Category: Court

The court case of the appellant in the face of the People of the State of New York and the respondent in the face of Bernhard Goetz was argued and decided in the year 1986. This case provides a broad spectrum of thoughts about the perception of self-defense and its objectivity. Various scholars and researchers hold different views on this particular case, and many disputes about which decisions and actions can be considered reasonable were raised. The purpose of this paper is to study the People v Goetz case, analyze the court decision, and investigate its implications.

First, it is critical to look at the sequence of events that led to the creation of the incident. In December 1984, four males entered the subway train that headed to Manhattan. Later, Bernhard Goetz sat at the same train car close to the four youths mentioned above. Two of them approached Goetz and asked for five dollars. It turned out that Goetz had an unlicensed gun with him. After that, Goetz took out the pistol and started shooting at those men.

The evidence showed that the first shot got into the chest of the first guys. The second shot got into the other’s back, and the third one went into the arm and the left side of the third male. The fourth shot was aimed at the last one from the group, but Goetz missed it (People v. Goetz, 1986). However, after observing the scene in the train, Goetz saw the fourth man sitting on the bench and fired at him, severely damaging the spinal cord.

At the same time, the conductor was at the neighboring train car and heard the gunshots, after which he immediately requested the emergency assistance. As soon as the conductor came into the cabin, he saw the injured guys, Goetz, and a couple of passengers lying on the floor. Bernhard Goetz claimed to the conductor that those youths took an effort to rob him. After that, Goetz headed to the front of the cabin, jumped on the tracks, and escaped. Nine days later, Bernhard Goetz surrendered to the police as the suspect in the subway shooting in New York on December 22 (People v. Goetz, 1986). The paragraphs above provide a brief description of the incident, which led to the court trial and has references and implications in other cases until nowadays.

It was crucial to know the events in the subway on that day to analyze the court’s decision and its justice. The Grand Jury indicted Goetz “on attempted murder, assault, and other charges for having shot and wounded for youths on a New York City subway” (People v. Goetz, 1986).

Nevertheless, the lower courts dismissed those indictments and charged Bernhard Goetz only with the illegal possession of the gun. This case and its outcomes illustrate the importance of the perception of reasonability. The primary claim in defense of Goetz was that his actions represented the self-defense of a reasonable person who was afraid that the offenders would hurt him. Although there was no evidence that any of the four wounded men showed or possessed any weapon during that event, Goetz’s actions were justified by that defense (People v. Goetz, 1986). Thus, Goetz’s fear was caused by the actions of the four men.

It is integral to raise a point about the criminal situation in New York at the time the incident took place. When it happened, the rates of violent crimes in New York were very high, which strengthened the fear in people, instilling a need to have something to protect oneself. It also implies that there were many victims of robberies and attacks. Because of the city’s diversity, New York was considered to be full of hate crimes and inter-groups hassles (Levin & Amster, 2007).

Thus, those who were identified to be the victims received great support. The organization called the Guardian Angels existed in America at that moment, and it was entirely on the side of Bernhard Goetz. This organization worked hard to raise money for Goetz’s defense. Even the Congress of Racial Equality defended the respondent in public (Chapman & Ciment, 2014). The situation in the country at that period had an impact on the whole trial process for the case People v. Goetz.

The decisions that a person makes under different circumstances can be explained by various factors, such as victimization or prior offense history. Goetz’s family had a history of abuse, where his father was accused of abusing two boys, and Bernhard was mugged twice before. The researchers suggest that Goetz always had trouble interacting with people, but he realized that he could not escape that for work and social life. During the mugging incident that happened to Bernhard, the police did not arrive immediately, and then released the offenders later only after a few hours of interrogations.

That event left serious physical marks on Goetz and strengthened his distrust of the criminal justice and the belief in the necessity of self-defense (Robinson et al., 2016). However, those biographical notes imply that Goetz was more of a loner and that the echoes of previous offenses were haunting him.

