime is the only thing that they can do to get the money to pay or to buy the expensive illicit narcotic drugs. And because they do not have anywhere to get regular pay from, they will always engage in criminal activities. (White L. W 1996

Drugs are known to influence one to commit a crime. That is, they do not influence the person directly, but people commit crimes so that they can get or fulfill their drug addiction needs. Hanson G. & Venturelli P. (2006), in their book Drugs and Society, says that heroic addict criminal activities are a result of addiction and not the influence of the substance. This shows that there is a link, especially between drug addiction and criminal activities. However, most of this occurs in the area that is not economically well off, where there are people who do not have money to meet this daily addiction. (Hanson G. & Venturelli P. 2006)

Drug use and criminal activities can be linked to each other from the social or subculture attachment. This is to say that drug addiction is mostly to those places where there is high consumption of these drugs, say narcotic drugs. In these areas, there are many criminal activities, and people view those areas as criminal areas. It is viewed that all the people in these areas and are taking drugs are expected to be involved in criminal activities. So when such people take these drugs, they are likely to commit a crime. (White L. W 1996)

Drugs can be linked to criminal activities through prostitution. We find that in some places, prostitution is not legal, and anyone who is found prostituting can be liable for a charge in the court of law. Some people may also be involved in prostitution simply because they want to get some money to buy drugs. In such cases, it can be said that drugs have caused such people to engage in criminal activities, in this case, prostitution.

An example is a case where we find a young lady who is addicted, let’s say, to heroin moving to the streets to get some money for the drugs. This mostly happens to those areas or rather those states that are still developing or rather in the developing world. Also, it happens to those people who live below the poverty level as they have to earn a living, and they do not know how to do this. They also have to get some money to buy or to cater for their drug addiction. Thus the circumstances force them to engage in prostitution. (White L. W 1996)

Many research showed that or rather were linked to men’s use of the drug. However, research in the 1980s showed that women were also linked to drug use. The research found that women who were linked to drug use had some criminal records in their history. They were linked to criminal activities mostly to support their addiction. The research showed that these women who did not turn to prostitution turned to other forms of getting money to support their addiction. Most of them turned into other criminal activities such as car theft, shoplifting, and pick-pocketing. Most women were not linked to robbery and burglary. “Am not sure now my drugs use and hustles go together. Booting (shoplifting) and fraud are my main hustles. Sometimes I will get into something else like burglary, but that’s only if an asked to be a partner”. (Sterk, 1999).

Drug use has also been linked to organizations. Most of the people who belong to drug gangs are linked to organized crimes. Organized crimes are criminal activities such as violence, kidnapping, or even murder. www.drugpolicycentral.com

Due to most of the criminal activities being linked to drug use, we find that the state also links all the other activities that relate to criminal activities to the drug. Most of the organized criminal activities are conducted by an organization’s drug gang. At some points, they require a ransom or something that is or will be related to criminal activities. At sometimes, they may request a ransom from the government for a certain amount of money, and while at other times, they may kidnap an important person requiring the government to do some favor for them, for example, release some criminal implicated for drug dealing.

At other times, they may highjack planes and require one of their own who has been arrested in relation to drugs to be released. These can be termed as criminal activities relating to drug use either directly or indirectly. (Strain E. 2005)

A good example is the sweeping indictment of 28 alleged TTP Blond members unsealed in federal court in Baltimore. Twenty-six of them were charged will racketeering conspiracy. They were charged under the law designed to go against organized crime. They were accused of committing five murders along with other robberies in the past two and half years. www.drugpolicycentral.com

Drug use has also been linked to criminal activities in that those people how might have used drugs at their young ages or when they were young had an involvement with the drugs end up having a negative impact on their life when they grow up. They may end up engaging in criminal activities. They are likely to engage in criminal activities when they grow up. Strain (2005), in his book The Treatment of Opioid Dependence, says that drug use happens not to be the only path leading to crime; early drug use fosters a criminal behavior pattern that sometimes continues to adulthood. (Strain, 2005).

Criminal activities are related to how long and how much a person has taken the drugs or rather the extent of the drug use and also to the type of drug used. Research shows that those people who take cocaine are likely to commit more lethal and more serious crimes than the others who do take other types of drugs. The research also says that those people who are on the list of committing very serious crimes are usually cocaine addicts.

Heavy drug use is linked to more diverse crime or a rather more diverse array of criminal activities. For example, in an early study conducted in Miami, it should be that 239 males interviewed who were cocaine addicts committed 80644 criminal acts during the 12 months prior to their interview. When the same cohort was interviewed when it was not addicted, the cohort had only 41 days of criminal activities per year. While the influence of addiction, it was found that the same cohort had committed crime on 248 days per year. This research shows that drug use or even drug abstinence can actually affect or influence the criminal activities that may be happing in a specific area. (Strain, 2005).

One consequence of the connection drug crime is that most of those who end up in drugs definitely end up engaging in other criminal activities. This may be in most cases due to the connection that exists between these two that the society has a link or rather an attitude that makes people think that all those people who are linked to drugs in one way or another end up being linked with criminal activities. Also that most of the people who take them are poor. This means that they have to have a way of getting their money for the use to attend to their addiction. This makes them more liable to committing crimes as these are the only simple way of getting money.

In conclusion, this can be said the there is a link between crime and drug use. This is evident in most or rather the majority of the researches conducted around the world, which shows that majority of the criminals have a link with drug use. Also, there is quite sufficient evidence that people do commit a crime so as to cover up drug deals. There are quite enough evidence to show that drug indeed has a link to criminal activities and crime as a whole.

References

Allen C (2007). Crime Drug and Social theory. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Dantzker M.L (1999) Reading for Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Elsevier Publishers.

Hanson G. & Venturelli P. (2006) Drugs and Society. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Inc.

Strain E. (2005) The Treatment of Opiod Dependency. JHM Press.

Rusmussen D.W & Benson B (1994). The Economic Anatomy of a Drug War; Criminal Justice in the common. Rawman & Littlefield Publishers.

Sterk E.C (1999) Women who use crack cocaine. Temple University Press.

Siegel L. J (2004) Criminology: The core, Thomson Wadsworth Publishers.

