Unit+3

__**Do Now:**__ What are the constitutional rights those accused of committing a crime?


 * 1) Right to a speedy trial
 * 2) Right to confront your accuser
 * 3) Right to hire a lawyer or have the state provide one
 * 4) Right to remain silent
 * 5) Right to be free from unreasonable searches
 * 6) Right to be free from excessive bail
 * 7) Innocent until proven guilty

11.8.11

1.Crime law enforcement observe criminal activity 2.Investigation law enforcement collect physical evidence, interview witness, and interrogating 3.Arrest : law enforcement officers arrest the suspect(s) and take suspect(s) into custody 4.Charges :the government attorney decides whether formsl charges will be filed in court 5.Intial Apperance :under parole, a person convicted of a crime who is serving time in prison may be released before serving the fullk sentence as long as the person complies with special conditions 6.Grand Jury :a group of people deciding whether criminal cases involving felonies should go to trial & reviews the evidence 7.Plea Negotiations :a negotation in which the government offers to drop some or all of the the charges againstthe defendent in exchange for the defnedent pleaing guilty to a lesser charge and/or helping the goverment build a criminal case against others. 8.Arraignment:judge informs the accused of the charges and of his or her Constitutional rights 9.Trial :examination of the facts of a case in court of law. 10.Verdict: a decision made by a jury(12 people) or judge after trial about whether a suspect is guilty or not guilty of criminal charges. 11.Sentecin: if the jury issues a verdict of guilty, next cort determine the defendants sentence or punishment 12.Appeal:person found guilty can request a higher court to review the lower court's decision 13.Parole:person accused of crime can be released before serving the full sentence

_
 * Were there any steps you did not know about? What are they?
 * Identify on the timeline specific places that focus on 1) protecting the rights of the accused and 2) protecting the rights of victims

__**Discovering Justice Field Trip Reflection: 1-2 paragraphs**__

How has your opinion about the T.L.O. case changed or been confirmed after participating in the Discovering Justice field trip? What aspects of the experience broadened your understanding of the 4th Amendment, students' rights, or the court process itself? What did you think about the field trip? Describe what you liked and/or disliked about the experience and explain why.

Do Now: Do you support or oppose the use of capital punishment? Why or why not? I somewhat support the death penalty. The reason why Im not sure is because its still killing somebody, but if the person getting executed killed many innocent person...they should be executed.
 * //__12.8.11__//**


 * //__Lesson:Part 1. Using the following resources on capital punishment, you will identify the arguments presented in favor of and against the death penalty in the chart below.__//**

Pro-Death Penalty Chart
 * Source || What arguments are presented in favor of capital punishment? || What values or beliefs guide these arguments? What evidence is used to support the arguments? || Do you find these arguments persuasive? Why or why not? ||
 * || Deciding that they don't need to live anymore, just as they'd decided that their victim didn't need to live anymore. So in a way its fair. ||  || Yes, beacuase it's kind of "eye for an eye" I guess. ||
 * || Studies have shown that it's a significant deturant to murders/ murderers. ||  ||   ||
 * || Only use fast methods so they don't have to endure suffering. ||  ||   ||
 * || Noticed that with the more they used capital punishment, the lower the murder rate was ||  ||   ||

Anti-Death Penalty Chart


 * Source || What arguments are presented against capital punishment? || What values or beliefs guide these arguments? What evidence is used to support the arguments? || Do you find these arguments persuasive? Why or why not? ||
 * || We are just as bad as them if we kill them. ||  || Yes, because we(state) is considered a muderer. ||
 * || They are still human beings. ||  ||   ||
 * || Age, if the person is young or old. ||  || True but..... ||

Lesson:

Write an Op Ed (Opinion editorial) piece based on capital punishment. Explain how you feel about the death penalty and explain why states should review capital punishment in order to get rid of the death penalty as a sentence OR why states should add capital punishment to the punishments they already use.