Many scholars differ in their views on the standard of a reasonable person in criminal justice. For example, Cynthia Lee suggests that due to the reasonableness requirement, “a completely irrational actor cannot get away with murder” (Lee, 2005). Acevedo (2014), in turn, states that there are three bases used to understand this standard. First, he claims that this principle is too abstract and general, and it cannot reflect the intentions of the person within a specific situation. Second, he states that the definition of self-defense of a reasonable man is far from being objective because it depends on the individual’s perception of the circumstances.

Finally, the third basis that Acevedo mentions is the fact that a reasonable man standard spread the prevailing culture and neglects the minority groups (Acevedo, 2014). Moreover, Carlson (2016) proposes that the principles of moral panic lead to certain self-defense actions, which is also a subjective measure. Consequently, the process of judging individuals’ actions is challenging and imposes many controversies.

People v. Goetz’s case founded a ground for many racial disputes. The four youths, whom Goetz shot in the subway in 1984, were Afro-Americans. According to Fluehr-Lobban (2018), this particular shooting case became an example of reasonable racism. The author suggests that critical race theorists believe that a white person can justify his actions against a representative of another race under the circumstances of reasonable fear (Fluehr-Lobban, 2018).

Another scholar argues that the race factor “dictated which passengers were understood to be innocent and which were presumed guilty” (Mann, 2017, p.66). When Goetz was describing his version of the events, he called the man whom he shot “the blacks.” It points out that he did not use the neutral descriptions and raised many questions concerning his real intentions (Mann, 2017). Thus, the issue of race also played an essential role in the perception of this court case and its decision, raising questions and linking it to new cases until today.

This case seriously implies the importance of the definition of self-defense, its rationale, and its necessity. The book Killing in Self-Defense argues that self-defense is, in fact, the most reliable way of defending a respondent among all the criminal cases.

There are numerous occasions in which self-defense might be the only option to protect oneself and survive. However, the emphasis on everyone’s right to life should not be neglected when the conversation is about shooting as a measure of self-defense. Thus, the necessity of using deadly force should be justified. It implies that a person should think carefully before using a defensive force and should understand the accuracy of his thoughts before making a move (Leverick, 2006). Hence, criminal justice must assess the level of self-defense need objectively.

People v. Goetz’s case raises many problems that continuously emerge in the criminal justice world. Among those, there are the issues of a reasonable man definition, the definition and the necessity of self-defense, racial discrimination within the criminal justice system, and reasonable racism. There are diverse views on those aspects, but in terms of Goetz’s case, there are controversies up till today. It is possible to state that this specific trial represents the value of objectivity within criminal justice.

References

Acevedo, J. P. P. L. (2014). The inconvenience of the reasonable person standard in criminal law. Derecho PUCP, (73), 505-509.

Carlson, J. (2016). Moral panic, moral breach: Bernhard Goetz, George Zimmerman, and racialized news reporting in contested cases of self-defense. Social Problems, 63(1), 1-20.

Chapman, R. M., & Ciment, J. R. (Eds.). (2014). Culture wars in America an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices (2nd ed., Vol. 1-3). Routledge.

Fluehr-Lobban, C. (2018). Race and racism: An introduction (2^nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

Lee, C. (2005). Murder and the reasonable man revisited: A Response to Victoria Nourse. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3(1), 301-306.

Leverick, F. (2006). Killing in self-defence. Oxford University Press.

Levin, B., & Amster, S. E. (2007). Making hate history: Hate crime and policing in America’s most diverse city. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(2), 319-348.

Mann, J. L. (2017). The “Vigilante spirit”: Surveillance and racial violence in 1980s New York. Surveillance & Society, 15(1), 56-67.

People v. Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, (1986).