White L. W (1996) Pathways: From the culture of Addiction to the culture of Recovery. Hazelden PES Publishers.

The year 1888 witnessed a series of ultimate unsolved and mysterious homicides the world has ever experienced. The unknown assassin went on committing his cruel deeds, putting the Scotland Yard investigators in big trouble. He lurked behind the shadows creating chaos and leaving little evidence to the cops. Five prostitutes were killed in the Whitechapel area of London alone by the so-called legend who named himself Jack the ripper. The London media made the name popular and today it has become worth enough to address all the murderers at large. The story of Jack the Ripper, no doubt, remains as an unsolved riddle even today and the peculiar nature of his crimes has raised the curiosity of criminologists, investigators, crime reporters, criminals, and the common man. Many theories and speculations have been drawn regarding the series of murders; however, it is still an unresolved puzzle of who the actual killer was.

The identity of the White chapel murderer was unknown to the world until the police and the newspapers received a number of letters ‘during the autumn and winter of 1888/89’ which were supposed to have been written by the murderer himself and one of them “contained the first use of ‘Jack the Ripper’, a nickname the papers swiftly adopted and which is now synonymous.” (Wilde). The modus operandi in these crimes was unique and peculiar that made him a legend. Even after the passage of a century, the public fascination in this regard has not yet come to an end. Jack the ripper has sustained to maintain his role as the godfather of entire serial killers of the world. The strategy of his murders has been ever analyzed by the police and psychologist.

Even though there is no unanimous list of the people Jack murdered, studies have pointed out a common strain in his murders-that he killed five London prostitutes. It is believed that Jack the Ripper “killed five women, all London prostitutes, during 1888: Mary Ann ‘Polly’ Nichols on August 31, Annie Chapman on September 8, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes on September 30 and Mary Jane (Marie Jeanette) Kelly on November 9.” (Wilde). The nature of the crime, the mannerisms, and the ferocity displayed by the killer add to the professionalism of Jack the Ripper. There are many who believe that the killer had some sort of anatomical knowledge and many perceive him to be a doctor or surgeon because he killed his victims by strangling them, “then laying them down and cutting the arteries in their throats; this was followed by a varied process of mutilation, during which parts of the body were removed and kept.” (Wilde). Even though there were visible traces and common patterns in all the murders, it is quite mysterious that the killer was neither identified nor prosecuted. Thus, the name of Jack has become synonymous with unproven crimes and this has raised him to the stature of a hero admired by criminals all over the world.

Like any other sensational news, London dailies and magazines contributed their major portion of time and effort to add enough flavor to the gruesome events. The admiration, if it could be called so, was really attributed to the media. They cherished every horrible event especially when the Scotland Yard received certain letters on behalf of the very dangerous thug. He concluded his letters signed “Jack the Ripper” and thus entered history forever. Wide publicity was given to the letters supposed to have been written by Jack and with the publication of the letters “the murderer was given the name that would launch him into legend. A name that would become so well known the world over that the very mention of it, even to those who have little knowledge of the actual murders, could summon up vivid images of gas-lit, foggy streets and of an unknown terror stalking the night shadows on a murderous and chilling quest.” (Jone). Thus, one can never undermine the role played by the newspapers and the other media in popularizing the ‘heroic’ deeds of Jack, and these sorts of undue publicity have accelerated the mysterious element in the homicides.

Though highly terrifying were the cruel deeds he performed under the cover of solid darkness, they were highly an epoch-making one. An unlimited number of stories, novels, films, dramas, and operas are born on this classic culprit. Since then, Jack has been a subject for researchers. His attire and deportment were praised to be the symbols of a perfect killer. With his quickness, mystic image, and supernatural ability to vanish from the scene we’re capturing the readers and spectators all over the world. Jack the Ripper is considered to be an unsolved mystery for a number of reasons. There must be several killers who have shed the blood of more people than Jack did. Yet he is considered to be unique and extremely mysterious. Perhaps, unlike others, he deliberately left some trace but always managed to be in ambush. Simply killing people was not his motto. Instead, he always haunted a particular category of women. This is very well pointed out by Marjorie Dorfman when the author observes:

Certainly Jack the Ripper left traces of his murderous presence, including a leather apron soaked in blood. In an act of ultimate audacity, he even sent a body part of one of the victims to Scotland Yard. It is likely that the crime technology and criminal profiling techniques of today would have yielded many more clues to the identity of Jack the Ripper and that these crimes, were they committed today, might not have gone unsolved. (Dorfman).

The initial objective of the killer was not apprehensive to the experts, yet the modus operandi paved way for enormous discussions and further case studies all over the world. Crime investigations have shown that based on an offender’s way of work and his behavior patterns, various conclusions regarding the murderer can be drawn. For instance, the conclusion of an expert is given below: “By choosing to murder Kelly indoors, the killer demonstrated that he was an experienced nighttime cat burglar and stalker, as he attacked all his victims in the early morning hours when dawn was approaching.” (Jack the Ripper the First Serial Killer: Jack the Ripper’s Modus Operandi). However, Jack the Ripper’s crimes remain still unsolved as such conclusions were inadequate and insufficient. The consequences of his brutal actions were far-reaching. It did not cease with the end of five prostitutes.

The mysterious assailant tormented many innocent people by leaving them suspects to the police. An array of investigators and suspects took their turn to unveil the secret but all in vain. All efforts added to his fame and made him an unsolved mystery in crime history. Jack the Ripper has attributed to the origin of a number of ‘Jack the Ripper theories’ and a new term ‘ripperologists’. Among the theories, the most controversial one was the ‘Sickert theory’ which also displayed a paucity of vital facts and evidence. The fact that differentiated the theory from many others was that its assumptions were more reasonable and sufficient to satisfy the avenging lust of the people who were persecuted by the Government. Patricia Cornwell cites a number of evidence to prove that Walter Richard Sickert was behind the series of murders. She found the key to most solid evidence to Sickert’s guilt “in his paintings, which she claims have an eerie similarity to the grisly post mortem pictures taken of the Ripper’s victims.” (Steele). And purports that he is the most dreaded criminal behind the homicides. Whether the theory is reliable or not people who read and watch fiction or non-fictions on this legend killer today would like to see him remain mysterious forever.