I think the death penalty is somewhat good because it does bring the rate of murderers. But the questions brought saying that "it is just as bad as the muderer" is true. If all states accepted the death penalty,I truly beleive that the rate of murderers, because more people will be more afraid of dying instaed of serving time for their crime. There are 35 states that have the death penalty and 15 that don't. [] On this website it shows that the number of death sentences per year has dropped dramatically since 1999.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case that will determine whether foreign prisoners being held at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba can be tried by American courts. Tuesday's hearing was the first of three separate cases -- two of which will be heard on April 28 -- that will consider how the United States has waged its war on terrorism. These first cases will measure the civil liberties of war-time prisoners against the need for national security. "These cases raise fundamental questions about the role of the courts in preserving civil liberties during times of national crisis," said Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union. The U.S. military has been holding about 600 prisoners at Guantanamo since early 2002. In efforts to capture members of the al-Qaida network, believed to be responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, the United States battled Afghanistan's Taliban government, catching many of the current prisoners. Since then, the Bush administration has claimed the right to hold the prisoners indefinitely, refusing them access to lawyers and not charging them officially. The Department of Defense cites the need to preserve security during war. In Tuesday's case, the nine court justices reviewed a previous ruling that said American courts do not have jurisdiction over the legal claims of prisoners being held at Guantanamo. [k1] Because the base is in the "sovereign territory of Cuba," prisoners there would not fall under U.S. laws, according to a case decided in 1950. Lawyers for 16 British, Australian and Kuwaiti detainees argued that the U.S. Constitution does not allow the government to create a prison that falls outside the reaches of American courts and that prisoners should have access to those courts to fight for their release. The federal government argued the earlier ruling, involving German prisoners in U.S. custody during World War II, should be maintained, or upheld. The government also argued that U.S. courts should not interfere with the military and its trial procedures. The United States plans at some point to try the men suspected of being terrorists before a military tribunal and not a traditional court. One of the main arguments the justices will have to decide is who controls Guantanamo Bay. The United States established the base at Guantanamo after the Spanish-American War, getting the new government of Cuba to agree to the base after driving Spanish forces off the island in the early 1900s. Under the lease the two governments signed, the Bush administration argued, Cuba holds ultimate control over the property. Lawyers for the detainees say the naval base, which houses a detention camp for prisoners captured in foreign wars, is U.S. territory and therefore prisoners should be protected by U.S. laws. "Cuban law doesn't apply there. Cuban law has never had any application inside that base. A stamp with Fidel Castro's picture on it wouldn't get a letter off the base," said John Gibbons, the attorney representing the detainees. Some members of the court seemed to agree with Gibbons' argument, including Justice Stephen Breyer, who raised the notion of checks and balances, the U.S. form of government that allows for each of the three branches of government to rein in the other. "It seems rather contrary to an idea of a Constitution with three branches that the executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check," Breyer said. <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">But Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether the court was in a position to create such a check on the government or the military."We have only lawyers before us, we have no witnesses, we have no cross-examination, we have no investigative staff," he said. "And we should be the ones, Justice Breyer suggests, to draw up this reticulated system to preserve our military from intervention by the courts?" <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">On April 28, the court will review the cases of two U.S. citizens being held indefinitely as "enemy combatants" -- Yaser Hamdi, an American caught fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Chicago native Jose Padilla, who changed his name to Abdullah al-Muhajir. The FBI arrested Padilla after it reportedly uncovered a plot to explode a so-called "dirty bomb" -- a bomb that can be used to spread radioactive material. <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Neither Hamdi nor Padilla has been charged with a crime. Their lawyers are asking that they be released or officially charged and given the opportunity to argue their cases in court, a right afforded to all Americans under the Constitution. [k2] <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">The Supreme Court is expected to decide all three cases in June. If the government loses, it would set limits on the power of the president during times of war. If it wins, it will allow the United States to continue to detain the prisoners. [k3] <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Either way, the court will be setting the first legal boundaries in America's ongoing war on terrorism. //<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">By Kristina Nwazota, Online NewsHour // <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">© 2004 MacNeil/Lehrer Productions
 * __1.6.12__**
 * <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 19px;">Supreme Court Hears Guantanamo Case **
 * //<span style="color: #3333ff; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">The Supreme Court has begun reviewing three important terrorism-related cases that will determine whether foreign prisoners have the right to a trial in U.S. courts and whether the government has the right to detain U.S. citizens accused of working with terrorists without a trial. //**
 * <span style="color: #3333ff; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">The case of foreign detainees **
 * <span style="color: #3333ff; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">What is Guantanamo? **
 * <span style="color: #3333ff; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">The case of the 'enemy combatants' **

[k1] So does Cuba have jurisdiction on them? [k2] They should be able to go to court and give them the highest amount of time, while being fair. [k3] The US will most likely win because it is probably a US judge, that doesn’t like terrorist people.