Robinson, P. H., Baughman, S. B., & Cahill, M. T. (2016). Criminal law: Case studies and controversies. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Rationale behind the Supreme Court’s decision

The Supreme Court case that is going to be discussed in this paper is 2011 Brown, Governor of California v. Plata (No. 09–1233). This case ended with the Supreme Court affirming the appropriateness of the legal ruling (passed by the District Court for the Eastern and Northern Districts of California) that the State of California was to reduce prison-population to account for no higher than 137.5% of the correctional facilities’ combined holding capacity.

The Court’s decision, in this respect, reflected the willingness of the majority of Judges to confirm that the provisions of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution do apply to prisoners in California, as much as they apply to the rest of the citizens. As Rogan noted: “In Plata the Supreme Court held, by a majority of 5:4, that the population limit mandated by the three-judge court was necessary to remedy the violation of the constitutional rights of prisoners under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments” (223). The actual logic (voiced by Judge Kennedy), as to why the Supreme Court decided to rule against the State in the Brown v. Plata case, had to do with the following case-related consideration:

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that whereas, as of 2011, the maximal holding capacity of State prisons accounted for 80.000, California’s population of prison-inmates in that year has reached 160.000. This, in turn, resulted in overcrowding – hence, making it increasingly impossible for the inmates to lead more or less dignified lifestyles. According to how the majority of Judges saw it: “Overcrowding… created unsanitary and unsafe conditions that make progress in the provision of care difficult or impossible to achieve” (“Opinion of the Court” 3).

However, the described state of affairs stood in a striking contradiction to the main provisions of both: the Constitution’s Eight Amendment and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which specify the sheer inappropriateness of subjecting convicts to any ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment: “Prisoners may be deprived of rights that are fundamental to liberty. Yet… prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons.

Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment” (“Opinion of the Court” 12). To prove further the legal soundness of the Court’s decision in the case Brown vs. Plata, Judge Kennedy referred to the precedent-establishing case Atkins v. Virginia, during the course of which it was determined that the Eighth Amendment’s subject matter is indeed concerned with the protection of one’s dignity as a citizen and a human being.

Dissenting opinions

The non-unanimous nature of the mentioned decision implies that some Judges did not agree with it. Judge Scalia and Judge Alito opted to formulate some of their dissenting opinions, as to the dubious appropriateness of the manner in which the Supreme Court handled the Brown vs. Plata case. The main of them are as follows:

1. The allegation that prisoners in California suffer from being subjected to ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment is essentially concerned with the thoroughly logical assumption that overcrowding results in preventing many of them from being able to have access to the timely and adequately delivered healthcare services. This assumption, however, does not take into consideration the fact that most of the would-be released 46.000 prisoners (due to the Court’s decision) do not have any particularly acute health problems. As Judge Scalia pointed out: “Most of them (prisoners) will not be prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness; and many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym” (“Scalia J Dissenting” 5). Thus, the mentioned problem of prison-overcrowding should be seen reflective of the overall lack of functional efficiency, on the part of the State, rather than something that represents a legitimate legal issue.
2. By having ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Plata), the Supreme Court acted in the essentially anti-Constitutional manner. After all, its decision on the Brown v. Plata case can be interpreted as such that exposes the Court’s willingness to embrace more judiciary powers than allowed by the Constitution. According to the dissenting view of Judge Alito: “The Constitution does not give federal judges the authority to run state penal systems… while the Eighth Amendment placed an important restraint on state authority, it was a limited restraint” (“Alito J Dissenting” 7). As a result, there will be certain doubts about whether the Court’s decision in question can be considered legally binding.
3. The Supreme Court’s decision is rather inconsistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), in the sense of not taking into consideration the Act’s main provision. According to it, no adjustments should be applied to the functioning of the country’s legal system, for as long as there is a good reason to believe that it will result in the nationwide rise of crime. As Judge Alito argued: “Nothing in the PLRA suggests that public safety may be sacrificed in order to implement an immediate remedy rather than a less dangerous one that requires a more extended but reasonable period of time” (“Alito J Dissenting” 10). Quite understandably, this implies that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Brown v. Plata case can hardly be deemed very beneficial to the overall well-being of American society – something that illegitimates it even further.