The reason behind this is perhaps, the people who suffered some kind of social injustice always longed for an anti-hero who would give enough headache to the authorities. All professional and amateur forensic experts have tried to analyze the psychological dimensions of Jack the Ripper for a period of hundred and more years. Still, he remains an unapproachable character minimizing their studies to a kind of uncertainty. The words of Keppel and Burns would be appropriate to quote: “Hidden among the evidence, often gleaned from the marks and wounds on the victim’s body these signatures are the only ways the killer truly expresses himself.” (Jack the Ripper the First Serial Killer: Jack the Ripper’s Signature). But in the then case of Jack, the Ripper such ways of expressing never took place, or rather the evidence was still hidden, unexplored, and unproven. To conclude Jack the Ripper is still an unsolved mystery-a puzzle or riddle that needs to be solved or answered.

Works Cited

1. Dorfman, Marjorie. Jack the Ripper. Suite101.com: The Genuine Article. 2007.
2. Jack the Ripper the First Serial Killer: Jack the Ripper’s Modus Operandi. All About Forensic Psychology. 2008. Web.
3. Jack the Ripper the First Serial Killer: Jack the Ripper’s Signature. Web.
4. Jone, Richard. The Letter from Jack the Ripper: The Legend of Jack The Ripper is Born. London Walking Tours. 2007.
5. Steele, John. Jack the Ripper was painter Sickert Says Crime Writer. Telegraph.co.uk. 2008.
6. Wilde, Robert. Jack the Ripper: The Crimes. About.com: European History. 2008.
7. Wilde, Robert. Jack the Ripper: The Letters and Nick Names. About.com: European History 2008.

Introduction

The relationship between gun ownership and crime is a highly correlated one in both positive and negative aspects. Argument for the regulation and/or appropriateness of gun ownership lean both ways; part of the populace lend the opinion that ownership of firearm is essential to self defense while the remainder submit that it contributes to high rise in violent crime. This has been an active debate in the field of domestic security as authorities try to find a common ground for differing parties. Since gun ownership laws vary in different aspect across countries, there may be lack of a universal answer. This paper intends to give a summary of statistics on the prevalence and/or characteristics of gun crimes in a bid to understand the extent of gun crimes in US. Some of the interesting issues in gun crime will also be explored.

Main Discussion

According to the American society of criminology, firearm related crimes have declined in the 10 years period since 1993 to 2003 although it has been on the rise since then. The scenario is the same in non fatal related crime, whereby, they had plummeted since 1993 but 2005 onwards, an increase has been noted. The number of casualties brought in to emergency department has generally taken an upward trend since 1997. This is according to the bureau of justice statistics. Perhaps majority of the gun crime source their guns from family and friends, i.e. about 80% get guns through illegal channels the remaining 12% and 2% acquire them from pawnshops and flea markets respectively. The models of guns used by offenders are various although most cut across use of handguns and rifles.

The characteristics of inmates who get incarcerated for gun related crimes tend to be people who were on parole at the time of crime, escapees from jail, drug peddlers, mental cases, drug abusers or ex-military individuals. Additionally, those found in illegal possession of firearm 74.6% used a firearm and within this percentage 112% killed the victim 14.2% injured the victim and 23.4% neither kill nor injured victims and 42.9 discharged the weapon intentionally or otherwise.

Further 70.5% of gun crimes use the firearms to scare off people in order to get away or for self defense; those who do not use firearms actively are approximately 25.4% in a total of 14,280 people in possession of military style semi automatic or fully automatic guns. The statistics about use of conventional semi automatic reveal almost the same results. Nonetheless, the most extensively used firearm is the single shot guns which stand at 80% and have higher margins in all categories i.e. those that kill the victim, injure, score or used for self defense or get away purposes. (Worrall, 2006).

Illegal use or possession of a firearm on average attracts stiffer penalties than other offenses. In the US, state inmates in possession of firearms are jailed for minimum of 18 years while the ones without guns receive sentences of 12 years. Yet, those who carry firearms and those without serve jail terms about 10 years and 7 years respectively. On a different note, violent offenders on overage take 20 years behind bars while the ones without firearms take 18 years. (Harlow, 2001).

In the same case, violent offenders carry guns but do not actively uses if jailed for 12 years while those without spend 10 years behind bars. Essentially, possession of a firearm enhances an offender’s sentence.

By and large inmates (federal and state) reveal that they were in possession of a firearm at the time of crime perspective of whether they intend to use it to intentionally cause harm or not. In particular, offenders of homicide, sexual assault robbery or other violent crimes, use guns to facilitate their crimes typically, men have higher tendency to use firearms that women. The statistics for this stand at approximately 15.5% – 19.1% for the male state and federal inmates while for female state and federal inmates the statistics are about 6.2% – 7.3%.

On the basis of age, the offenders are mostly of 24 years and younger, (29% – 19%) while the inmates on the 24-34 age bracket record a 15.5% – 16% chance of possessing a firearm. Interestingly, the majority of gun crimes incarcerated were first tine offenders. (Perkins, 2003).

According to the BJS special report on weapon use and violent crime a large chunk of the violent victimization involved use of weapons, mostly guns. The poor people from marginalized groups (blacks and Hispanics) are more susceptible to gun violence as compared to whites. Shockingly 90% of homicides are aided by guns.

It seems like the exposure of individuals to firms or rather the easy access to firearms has an effect of increasing violent crimes among adolescents. Teenagers, who come from homes with traits of abuse and criminal acts, progress to pick the habit later in life. Surveys conducted by researchers for periods between 1997 and 2005 revealed that 12% of adolescents admitted to have engaged in violent crimes such as shooting at someone, attacking someone with a weapon, gang fights among others. The beg of the question is why young teenagers carry weapons? A recurring answer to this question is often for self protection. This is in reference to the neighborhood environment. Mostly, violent prone areas have high percentage of crime rate. Adolescents who carry concealed weapons do so because they were exposed to risk factors like living in homes where guns were a norm, environments of social disorder, witnessing violence, victims of assault and such like.

