Apprendi vs. New Jersey: Decision Made by the Highest Court of the United States

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Apprendi vs. New Jersey was a decision made by the highest court of the United States. The court passed that the sixth revision on right to judges’ trial introduced to the state by the fourteenth amendment denied judges the right to sentence criminals beyond what is provided by the law. It requires the judges to have clear information on what the case pertains before making their judgment. The decision has been important in the current revival of adjudicators’ trial rights.

In dawn of December 22, 1994, Charles Apprendi fired numerous bullets into the residence of an African-American family that had migrated to his locality. Hours later, Charles was arrested and on questioning he accepted that he shot at the house because its occupants were not of his race. He said that he did not want them within his vicinity and that is why he shot at their house. Apprendi also pleaded guilty of illegally possessing a fire arm. Each of his crimes carried a sentence of between 5 and 10 years imprisonment. The court reserved the right of making the sentence more severe as the crime had been committed in a biased motive. This meant that the court had the discretion of doubling the period of each sentence. On the other hand, Apprendi had the right to challenge the alteration of the sentence claiming that it was against the constitution. The judge gave in to Apprendi’s appeal. At a later hearing, Apprendi and psychologists claimed that he did it out of alcohol influence. However, from evidence adduced, the judge found that his action was out of race hatred. Apprendi was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment which was two years more than what is supposed for illegally owning a fire arm (Cassella Par. 2-4).

Appendi’s appeal was denied by the New Jersey court of appeal on the basis that increment of prison serving period was a sentencing aspect and not part of the crime. This case changed the rulings with matters pertaining criminal cases. It meant that from then, other than evidence of prior conviction, any other evidence that would lead to the sentence being made more severe had to be presented to judges and critically analyzed. According to Oliver Wendell, this case showed how law threatens criminals by inflicting severe punishment if they happen to be involved in crimes making them change their intentions. For instance the New Jersey law exposed severe punishment on Apprendi for illegally owning a fire arm and violating the law that prohibits racial discrimination (Standen Par. 1).

Law protects criminal defendants in two ways against exploitation by juries. First, every accusation made against a criminal has to be later scrutinized by a panel of twelve persons from the defendant side. Second, the jury has to proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person is accountable to all accusations presented in court. People argue that sentencing enhancement needs also to meet the reasonable doubt condition. This is because it leads to people being subjected to severe punishment by considering other evidences that are not part of the crime committed. This would not be just as it would generalize crimes assuming the magnitude of crime committed by the criminal. It only requires the establishment of varied sentencing factors to help in charging people as per their level of crime. This is aimed at changing the system of prosecution from one that follows a guideline to a legislative sentencing system.