Conclusion

To understand better the discursive significance of the discussed case, we can refer to the well-established fact that there is a negative correlation between the varying extent of a particular case’s affiliation with the matters of politics/ideology, on one hand, and the Supreme Court’s likelihood to come up with the unanimous (either positive or negative) decision, in regards to what should be the actual outcome of this case.

As Lee, Landes, and Posner aptly observed: “The ideological stakes are small in cases that are candidates for being decided unanimously, so even slight dissent aversion will generate a unanimous decision in cases in which the ideological stakes are low” (702). Therefore, there is indeed nothing too surprising about the fact that in the case Brown v. Plata a few Judges decided to express their dissent with the legal rationale, behind the Court’s final ruling. After all, there can be only a few doubts as to the case’s strongly defined ideological/political sounding.

The main reason why it appears to be the case is that by having taken the plaintiff’s side, the Supreme Court declared its subtle intention to reassess the validity of some of this country’s foremost Constitutional principles. There is, however, even more to it – although it does this implicitly, the Court’s decision implies that the State authorities must prioritize the provisions of the international law while dealing with the so-called ‘civil right’ issues.

This simply could not be otherwise – many provisions of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment are essentially the same with those of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. What it means is that while in the process of deliberating the case, most Judges could not help perceiving its legal aspects through the lenses of what happened to be their political affiliation – hence, the consequential dissent.

Even though, as it was shown earlier, the case Brown vs. Plata is rather controversial/multidimensional, the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ruling of the District Court of California is best referred to as thoroughly appropriate. There are two reasons to believe that this is indeed the case:

1. The Supreme Court’s decision is discursively sound, in the sense of being consistent with the post-modern outlook on should be considered the main purpose of incarcerating citizens – to set the latter on the path of physical/mental rehabilitation, rather than to punish convicts, as something that has the value of a ‘thing in itself’. In this sense, the discussed decision does provide some additional legitimacy to the idea that the actual function of correctional institutions in America should undergo a qualitative transformation.
2. The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the responsibility of the State for ensuring the reasonable well-being of imprisoned convicts – something that should slow down the process of the penal system in every individual State becoming increasingly commercialized/privatized, which in turn often results in the overcrowding of jails. Thus, even though the concerned decision does seem to undermine the sovereign authority of the State, the resulting effect is opposite – because of the case’s outcome, the State has been once again reconfirmed to be in charge of managing the qualitative dynamics within the society.

References

Alito J Dissenting. Brown, Governor of California v. Plata. 563 U. S. (2011). No. 09–1233. Supreme Court of the United States. Web.

Lee, Epstein, Landes, William and Richard Posner. “Are Even Unanimous Decisions in The United States Supreme Court Ideological?.” Northwestern University Law Review 106.2 (2012): 699-713.

Opinion of the Court. Brown, Governor of California v. Plata. 563 U. S. (2011). No. 09–1233. Supreme Court of the United States. Web.

Rogan, Mary. “Brown, Governor of California v. Plata.” Modern Law Review 75.2 (2012): 261-274

Scalia J Dissenting. Brown, Governor of California v. Plata. 563 U. S. (2011). No. 09–1233. Supreme Court of the United States. Web.

Today, more than ever before, it is becoming clear that most courts in America are unable to deal with the ever increasing number of cases within their jurisdictions, bringing into motion an intense and elaborate debate on which court case management system should be adopted to deal with backlog (Dressel, 2010; Peak, 2009).

According to the case scenario, the court in question has been using a “hybrid” combination involving individual and master case-management systems, but is still unable to keep up with the mounting caseload and associated difficulties. The present paper looks into the problems and advantages that may arise in using the individual case management system and permanently assigning a judge to the juvenile division of the court.