Conclusion

The lesson learnt from review of the statistics on gun crime is that high crime rate is a function of easy access of firearms among individuals. The issue is clear that possession of a gun gives offenders a feeling of power and hence encourages him/her to engage in crime. This police and other law enforcers need to enforce more stringent laws on firearm possession. this would mean imposing stiffer penalties to offenders found in possession of firearm, regardless of whether they use it or not. This will in effect data offenders from using guns. Secondly, increase security in the porous points along borders where illegal firearms would also help. The 24 years and below age bracket represents a major proportion of offenders found in possession of firearm. This indicates a social dysfunction in families and community where they live. Perhaps, programs targeted towards aliening youth from violent delinquent behavior could be set up. Appropriately community policing and responsibility could also contribute to minimizing this issue of concern. This review does not discount the fact that firearms make positive contribution of enhancing individual security rather it recommends that before licensing a firearm to any individual thorough background check on the person and his character should be considered. This will ensure that deadly weapons are only in the hands of few responsible citizens.

Reference

Worrall, J.L. (2006). Crime Control in America: An assessment of the evidence. Boston, MA: Pearson education, Inc.

Perkins, C. (2003) National Institute of Justice. Weapon use and violent crime. 2007. Web.

Harlow, C. W. (2001) U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice). Firearm use by offenders. Web.

Introduction

John Gotti was an American mobster and also leader of the ‘Gambino Crime Family’. He came to be known widely because of his frank personality and showy style that made him a placard child for the mobsters, a representation that still exists now. He was born in New York in the month of October in the year 1940.

At the time he was still a young boy he had a bad temper and hated those people who seemed luckier than him in terms of being financially stable. Interestingly, instead of John Gotti trying to improve his status in a generally acceptable manner by the society, he resorted to taking the way the mobsters he had seen in his neighborhood take since he had drawn inspiration from them.

John Gotti together with his brothers joined the local street gang that helped in some small tasks for the local ‘wiseguys’. His focus became much inclined towards acquiring education from the street rather than from school. He became very much reluctant in attending school and even not within a very long term dropped out of school and joined a local teenage gang called Fulton-Rockaway Boys. The gang engaged in stealing automobiles and in rolling drunks (Anonymous, Not Dated. John Gotti. Serial Killer Calendar). This marked the initial steps in to his long journey in the life of crime. John Gotti died in the year 2002 of cancer. At that time, he was serving a life sentence in prison. His life sentence followed being proved guilty by the court of law on thirteen charges of murder, racketeering, obstruction justice, illegal gambling, evading tax, loansharking and he was also charged with his participation in the murdering of Castellano formerly the boss of “Gambino Crime Family” and Thomas Billoti. According to (Anonymous, 2008, John Gotti: Former Godfather), John Gotti was the last main mafia bosses to die. Currently, the Gambino Crime family is said to be under his son by the name John Gotti, Jr.

Theories of criminal Development

There are several theories set up by various people about criminal development. These theories try to describe the possible causes of an individual developing a criminal mind and consequently participating in criminal activities. Some of the theories discussed in this paper are those created by people like Merton and Sutherland.

Merton’s Strain Theory

The basis of this theory is that crime thrives in the space, disparity, or dysjunction between aspirations stimulated by culture in order to succeed economically and the capabilities to achieve that are distributed structurally. This theory makes an assumption that the aspirations for economic success is fairly uniform across social class and the theory then goes ahead to give an explanation as to why crime is mostly traced in the lower classes who possess the lowest genuine chances of having achievements (O’Connor, 2007). According to Walters (1992), a society instills inspirations in its people for upward or forward movement and a desire to realize some set goals. But whenever the legitimate means to achieving these goals seem barred, then at this point strain sets in which in turn acts as a driving force to bring about the violation of the law in order to realize these goals. In this case, he also concurs that Merton viewed the people in the lower class as being the most prone to this situation. Lista (2009). reports Merton’s view that when accepted norms in society puts much pressure on individuals, they will have either to work in conformity with the structure the society has created or resort to becoming members of the rebellious groups or subculture.

This theory very much relates to the development of John Gotti’s criminal life. According to (Anonymous, n.d., John Gotti; Serial Killer Calendar), while John Gotti was still a young boy, he was quick tempered and hated those who were financially successful than him. He showed his dissatisfaction with the formal education as a legitimate way of acquiring success in life. He resorted to joining the street gang and started engaging in criminal activities. His dissatisfaction with the legitimate ways of attaining success was also indicated at the point in time when after being released from prison and asked to find a legitimate job to do, he was able to secure a place in his stepfather’s construction company but interesting enough, he never did the work but still could manage to get payment from the company (Anonymous, n.d. John Gotti; Serial Killer Calendar). There are so many illustrations of how John Gotti refused to live without breaking the law as he pursued his goals.

Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory

According to this theory, Sutherland proposed that criminal conduct is learned in the process of associating with others particularly those of the same age group. Thus, an individual exposed to an “excess of definitions encouraging violations of the law and an absence of definitions discouraging social violations would be anticipated to resort to criminal solutions to their problems.” This theory can be summarized as follows: a) Just like any other behavior, crime is acquired through learning. B) Criminal conduct is learned through close association with those people who most often commit crime. C) The criminal outcomes depend on the rate of recurrence, strength, duration and main concern of these associations. D) Cultural clash subserve differential association development. E) Differences among people are only important to the point that they impact on one’s associations. According to this theory, differential association does not only involve the learning of the criminal tactics and strategies but involves learning of drives, motives, attitudes, and justifications that are inclined towards violation of the law (Orcutt, 2002).

This theory is as well quite relevant to the development of John Gotti’s criminal life. For instance; John Gotti dropped out of school and joined the street gang where they started to run errands for the “Wiseguys”. It did not take long before he started participating in criminal activities such as stealing automobiles which turned out to be a starting point of his long term participation in crime. However, unlike in the Merton’s theory, this theory does not give the original cause of one making a decision to join an association or gang from which he can learn about crime and the subsequent involvement in criminal activities.

