Category: Passion

The thirteenth amendment of the United States Constitution was passed on January 31, 1865; making slavery and indentured servitude illegal. Reading; “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Passed towards the end of the American Civil War, this amendment resolved a fraction of what was known as the United States’ greatest shame… slavery. While over a century later racial discrimination is still irrefutably present in American society, the thirteenth amendment made an enormous stride in racial equality. Later followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, just shy of ONE HUNDRED years later, it was set into law that “outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, required equal access to public places and employment, and enforced desegregation of schools and the right to vote.”

There are not as many prevalent Supreme Court cases addressing the thirteenth amendment since its passing in 1865, but of course, instances still exist. Such as Bailey vs. Alabama from 1911; Bailey was contracted to work on a farm for $12 a month for an entire year, but quit after one month and did not return his $15 he received as an advance. This was seen as a criminal act in Alabama and Bailey was sentenced to 136 days of hard labor under Alabama Peonage Law (forced labor to repay a debt). This forced labor violated the thirteenth amendment of the United States’ Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was a restriction on personal rights and that the law violated the thirteenth amendment.

Another case mentioning this amendment being Schenck vs. the United States from 1919; although the case is about the violation of Schenck’s first amendment rights, his argument for his “crime” was to prevent the violation of the thirteenth amendment. During WWI, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer created and distributed leaflets stating that the military draft violated the constitution’s thirteenth amendment prohibiting involuntary servitude. Schenck and Baer were arrested for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 which was created in order to “prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of United States enemies during wartime.” The court ruled to uphold the Espionage Act, declaring that Congress had every right to uphold the act under their wartime authority. This case introduced the “clear and present danger test” that limited the first amendment’s free speech in cases where exercising said right would result in danger to others; such as yelling “fire” in a crowded room.

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/219us219

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

 

PAS #8

Let us roundabout back to the discussion of the fourteenth amendment and dive into a case and subject of ENORMOUS controversy… Roe versus Wade and the topic of a government’s role in abortion rights.

Roe v. Wade has always been a case that has intrigued me because it made me wonder; “why does the government even care about what a woman does to her own body?” For those who do not know the case well, Roe v. Wade was argued in December of 1971 and decided in 1973 regarding a woman’s right to get an abortion in Texas. Jane Roe (a false name to protect her actual identity) filed a lawsuit against the district attorney in Dallas County, Texas wanting to challenge the law that made abortions illegal unless performed to save the mother’s life. The case went to the supreme court and in 1973 it was determined that a woman’s right to choose fell under the right to privacy provided by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was determined that in the first trimester of pregnancy (the first three months) a state cannot impose any restrictions on whether or not a woman can get an abortion. But in the second and third trimesters, the state can impose regulations and ban it entirely (third trimester) to protect the mother’s health and to protect the child once it has grown and “reached the point of viability”.

Roe won her case but the decision was presented after she had her child, and she went on to be a key speaker on the Pro-Life side of the argument.

I personally agree with the court’s decision because it should be a woman’s choice to have a child or not, and it becomes inhumane to abort a child once they are fully developed. Although it is an entirely personal, and often religious and ethical decision to make; it is the woman’s decision alone to make and I think that no person nor government has any right to say otherwise. I think that Voltaire’s saying; “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” applies to this situation because even if a person disagrees with getting one themselves, I believe that other women’s rights to do so should be protected at all cost.

This case was an enormous stride in women’s rights, especially reproductive rights. It gave her control of her own body and it saved so many women from self-harm and illegal abortions; because it was estimated that there were “between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegally induced abortions occur[red] annually in the United States.’ As many as 5,000 to 10,000 women died per year following illegal abortions and many others suffered severe physical and psychological injury” (Center for Reproductive Rights) before the Roe v. Wade Decision. Legalizing abortion saved so many women’s lives because they were able to have the procedure professionally and safely.

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

https://www.reproductiverights.org/document/roe-v-wade-then-and-now

 

PAS #7

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

Beyond the rights granted to individuals upon arrest, there are also rights to protect them during the trial mentioned in the sixth amendment; “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” And “have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”  Which means that everyone should have legal representation and have a relatively fast trial, in relation to the severity of the crime. This is found prevalent in the 1963 case of Gideon vs. Wainwright; in which Florida’s Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of felony breaking and entering; and was ultimately declined a right to an appointed lawyer on account of the fact that, “an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases.” Gideon was then forced to represent himself and was found guilty with a sentence of five years. This issue was then brought to the supreme court and was found through the fourteenth and sixth amendments along with the Bill of Rights, that legal counsel in all criminal cases was a fundamental right and should be abided by in all states. Although the question does arise; is the accused being imprisoned or freed because they are truly guilty or innocent, or because of the skill of their attorney? 

This amendment can favor either side of the spectrum; inadequate counsel can result in an innocent person being put behind bars. While an amazing attorney could result in a guilty criminal to be released. But, this amendment also allows for proper justice to be ensured.