Available literature demonstrates that, “in a direct calendar or independent calendar system, cases are assigned at the beginning of the case to a designated judge, who then handles all pretrial conferences and motions up and through trial” (Seabolt, 2008, p. 6). As such, a major problem arising within this case assignment system relates to lack of a centralized information sharing protocol, which in turn makes it hard for other users to access important case information or case scheduling details (Peak, 2009).

This problem may occasion further case backlogs within the juvenile division, particularly in the event that case details are needed by other players within the court system. Additionally, owing to lack of synchronized scheduling and posting capabilities, the judge may encounter the risk of conflicting calendars and the consequences related to this particular problem (Dressel, 2010)

Existing court management scholarship documents several advantages related to individual calendar case assignment system. For example, the permanent assigning of a judge to the juvenile division will assist the court to develop the capacity to deal with complex cases that require “consistent, continuous judicial management and intervention from beginning to end” (Seabolt, 2008, p. 6). Another advantage relates to the system’s capacity to achieve optimal case outcomes owing to the anticipation that the assigned judge will devote the necessary time and effort to become familiar with the juvenile cases within the court’s jurisdiction.

Additionally, the individual calendar case assignment system will enable the court to save scarce financial, human, and material resources in the context of dispensing juvenile cases within the court’s jurisdiction. While the master calendar system requires a lot of financial and personnel resources to operationalize, the individual system uses only one judge to move the case forward, hence saving a lot of resources for the court (Seabolt, 2008).

Lastly, permanently assigning a judge to the juvenile division of the court will ensure the continuity of cases and save the court a lot of time which is otherwise wasted on briefing new judges on the factual background and legal issues surrounding continuing cases. Indeed, the assigned judge will have a better opportunity to utilize available resources due to the system’s capacity to establish the exact caseload for the judge (Dressel, 2010). As such, it may be the right methodology to use in dealing with issues of case delay and backlog within the juvenile division.

To conclude, this paper has illuminated the various problems and advantages associated with permanently assigning a judge to the juvenile division of the court. The benefits outweighs the problems, hence the need to implement the decision with the view to addressing the mounting case load and attendant case backlog issues.

References

Dressel, W.F. (2010). Court organization and effective caseflow management: Time to redefine. Web.

Peak, K. (2008). Justice administration (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Seabolt, R. (2008, April 10). Direct effect. Los Angeles Daily Journal. Web.

Court Case Analysis

The offered court case revolves around an ex-married couple Lomanno. Regina Lomanno here and after called petitioner, and Mr. Lomanno, respondent, married in 1982. The man graduated from college in 1980 with an accounting degree. He also passed the Certified Public Accountant examination but failed to receive the license as a C.P.A. because of some sort of personal issues (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). Later, he started to work as an accountant in the firm Miller, Miller, & Haney at Cleveland.

As for the petitioner, she is a college graduate who has a bachelor’s degree in the sphere of nutrition. She started to work in 1986 as a dietetic direction at Kaiser Hospitals. (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). Later, her work also presupposed a lot of traveling for multiple business aims. Because of the pregnancy, she stopped working and never returned to it because of the labor and many complications.

The total earnings of the petitioner in 1987 comprised $9,807.75. During the first four years of marriage, the returns were prepared by Mr. Lomanno and signed by his wife after the review (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). After 1985, the situation changed as the husband entered into a particular scheme that presupposed frauds and manipulations with taxes. About $60,000 was embezzled in one year from government checks and clients’ monies (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.).

Additionally, income tax returns were not prepared inappropriate ways. Money was spent on sexual entertainment and other things not known for a petitioner. In such a way, the given context evidences the appearance of a conflict between a petitioner and Mr. Lomanno. The case revolves around the main issues peculiar to the given situation, the court’s resolution, and central aspects that were considered when concluding regarding the whole idea.