Gang Types

Carlie (2002) suggests that there are several kinds of gangs in the United States of America among other parts of the world. These gangs may be put into categories basing on various factors among them being their level of organization, location, longevity and mode of transportation e.g. biker gangs, and car clubs.

According to Smith (2006), Joreme Skolnmick made an identification of two types of gangs; namely, cultural gangs and entrepreneurial gangs. The cultural gangs are those that are based in specific areas and may be aggressively occupied in many different criminal behaviors. On the other hand, entrepreneurial gangs are those gangs that exist with an objective of acquiring wealth by means of involvement in criminal activities like dealing in narcotics through manufacturing and distributing these commodities.

An example of the cultural gang is the “Gangster Disciples”. This is a gang based in Chicago. This gang qualifies to be classified as a cultural gang since the members have one basic cultural background. Even if they have so far extended their operations in to other locations, their line is still neighborhood based.

Reference

Anonymous. (2008). John Gotti: Former Godfather. Web.

Anonymous. (n.d.). John Gotti. Serial Killer Calendar. 2009. Web.

Carlie, M. (2002). Kinds and names of Gangs. Web.

Lista, P. (2009). Robert Merton and the Deviant Behavior. Web.

O’Connor, T. (2007). Strain Theories of Crime. Web.

Orcutt, J. D. (2002). Sutherlands Differential Association Theory. Web.

Smith, N. M. (2006). Skolnick’s Gang Types. Web.

Walters, G. D. (1992). Foundations of Criminal Science: The development of knowledge Volume 1. Green Publishing Group. ISBN 0275941280, 9780275941284 pp 219. Web.

Arrest Stage

The process of a criminal trial starts when an individual is arrested, or charges are filed for a warrant. Within 2 to 48 hours of the initial arrest, the defendant must have his informal arraignment. During this time, the defendant is informed of the charges against him. If the defendant has not already been Mirandized, he will be informed of his rights. Even if this has already taken place, he will be informed again of his right to counsel. If the charge is not murder, bail will be set. If the charge is for murder, bail may be set at the discretion of the judge. The defendant will then be notified of when and where to appear next, then will be allowed to leave if bail has been set, or he will be remanded into custody.

Initial Appearance Stage

• Charging Documents
• Preliminary Hearing
• The next step is the preliminary hearing if the case is on the state level. This usually takes place 7 to 10 days after the informal arraignment. The defendant goes before a district justice, who determines if the case merits going any farther. The prosecution must prove by a prima facie case that the charges are valid. The prosecution will call witnesses and show evidence. Typically the defense will not (Cannon, 1999).
• Grand Jury

If the case is to be remanded to federal court, there is not a preliminary hearing. Instead, the defendant goes before a grand jury. The grand jury is made up of 23 citizens. Grand jury hearings are private. The public may not attend, nor may reporters be present. The defendant’s lawyer may not even be present. However, the defendant may leave the courtroom to confer with his attorney when he feels the need. Unlike actual trials, guilt may be inferred by the defendant exercising his right not to testify.

Trial by Jury Stage

After 30 more days pass, the pre-trial conference is held. Both the defense and prosecuting lawyers meet with the judge. While pre-trial motions should have already been filed, most lawyers wait until now to file them. The judge typically allows this to avoid the possibility of an appeal. This leads to the guilt phase, assuming the defendant decided not to plead “not guilty” during the formal arraignment. Pleas may be open, meaning they have no involvement from the prosecution, or they may be negotiated. If the defense negotiates a plea with the prosecution, the judge must approve it as well. If the defendant pleads ‘Guilty,’ he is admitting to factual guilt. The defendant may also plea ‘nolo contendre,’ which means no contest. This means the defendant will accept any sentence handed down but does not admit factual guilt. It is no different than a guilty plea for this hearing but prevents a later trial from using a guilty plea against him (Fisher, 2007).

Sentencing Stage

• Further, the defendant may also plead conditionally, stating he will plead guilty but wishes to keep certain appeal rights he would usually lose. Finally, the last guilt type please is that of an Alford plea. In an Alford plea, the defendant is pleading guilty but asserting factual innocence. This happens when a defendant says he is innocent but will plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the possibility of a death sentence (Posey, 2005).
• If the defendant had not pleaded guilty and instead stated he was not guilty, the case would move onto the trial phase. First, a jury must be selected. The process of jury selection is known as the Voir Dire. The group that is eligible to be picked to serve on the jury is known as the Venire. The jury may be kept sequestered, meaning they are isolated from the media while the trial takes place to keep them impartial.
• Four theories of punishment or sentencing
• If the defendant had not pleaded guilty and instead stated he was not guilty, the case would move onto the trial phase. First, a jury must be selected. The process of jury selection is known as the Voir Dire. The group that is eligible to be picked to serve on the jury is known as the Venire. The jury may be kept sequestered, meaning they are isolated from the media while the trial takes place to keep them impartial (Pizzi, 2008).
• At the next step, the judge will give opening instructions to the jury. This step is optional. However, it usually takes place since most jurors will not be experts on the law and will need concepts explained.
• Next, the opening statements are heard. The point of the opening statements is for the attorneys to form a relationship with the jury, as well as establish credibility. The prosecution goes first, followed by the defense.

Denunciation

The hypothesis behind denunciation as an intent of sentencing is to state society’s condemnation of the crime that was committed. The crimes in the Criminal Code reproduce the behaviors that our society condemns and that society has deemed do not deal with our value system (Kressel et al. 2004). By itself, the theory is less about inserting blame on the particular criminal and more about defining the principles and moral code that we wait for people in society to stick to. This hypothesis is likely the basis of having the obligatory smallest amount of sentences for certain offenses. Such as the compulsory sentence for murder is life imprisonment, and there is no hold for the individual. For some, the minimum sentence might not be appropriate.

Deterrence

The fundamental assumption with prevention is that the danger or example of punishment will dishearten people from carrying out crimes. Normally the principle is thought to be that if you augment the harshness of the punishment, you will decrease the crime rate. However, there is now substantial research that quarrels with this idea, especially in regards to jail sentences (Holland, 2006). The Sentencing Commission established that there is no evidence of a restrictive effect from increasing the sternness of the sentence, but in its place accepted that any deterrent effect stems from the entire process instead of a particular sentence forced. The effectiveness of this objective in sentencing is consequently questionable.

