Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health
Facts
Cruzan had a motor accident that left her in a “poor state” and needed to be sustained for weeks using artificial feeding using gastronomy tube. When it was clear that Cruzan could not improve, the parents requested the removal of the life-support processes the state facility was offering. However, both the facility and the state court declined to comply with the request. After trial, the Supreme Court refused the termination of life support since the parents could not provide evidence that Cruzan would have selected to decline treatment.
Issue
The issue at hand was whether the due process provision in the 14th Amendment allowed Cruzan’s parents to decline life-support intervention on their child in her interest and behalf. Further, the court sought to determine if Missouri’s procedural need for clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent person’s wish to end life support before its termination violated the constitution.
Holding & Reasoning
In a majority ruling, the judges ruled that while persons have the liberty to decline treatment as prescribed in the due process provision, individuals who are not competent could not exercise these rights. The court found that clear and convincing evidence was absent from the parents that Cruzan wished to have the treatment withdrawn (Oyez, n.d). Therefore, the court opined that Missouri’s actions aimed at preserving human life were within the constitution. The court was categorical that the family did not offer any guarantees that it was acting in the best interests of the incompetent patients. Decisions to withdraw treatment from the patient were irreversible, and therefore, the court reasoned that the state had present enough evidence to demonstrate its position. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
- Right to Privacy
The right to privacy is an essential aspect of the law that allows people to have their information, not shared arbitrarily without their consent. The power also means having personal independence. I believe that while not explicitly stated different amendments to the constitution like the first, third and fourth, as well as fifth and ninth, protect privacy rights. For instance, the Fourth Amendment offers protection on one’s right to privacy by prohibiting unreasonable searches, seizures and arrests (Findlaw, n.d). Further, the first amendment protects the privacy of worship and beliefs, while the third amendment focuses on the privacy of homes and the fourth amendment offers protection against self-incrimination. Through this, the confidentiality of personal information is protected.
However, these aspects of daily life are considered private and should be protected, but the government can infringe on these constitutional provisions in different circumstances. For instance, for national security reasons, the government can infringe on the right to privacy. Secondly, the government can also infringe on this right during times of war and in search of information and evidence when one is suspected of being a terrorist as described in the Patriot Act. Again, when it deems it necessary to protect homeland security, the government can infringe on these aspects of daily living related to privacy.
Essay 2: Sixth Amendment
The sixth amendment mandates that the justice system should ensure that defendants have access to legal counsel or lawyer. The defendants also have a right to a prompt public trial and independent jury. Further, it states that the defendant should know their accusers and the kind of charges as well as evidence against them. The amendment implores on the government to get a legal counsel for defendants who cannot afford a lawyer in federal prosecutions. As such, the federal court system has public defenders who help criminal defendants in their cases.
Strickland v. Washington
Facts
The defendant pleaded guilty of committing a series of murders and rapes. During his sentencing, his counsel never sought for character witnesses as well as request a psychiatric evaluation. The trial court did not find any mitigating evidence and sentenced him to death. Upon being sentenced to death, the defendant filed for a writ claiming that he was not offered practical assistance of a counsel as needed by the sixth amendment. The district court declined the petition, but the defendant appealed to the Fifth Circuit Appellate court, which reversed the earlier decision (Oyez, n.d). The court asserted that the Sixth Amendment rights of a criminal defendant were not honoured.
Issue
The issue in the case was the kind of standard that should be used in determining if a convict’s 6th Amendment right to legal counsel was violated to lead to setting aside of a conviction of death penalty.
Holding & Reasoning
The court ruled that a lawyer’s performance should be insufficient to prejudice the defendant and deny them a fair trial. The judges held that the defendant demonstrated that his counsel’s performance was below the “objectively reasonable standard.” The court asserted that while the lawyer may have committed a mistake, it was not sufficient to overturn the death penalty (Oyez, n.d). It posited that the accused should prove that there was a reasonable possibility that if not for the lawyer’s unprofessional errors, the outcome would be different. It also held that the conduct of the counsel was not unreasonable to lead to sufficient prejudice to the defendant and warrant the vacation of the death sentence.
Relationship to Miranda v. Arizona
The case is associated with Miranda v. Arizona because in this case, the defendant did not have access to counsel when he was arrested and interrogated to write a confession. During the trial, the law enforcement agents admitted that they never informed the defendant of his right to counsel even when they were interrogating him (Oyez, n.d). However, in this case, Miranda never requested counsel as compared to the previous example.
When accused of a crime, it is vital to have an attorney because of the several advantages they provide. Firstly, they ensure that police officer adheres to the due process rules, and secondly, argues a case on one’s behalf. Thirdly, a legal counsel is essential since they help one not to self-incriminate themselves during a trial. However, a legal counsel is expensive, but one can get a public defender whom they do not have to pay.
The legal system asserts that one is innocent until evidence exists to prove that they are guilty. Therefore, one is only a suspect, and the police must prove beyond a reasonable doubt by presenting proof that one is guilty of a crime they are accused of in a court.
Essay 3: Roper v. Simmons
In the case, the judges held that executing individuals who were seventeen years at the time of committing a crime was not constitutional because it amounted to cruel and unusual treatment. The change of opinions among Americans showed that the execution of minors was unconstitutional as it was not only cruel but also unusual since their brain capacities were not fully developed (Oyez, n.d). Persons who are eighteen are more responsible because they are adults and not minors. Therefore, it is vital to draw a line between adults and juveniles.
Roper v. Simmons
Facts
The respondent, Simmons burglarized and murdered through conspiracy with two friends. The two entered the home of a victim and kidnapped her and threw her in a river. The respondent was seventeen during the incident and went on bragging about the event (Oyez, n.d). When arrested, he confessed the crime. However, the law enforcement agents tried him when he attained eighteen years and was found guilty and therefore sentenced to death.
Issue
The issue was if it is allowed under the 8th and 14th amendments to execute juvenile offenders older than fifteen years but less than eighteen when he or she commits a capital offence.
Holding and Reasoning
The court held that it was not permissible to execute minors under the two amendments to the constitution. The court held that children should not face capital punishment and the consensus in the nation was against the application of the capital punishment of juvenile offenders.
Relationship with Roper v. Simmons
The ruling in the Roper case affects Graham v. Florida because in this case, the plaintiff was a minor at the time of committing the crimes and sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole amounted to cruel and abnormal punishment. Therefore, based on this ruling, Graham ought to have not been given life imprisonment with no parole option.
References
Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 26,
2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1503
Findlaw (n.d). The Right to Counsel. Retrieve from
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-right-to-counsel.html
Graham v. Florida. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 26, 2020, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-7412
Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 26, 2020, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759
Roper v. Simmons. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 26, 2020, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633
Strickland v. Washington. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 26, 2020, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1554