Month: October 2020

The first amendment of the United States constitution is one of the more controversial ones written. Stating that; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Questions are raised; is hate speech one of the protected rights in this amendment? What if a religion requires sacrificing another’s life or permits rape/assault? And one that is incredibly prevalent in today’s society with the Black Lives Matters protests occurring, what defines a peaceful protest?

Throughout America’s history, there have been additions to this amendment to ensure the safety and the preservation of citizen’s rights and lives. Such as disallowing shouting “fire” in a crowded building because it causes panic, putting other’s lives in danger. Although while having the ability to cause violence, hate speech has not been legally restricted because of how broad of a topic it is. There is no definite definition for the term because while some phrases can be incredibly offensive to some, others may not be affected by it. An example of this being Brandenburg versus Ohio in 1969; where KKK member Clarence Brandenburg made a public speech in Ohio describing the “revengeance” of certain races and the US government. Brandenburg was then arrested for his hate-fueled speech but his conviction was overturned on account that the charge violated his first amendment right to free speech. While I in no way, shape, or form agree with Brandenburg’s cause; I do think the ruling was just. On account that if he was sentenced for his words then a very slippery, dangerous slope would occur. Anyone could be arrested for saying anything that another person deems “hateful”, thereby blurring out the free speech portion of the first amendment.

Another example of this seen through the first amendment’s right to assembly in the Skokie case from 1977. Where the National Socialist (Nazi) Party of America walked the streets of Skokie, Illinois where about 40,500 of their 70,000 residents were Jewish, most of whom survived the Holocaust concentration camps. The Nazi Party was told they were not permitted to hold their gathering, because it would cause great distress to the Jewish residence and would possibly result in violence. But the supreme court ruled that the Nazi Party’s first amendment right to assemble had been violated, and they had a right to do so as long as a permit was acquired. The same as with the Brandenburg case in terms of not agreeing with what the group represents; if the Skokie case ruled the opposite way then any group perceived to be threatening, or simply disliked, would not have the right to protest or simply gather. This may have led to those participating in the Black Lives Matters protests to be arrested or denied their right to speak out for what they believe in.

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-1786

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492

PAS #6

Despite several of the Constitution’s amendments and clauses allowing leeway for possible corruption or injustice, they all protect the guidelines outlined in the fourteenth amendment that; “ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” All human persons have the right to due process and nothing can, nor should be able to take that away. This basic human right to due process was strengthened in the twenties; kickstarted by Gitlow v. New York in 1925; this doctrine set forth the guidelines for every state to follow regarding the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the requirements in a warrant, the Fifth Amendment’s prevention of double jeopardy, right against self-incrimination, and protection against taking property without due compensation; the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy and public trial with an impartial jury, the right to notice of accusations, right to confront hostile witnesses, to compulsory process to obtain witness testimony, confront favorable witnesses, and the right to counsel;  and the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments.  Ensuring that all citizen’s rights are protected no matter where they reside in the United States.

But violations of the fourteenth amendment are unfortunately seen a great deal throughout America’s history. Such as Plessy vs. Ferguson in May of 1896 where Homer Plessy was arrested in Louisiana for sitting in the “whites only” section of a bus despite him being 7/8 caucasian. He was arrested and went to every court in Louisiana before being presented for the supreme court. The final ruling was that as long as both facilities were equal, the separation of races was permissible through the fourteenth amendment. This ruling was later overturned through Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 which declared that separate could not and would not ever be equal and demanded for the desegregation of United States’ public schools.

Another being Loving vs Virginia in June of 1967; Mildred and Richard Loving were an inter-racial couple who resided in Virginia. Due to Virginia’s laws against inter-racial marriage, the two traveled to Washington DC to tie the knot. They were arrested when they returned to their home in Virginia and sentenced to one year in prison; this sentence was overturned as long as the couple promised to leave Virginia for twenty-five years. In the court of appeals, it was argued that the sentence preserved “racial integrity” seeing that the punishment affected both races negatively so there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. But when presented to the supreme court, the court ruled in favor of the couple, marking an enormous win in the Civil Rights movement. (A very interesting movie to see more detail about this case is the 2016 movie “Loving”, covering Mildred and Richard’s life before, during, and after the court case as well as the case itself.)

Sources:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-huge-supreme-court-cases-about-the-14th-amendment

 

PAS #5

The rights of the accused are further extended after they are acquitted or convicted of a crime; the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution reads; “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This amendment was instilled to protect against gruesome punishments of the past such as; the removal of limbs, stonings, drawing and quartering, public hangings, and sadly many more. One major controversy regarding this is the debate over whether or not to abolish the death penalty. Should the death penalty be used in only the most haneious of offenses? Such as accounts of treason, torture resulting in murder, proven terrorists, serial killers, and even some cases of serial rapists. Which was the topic of the case; Coker v. Georgia in 1977 that sentenced Erlich Anthony Coker to death after escaping prison and breaking into a Georgia couple’s home where he raped the woman and then stole their car. The supreme court then ruled that the sentence of death on the account of rape was “grossly disproportionate” to the crime committed because rape did not result in the convicted taking a human life. Even though the woman left the hospital without further injury and Coker was still found guilty; he had also previously been convicted of multiple accounts of murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault before his initial escape. Is it truly fair to let a criminal of this magnitude live while so many of his victim’s lives are ruined or have been emotionally stunted. I am not suggesting he should have been sentenced to death for committing his past crimes in this specific case on the account of double jeopardy, but if this man has proved that he is an enormous threat, and a repeat offender who clearly has no compassion or sympathy towards human life… why are we allowing him to return to prison only to give him another chance of escape that previously led to the harm of others. 

On the other hand, the death penalty has been largely abused in the past and unfortunately even in today’s society with the horrifying reality that systemic racism and legal injustice still exists in the United States…

Such as cases like Brian Terrell (GA. Convicted in 1995, executed in 2015), Robert Pruett (TX. Convicted in 2000, executed in 2017) where there was no substantial physical evidence and the key witnesses were later exposed as liars and benefitting from their testimonies with less time (Terrell’s case) and a transfer to be closer to his family (Pruett’s case). These cases and SO many more throughout American history have resulted in an innocent man or woman to be executed while maintaining their innocence; especially prior to the development and use of DNA tracking to be able to scientifically link a suspect to the scene of the crime. There have been 375 people in the United States’ prison system that have been exonerated thanks to DNA testing, 21 of whom were on death row.

Sources:

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent

https://www.innocenceproject.org/exonerate/

Pas #4