Separation from Society

This theory is based on the straightforward idea that a person who is in jail is powerless to commit a crime in the neighborhood for as long as they are locked away from the community. This gauge should only be taken with people who cannot be discouraged or rehabilitated in the community since the phrasing of the provision is that it should be used only “where necessary” (Beck, 2007).

This theory is reproduced in the provisions of the Criminal Code, which allow some criminals to be chosen as Dangerous Offenders and to be sentenced to undefined periods of imprisonment. The death penalty is final in separation from society, though that sentence was eliminated from the Criminal Code. However, it might be interesting to know that the murder rates have steadily decreased since the elimination of this sentence. What does it say about the theory of general avoidance when the most severe punishment potentially does not seem to have affected the speed of that crime?

Rehabilitation

This purpose of sentencing has been a topic of popularity over the years. Rehabilitation is the perfect goal of sentencing because all criminals cannot be imprisoned indeterminately. So victorious rehabilitation to make sure an offender does not commit crimes in the future is the most excellent option to protect the public. It is fascinating that rehabilitation used to be seen as a goal that may well be best achieved through ways such as educational or vocational programs in prison. On the other hand, there is no evidence to hold up the notion that imprisonment itself will fruitfully revitalize an offender (Butler, 2005). Incarceration is usually ineffective at rehabilitating or deterring offenders. As an alternative, the courts have completed a conditional sentence, which is a jail sentence that is served in the community, which will be more useful than sending a person to jail when bearing in mind the objective of rehabilitation.

Incarceration

Once both sides have finished, closing statements begin. On the state level, the defense goes first, and then the prosecution gives its closing statements. For federal courts, the prosecution gives their statements, followed by the defense, and then the prosecution may give another statement.

The judge will then give closing instructions to the jury on how to proceed. The jury will come back with a verdict once a unanimous 12 to 0 decision is reached. The judge will poll the jury to verify each juror has come to the same decision. If the verdict is not guilty, the defendant is free to go. If he is found guilty and he is sentenced to serve time, he will be remanded into custody.

References

Beck, C. (2007). The Current State of the Peremptory Challenge. William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 39.

Butler, P. (2005) Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System. Yale Law Journal, Vol. 105.

Cannon, L. (2007) Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD. New York: Westview Press.

Fletcher, G. (2006). With Justice for Some: Protecting Victims’ Rights in Criminal Trials. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Fisher, G. (2007). Plea Bargaining’s Triumph. Yale Law Journal, Vol. 109,

Hoffman, B. (2003) The Case for Jury Sentencing. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 52.

Holland, F. (2006) Improving Criminal Jury Verdicts: Learning from the Court-Martial. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 97.

Kressel, K., Dorit F. (2004). Stack and Sway: The New Science of Jury Consulting. New York: Westview Press.

Pizzi, T. H., Morris B. (2008) Jury Selection Errors on Appeal. American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 38.

Posey, J., Lawrence S. (2005). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

The reasons guns have not been outlawed are many. This action would violate the Constitution, impair hunter’s rights and take away the right to protect one’s family, property or self. The topic of Gun Control is controversial and the debate surrounding it often emotional usually centering on differing interpretations of the Constitution. Most American’s agree that the Second Amendment does allow law-abiding citizens to own guns for protection and hunting. The debate, however, seldom applies to hunter’s rights. However, outlawing handguns outright would affect hunters as well as people that simply wish to protect themselves.

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. This, as were all of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was added by the Founding Fathers so as to provide a more clear definition of the specific rights guaranteed to Americans.

Gun control advocates consider the Second Amendment to be “obsolete; or is intended solely to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable requirements”. However, they only question the need for people to own firearms that are not primarily designed for sporting purposes such as hunting.

Obviously, the right to own arms was of supreme importance to the Founders given that it was listed second only after the freedom of religion and speech was documented in the First Amendment. The Founders knew that by ensuring the right to own arms, citizens would have the ability to protect themselves from that which might endanger their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.

This could include bodily protection from persons and animals or from an oppressive government that threatened the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. “The Second Amendment reflects the founders’ belief that an armed citizenry, called the ‘general militia’ was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution’s framers”.

It has been argued that the citizens of the country no longer have a need for arms such as they did 230 years ago. No hostile Indians and little threat from wild animals; the government is stable and elected by a democratic process and the citizens of the country have the most powerful armed force ever assembled by humankind in addition to several levels of law enforcement that protect it. It is also argued that the right to own guns has become a detriment to the safety of society which is in opposition to the intentions of the Founders.

Though on the surface a somewhat valid argument, the underlying rationale for the right to keep and bear arms remains an essential element for the protection of individual freedoms, which the Founders foresaw. An example can be found the first time gun control was enacted in the U.S. Following the Civil War, many Southern states passed a law that forbade blacks from owing firearms. Because of this, they had no means by which to protect themselves from radical white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Today, minorities of all descriptions including Muslim and homosexuals are better able to protect themselves from hate groups because of their constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms. Many examples of human rights violations have been documented in all parts of the world following laws that banned citizens from owning guns.

Gun control legislation in different countries

In 1911, Turkey enacted gun control legislation which led to the extermination of 1.5 million unarmed Armenian citizens of that country by 1917. In 1929, the Soviet Union enacted gun control. From that year until 1953, over 20 million unarmed people identified as political non-conformists were murdered by the state. Approximately 20 million citizens in China were killed for the same reason from 1948 to 1952 following gun control enacted in 1935.

Gun control was enacted by the Nazi regime of Germany in 1938. From that time until the end of World War II in 1945, untold millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, politically-defined mentally ill people, political non-conformists and others considered less than ‘normal’ were exterminated. In 1956, Cambodia enacted gun control which led to the eradication of more than a million of its ‘educated’ citizens from1975 to 1977. Similar genocidal events occurred following gun control laws enacted in Guatemala in 1964 and Uganda in 1970.