Adequate council can be the difference between life and death, as seen in the Walter McMillian case. An African American man in Monroeville, Alabama was falsely accused and found guilty for the murder of an eighteen year old white woman in a dry cleaning store and was put on death row BEFORE his trial. For fifteen months this innocent man was held on death row before his trial took place, and this trial took only a day and a half; which even for “a speedy and public trial” is way too fast for a murder trial with so many holes and blurry edges to make a decision. The main witness was a white man previously convicted of other crimes, and after police pressure he made a statement placing McMillian at the scene of the crime; despite the dozens of black friends and family stating he was at home with them eleven miles from the crime scene. In 1988, Bryan Stevenson from the Equal Justice Initiative met with McMillian and represented him to overturn his conviction. Finally in 1993, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the conviction and it was agreed that the initial case was mishandled.

The Sixth Amendment is put in place to ensure that all of those accused of a crime be treated fairly and given a proper shot at the truth being discovered, but in situations such as the case of Mr. McMillian’s the system is still abused and innocents are thrown behind bars even BEFORE the trial.

Works cited:

https://eji.org/cases/walter-mcmillian/

 

(PAS #3)

 

The Bill of Rights does what it can to protect the rights of the accused furthermore in the fifth amendment, stating that; “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Also, that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Meaning that an accused person HAS to have at least the option of counsel, whether they deny it or not is up to them, but they legally cannot be left stranded with no legal representation. This amendment’s guidelines were highlighted in the 1966 Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona; where Ernesto Miranda conscribed a confession following hours of police interrogation, but was unaware of his right to request counsel. While Miranda was found guilty, the case was appealed and the Supreme Court set aside his conviction on account of his tainted confession. He was tried again in Arizona, later receiving parole in 1972. This case established the requirement of police officers reading accused persons, Miranda Rights, which state; “You have the right to remain silent. … You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” While this script allows those uneducated of the judicial system to know their rights and prevents forced or false testimonies, in cases such as Miranda’s these rights allow the guilty to walk free, which is not right. Why should a technicality allow a dangerous criminal to roam free if the evidence presented continues to support a guilty verdict?

On the other hand, even with the requirement to read Miranda rights; police officers still abuse the enormous powers bestowed upon them intended to protect their communities. Such as in the Central Park 5 case; five teenagers ranging from 14 to 16 years old (four who were African American, and one who was Hispanic) were falsely convicted of the brutal rape and assault of 28 year old Trisha Meili. These young men were brutally interrogated by the New York 24th precinct; they did not have an attorney nor their parents present during this over twenty-four hours worth of interrogation. The boys were pitted against one another, with the promise of freedom if they placed themselves at the crime scene to convict one of the other four boys. These officers took advantage of these teenagers, who clearly did not know their constitutional right to have an attorney there to defend them; and although it is undetermined whether or not they were even read their Miranda rights (I could not find a definitive statement declaring yes or no) we cannot be sure to know if adolescents at that age in that extremely stressful and terrifying situation would even understand what exactly those twenty-six words meant. Who knows, if anyone took a moment to explain that or to stand up for these boys and give them legal counsel before it was too late… they might’ve been saved from over a decade of suffering.

Antron McCray: arrested at 15, spent 6 years in jail

Kevin Richardson: arrested at 14, spent 5 1/2 years in jail

Yusef Salaam: arrested at 15, spent 6 years and 8 months in jail

Raymond Santana: arrested at 14, spent 5 years in jail

Korey Wise: arrested at 16, spent 12 years in jail (the only one tried as an adult, he went straight to prison while the others went to a juvenile detention center first)

 

Sources:

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-false-confessions-in-the-central-park-jogger-case.html

https://www.northjersey.com/picture-gallery/news/new-york/2019/06/05/look-back-new-yorks-central-park-five-case/1355243001/

https://www.newsweek.com/how-long-central-park-five-incarcerated-when-they-see-us-1443119

The fourth amendment of the United States’ constitution was intended to dissolve fear of the malpractice of power initially used by relentless the British soldiers prior to the American Revolution; by ultimately abolishing the use of general warrants and warrantless searches. This amendment also led to the creation of the Exclusionary Rule, which affirms that any evidence found illegally and not previously stated on a warrant may not be used as evidence in a court of law. This rule initially originated in 1913’s Weeks v. United States. Later incorporated in 1961 with the Supreme Court Case of Mapp v. Ohio. In which, Dollree Mapp was believed to be in possession of illegal betting slips, equipment employed in a ‘numbers game’, and to be housing fugitive Virgil Ogletree. Police officers asked to enter her home, when she refused this request, they returned with a warrant listing everything they were to search for. During this search, the police found a pistol and multiple accounts of child pornography. However, this contraband was not outlined on the original warrant and Mapp was aquitted of the possession. The exclusionary rule and the protection of Mapp’s fourth amendment rights in this situation allowed her to go free. Although, there are many instances in today’s society where powers by law enforcement are still abused and there is corruption in a lot of aspects of power. But, the initial intent of the fourth amendment was to avoid those situations, and these instances will never be perfect, because no human being is, this amendment and these clauses are implemented to TRY and prevent malpractices of power. Several questions arise from this situation and many others much like it; how is it fair that this woman who knowingly and willingly committed a heinous crime was able to walk free? Although the concept of the exclusionary rule is effective and protects those wrongly accused, does it simultaneously also give leeway for real criminals to roam free?

 

(PAS #1)