Current Trends in Criminal Law (Coursework Sample)

Current Trends in Criminal Law Questions
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Number and Name
Instructor's Name
Assignment Due Date
Current Trends in Criminal Law Questions
Question One
In the National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989), it was established that in a scenario where a Fourth Amendment intrusion is intended to serve the special needs of the government beyond the law enforcement's normal need, the process should balance the expectations of the privacy needs of the individual against the interests of the government. Therefore, the importance of the doctrine is to ensure that law enforcement can be prevented from abusing the search and seizure law when they are arresting individuals unless there is an immediate safety issue. For instance, the Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990) case invalidated the use of car checkpoints to interdict illegal drugs since the checkpoints are mainly meant to arrest drug offenders instead of tackling an immediate safety issue.
The balancing of interests is based on reasonableness. Hence, when a suspicionless or warrantless search initiative meets the threshold in the requirements of the primary purpose, it will be established that the action is reasonable based on balancing relevant interests. The Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie City. v. Earls (2002) demonstrated that the analysis considers the privacy intrusion character, the nature of privacy interest, immediacy and nature of the authority's concerns and the effectiveness of the initiative to intervene them.
The Fourth Amendment obligates that when there is probable cause, which emerges when there is a reason to believe there is a crime committed or when there is proof of a crime in the place the search is to be conducted. However, the case of Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) altered the law on searches pursuant to arrest by obligating police officers to show a continuing and actual threat to the safety of the arrestee poses. The case also required the need to preserve proof linked to the crime from interference by the arrestee.
Question Two
When it comes to convictions, the justifications for punishment include deterrence, incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation. Hucklesby & Wahidin (2013) states that the theory of deterrence emerged from the utilitarianism philosophy shared by Jeremy Bentham, where the greatest utility occurs in the greatest number. Hence, deterrence validates punishment based on the future, and the punishment is outweighed by the social benefits that are enjoyed after. Hucklesby & Wahidin (2013) also states that incapacitation is the prevention of crime by restricting or disabling the perpetrator's liberty, ability or movements to offend. Currently, there have been new approaches to incapacitation, which is the death sentence (Binder & Notterman, 2017). Retribution is identified as the oldest form of justifying punishment and exists in Hegel and Kant's theories, where the sentence needs to be proportionate to the crime committed (Hucklesby & Wahidin, 2013). Lastly, there is rehabilitation, where the central premise is that sentencing is meant to prevent offending in the future through reforming the perpetrator's behavior (Binder & Notterman, 2017).
The new deviations in the law on the death sentence happened in the Gregg v. Georgia (1976), where the Court stated that the death sentence was unusual and cruel if it is based on an objective criterion and the record and character of the perpetrator is considered. Roper v. Simmons (2005) held that the execution of individuals that are mentally ill violates the Constitution, and the death penalty for juveniles goes against the federal constitutional guarantee against unusual and cruel punishments. Sentencing guidelines in the Blakely v. Washington (2004) case held that some practices in some cases went against the perpetrator's constitutional rights. The United States v. Booker