Safety and security is dependent on the right to bear arms

Police departments are under no legal obligation to protect anyone or any group and usually are only able to react to a crime that has already occurred, take a report and investigate. “Governmental police forces were created to prevent and break up riots, and to keep a general sense of public order. They were never designed to stop criminal acts against individuals and, accordingly, they do this job poorly”.

There is about one police officer available for every 3,000 citizens in a given city; therefore, personal safety is the responsibility of each person alone. Gun-control proponents decry the evils of gun ownership every time a tragedy such as Columbine High School or Virginia Tech occurs and though they would like to see every gun taken out the hands of law-abiding citizens, seldom is an enforceable, workable plan offered that would curb gun violence. Disarming citizens would be next to impossible because there are more than 140 million guns in the U.S., a third of which are handguns.

Attempting to disarm criminals is a great plan in some fairy-tale land but is a fruitless venture in the real world. “The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400; that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600. Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminals supply would continue with barely an interruption”. The prohibition of guns in an effort to diminish criminal activity is as reasonable solution in much the same way the prohibition of alcohol would diminish the occurrences of driving while intoxicated. Gun-control advocates argue that handguns serve no purpose except to shoot people.

Any hunter will tell you that this is untrue. This underscores the lack of knowledge these advocates possess concerning the activity they denounce. Handguns are bought mainly for reasons of self-defense but nearly 20 percent buy handguns to use for sport-shooting, target practice and about 15 percent buy handguns as collector’s items. Hunters regularly use handguns as a protection against snakes and to hunt game animals.

To protect oneself, the common belief is that it is legally and morally acceptable to use lethal force. It is only legal and some would argue moral, to use only the degree of force necessary in a given situation. A weapon cannot be legally used, for example, to stop a felony in progress unless it can be proven that that person had reason to believe their life was in peril. If a six-foot male attacked another six-foot male with his fists, then lethal force would be deemed unnecessary and the victim of the attack would face a long prison sentence. However, if the same victim was a 5’ 2” female then this action would likely be judged appropriate.

Changing the law does not affect the crime rate

Changes in handgun laws were seen to have little to on impact on crime rates through the 1990s. This is not surprising based on fact that most violent criminals do not obtain their firearms through licensed sources. Other programs, such as gun buy-back programs have been proven to be similarly ineffective for a variety of reasons including intention for use, ease of replacement and probability of use for crime. Earlier gun control policies enacted in 1976 and 1982 had similar disappointing results. Concealed weapons laws have actually been shown to have a positive effect on crime rates, that is, they contribute to an escalation in crime.

While valid arguments, the opposing opinion is equally compelling. According to gun control proponents the prohibition of guns in an effort to diminish criminal activity is as reasonable solution in much the same way the prohibition of alcohol would diminish the occurrences of driving while intoxicated. The concept that the easy access to firearms has an important impact on the homicide rates in this country is supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

Nearly two thirds of all homicides taking place in the United States involve a firearm.Guns in the home are more likely to kill or injure an unintended victim than they are an intruder. When in the hands of irresponsible gun owners are potentially dangerous if children reside in the house. In addition, if the owner does possess the confidence or adequate training required to use it effectively, the weapon could still prove useless in a stressful situation. “Many people have been seriously hurt in violent encounters with a potential gun in their hand. In the stress of the moment, they didn’t think to use it or doubted its’ ability to impact the situation”

Children are no longer waiting until they’ve reached adulthood to commit their strongest crimes. They carry guns to school and exact revenge upon those they feel has wronged them with the slightest provocation. Although Columbine made front page news across the country, similar shootings in other schools have gained newspaper attention only when the newspaper is the hometown edition.

This behavior is tracked into the working world as employees who have suffered too much humiliation or not received the raise or promotion they wanted suddenly show up to work with guns of their own, shooting just as indiscriminately as the kids in an effort to purge their anger. In the year 2002, more than 3000 American children died as a result of guns, mostly handguns. That breaks down to 50 children being shot and killed each week or eight per day, one every three hours. Four to five times this many are wounded from gunfire. These numbers are startling enough. Now insert the more than 5000 kids under 18 killed by guns in 2005 and the figures jump to nearly 100 per week, 15 per day and 1 every hour and a half.

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. Compare this with Britain where 19 children were killed by guns in 2005 and Japan where none were killed. Both if these countries have enacted strict gun control laws. The children of America are dying every day so that those who insist they have a right to own an arsenal of weapons and misconstrue the Constitution to justify this desire will not vote against those in the government who could end this senseless massacre.

The suggestion that more guns in the community would reduce gun violence, that if everyone, evidently including high school students, carried handguns, everyone else would be afraid to use theirs. This is such a twisted and dangerous manipulation of logic and common sense, it is not worthy of rebuttal. In addition, outside of the banning of handguns, hunters have little cause to worry that gun-control advocates will try to take their rifles and shotguns away.

According to a report by the National Institute of Justice, recreational use is the most frequent reason given for the purchase of a firearm. Approximately 35 percent of gun owners identify themselves as hunters (Cook & Ludwig, 1997). Gun enthusiasts mimic the concept that more guns will lead to less violence, that if everyone were carrying a gun, criminals would be too scared to commit crimes. The more is less philosophy. This doesn’t square with reasonable logic or the facts. “Whenever you have more guns in a society, you’re going to have more gun violence, period”.

Gun politics in Texas

The State of Texas is known, quite deservedly, as having an open policy regarding guns. Texas citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns once completing licensing requirements. Then Governor, George W. Bush signed a law that specifically permits Texans to carry guns in Church. In 2002, the Violence Policy Center study conducted a study a concealed guns in Texas and found that, among other disturbing revelations, from 1996 to 2001, “concealed handgun license holders in Texas were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the state’s general population aged 21 and older”.Lawmakers in Texas responded immediately to this situation by passing legislation that forbids the release of gun-related information.

More than 30 million hunters purchase permits or licenses and nearly 20 million take part in sporting activities involving firearms each year according to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Gun Control Act of 1968 states that, “the purpose of federal firearm regulation is to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in the ongoing effort to reduce crime and violence”.

Hunters can take comfort in the fact the Act also states, “the intent of the law is not to place any undue or unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens in regard to the lawful acquisition, possession, or use of firearms for hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity”. Hunters should be concerned that handguns are constantly debated but not the sport of hunting itself is under serious threat even from gun-control advocates.

Gun ownership as political ideologies

Gun control advocates generally want the weapon that kills the most people, handguns, to be illegal but are willing to compromise on rifles and shotguns. In this way, the right to bear arms is protected and so are the thousands that die from handguns every year. Of course, when reading the Second Amendment in context, only armed militias have the right to keep and bear arms. However, given the current strong emotions tied to the issue and the popularity of guns in this country, a compromise is the only solution.

Ideologies are formed by a person’s innermost beliefs, cultivated by years of thought and shaped by life’s numerous experiences. An ideological debate causes a more emotive response in individuals than does any other. Political ideologies can never die and in politically turbulent times, such as these, are very much alive. The 9-11 attacks, abortion the war in Iraq, the loss of civil liberties, global warming, health care, gay marriage, stem cell research and many other politically motivating subjects have ignited emotional ideological battles.

Gun ownership ranks high among these political ideologies and to attempt to ban all guns would make these feelings even stronger. To make the case for upholding the widely perceived ‘right’ to bear arms by allowing rifles and shotguns of a certain length while banning handguns and assault rifles seems the sensible solution and a fight that could be won. This tact has proven effective in other countries such as Britain and many other European nations. Those countries that ban handgun use have a much lower homicide rate than does the U.S.

Aside from the main argument for continued legal gun ownership, to preserve a uniquely American birthright, the vast majority of gun owners are not only responsible but likely are overly cautious because they realize the moral and legal gravity that accompanies possessing a weapon of destruction. Society’s moral code is written into the laws of the land therefore if a person carefully follows the law then the gun owner generally can be assured that they are following a reasonable moral path as well. However, everyone draws a different moral line in the sand and some may choose to conduct themselves with more restraint than the laws allow.

This is a preferable approach, generally speaking, because quick and emotionally charged decisions’ involving a lethal weapon often leads to illegal, immoral and greatly regrettable actions. “The man who wears a gun carries with it the power of life and death, and therefore the responsibility to deport himself with greater calm and wisdom than his unarmed counterpart, whose panic or misjudgment in crisis situations will have less serious consequences”.Whenever an individual uses lethal force, an investigation is certain. If the District Attorney is not completely convinced that that act was in self-defense and was justifiable, the individual will face criminal prosecution.

This is assuming that the prosecuting attorney is not trying to build a reputation for being tough on gun crime in their particular area and decides to send it to trial regardless of the circumstances. In a courtroom setting, the fate of a person who may simply have been trying to protect themselves lay in the hands and hearts of a judge and jury. The jury will hear the prosecutor’s story of how excessive force was used and now an innocent person is dead. They will also see the anguished looks on the family of the deceased and a portion may think that hand guns shouldn’t be legal in the first place.

Conclusion

Again, gun control proponents make a reasoned argument and some valid points worth serious consideration. What they fail to understand is that freedoms come with consequences and responsibilities but having freedom is worth taking the responsibility for your own actions and enduring the consequences, both as an individual and in the context of society. Alcohol, tobacco and automobiles kill many more persons than firearms but Americans are uniquely free to own and use any of these potentially dangerous products.

The hallmark of American society, in which its citizens have historically taken great pride, is the fact that they are self-reliant and strongly defend personal liberties. Gun control is but one case in point of an American society that is moving away from these attributes which have defined the nation’s ideals and towards the belief that the government can best deal with its problems. Some people choose to accept threats to their well-being as their fate then depend on the justice system to make everything right.

Others, however, choose to defend themselves and their property. Both personal choices are the right of every American, at least for now. Many American citizens would throw away hard fought for freedoms by denying the constitutionally guaranteed right of gun ownership. They would do so without regard to the possible genocidal consequences as exhibited by historical examples or without concern for the safety of their neighbors and countrymen.

References

Aagard, Finn. (1987). “Handgun Hunting Today.” American Hunter.

Ayoob, Massad F. (1980). In the Gravest Extreme: Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection. Police Bookshelf.

Celaya, Adam. (2004). “Use of Force.” Gunversation Online Magazine. Web.

“(The) Constitution: The Bill of Rights.” (2006). Cornell Law School. Web.

Cook, Philip J. and Ludwig, Jens. (1997). “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.” National Institute of Justice. Web.

Department of Commerce (Bureau of Census). Statistical Abstract of the United States 1986. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Fulk, Austin. (1993). “Gun Control vs. Our Freedoms.” Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberties. Web.

Fuller, Al. (2005). “Gun Control Revisited.” Odessa FactSheet. Vol. 44. Los Altos, CA: The American Horse. Web.

Kopel, David B. (1988). “Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control.” Cato Institute. Cato Policy Analysis No. 109. Web.

Krouse, William. (2002). “Gun Control.” Congressional Research Service. Web.

LaHaie, Randy. (2000). “Should You Carry a Personal Safety Device?” Protective Strategies Self-Defense Newsletter. Vol. 1, I. 5.

Loftin, Colin, David McDowall, Brian Wiersema and Talbert Cottey. (1991). “Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia.” New England Journal of Medicine. 325:23, pp. 1615– 620.

Quigley, Paxton. (1989). Armed and Female. Dutton Adult; 1st ed edition.

“More Guns Equals More Gun Violence, Not Less” (2006) Gun Guys. Web.

Reynolds, Morgan O. and Caruth, W. W. III. (1992). “Myths about Gun Control.” Policy Report. National Center for Policy Analysis. No. 176. Web.

“Statistics: Gun Violence in Our Communities” (2005) National Health Administration Health Information Network. Web.

Vickery, Hugh. (1994). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior News Release. Web.

Zimring, Franklin E. (1975). “Firearms And Federal Law: The Gun Control Act Of 1968.” Journal of Legal Studies. Web.

Reynolds, Morgan O. and Caruth, W. W. III. (1992). “Myths about Gun Control.” Policy Report. National Center for Policy Analysis. No. 176. Web.

Wright, James D., and Peter H. Rossi. (1994). Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. Aldine de Gruyter.