Summary of the Facts

The given case contains numerous facts evidencing that the petitioner did not have an intention to fill inappropriate joint income tax returns in 1987 and 1988. Moreover, the respondent had no reasons for his claims, and his position was weak and unjustified. First of all, all returns that are discussed in the case were prepared not by a petitioner herself; however, it was her husband who engaged in unlawful schemes and wanted to acquire additional income that would be spent on some activities or things not associated with Mrs. Lomanno (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). This factor empowers the position of the petitioner and proves that she should not be associated with the given activity.

The second fact is that the husband of a petitioner did not have the permission to sign her name to income tax in the years that are discussed and there was also no approval to sign returns at issue (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). It means that all actions of Mr. Lomanno were not legal because of the absence of informed consent. Moreover, these events can be classified as a fraud that was committed by a respondent with the primary goal to acquire additional income that can be hidden both from the law and from his wife. That is why the given fact should be considered by a court.

Another important issue is that the petitioner’s name was used in returns without her insight. Because for the period from 1987 to 1988, her husband was responsible for reporting and taxes, she was not able to control this activity and did not know about the existence of the given practice (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). That is why the position of the respondent becomes weak and unjustified. His attempts to blame the wife should not be taken into account by the court as she did not have all information about the existing plan and how it should guarantee additional income for her husband.

Furthermore, during the investigation performed in terms of the given trial, no petitioner’s signatures were discovered on documents. It means that she did not sign the returns that are discussed at the moment. The given factor shows that Mrs. Lomanno was not involved in schemes created by her husband with the primary aim to provide false information about incomes and hide real numbers (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). Moreover, the fact that the petitioner did not sign documents shows the lack of information and betrayal of trust because her husband was given the authority to deal with reporting and taxation. He intended to use it with the primary goal to earn additional money and use them for his purposes.

It should also be mentioned that during the discussed period, the respondent cheated and did not provide real information about the filing of returns. All petitioner’s questions regarding the given aspect of their life were either ignored or answered inappropriately using false data or offering deliberate misrepresentations. It becomes apparent that the husband wanted to conceal the fact of his participation in illegal activities from his wife and guarantee her nonintervention in this very sphere to preserve the opportunity to act illegally and generate additional income (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). This piece of evidence proves the idea that the petitioner is not guilty as her attempts to analyze the situation and discover real factors were disregarded.

In the past, before the pregnancy and inability to work, all returns prepared by her were comprehensively analyzed to avoid the provision of false or wrong information. It characterizes the woman as a responsible and law-obedient citizen who reports her incomes appropriately and recognizes the critical importance of the given practice. Additionally, when she was responsible for the examination of returns, no similar problems were observed (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). It means that having acquired control over the family’s finances, the man started to use this situation to deceive his wife and engage in fraud. This factor evidences the decency of a petitioner and, on the contrary, the existence of unfair motifs if to speak about the respondent.

Finally, being sure that the returns are documented and provided to the agency, the petitioner did not require their checking, which also means that she was not informed about their content. Possessing limited information about the current and real state of things, she focused on other activities. In such a way, the situation in which the wife’s unawareness provided an opportunity to cheat was created.

Altogether, all these factors show that the case revolves around the problematic reporting and the existence of unfair schemes created by the respondent with the pivotal aim to conceal real income and acquire additional funds. At the same time, it becomes clear that the petitioner was not informed about the existence of the given practice and had no opportunities to interfere with it as she was provided with false data and did not examine reports.

The Issue in the Case

The main issue of the given case was formulated by the court and used as the basis for further debates and investigation. The question was whether the returns filed by a respondent, Mr. Lomanno for the years that are discussed, which were also stated as joint returns, and on which Mr. Lomanno signed the name of a petitioner, can be considered joint returns as to petitioner (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). The given dilemma triggers vigorous debates as multiple factors should be considered by the court to find an appropriate answer and make a conclusion about the character of actions and all parties’ fault. It also preconditions additional investigations about the motifs and relations between the spouses.

Facts that Gave Rise to the Case

The underlying facts that give rise to the case include the discovery of specific circumstances and Mr. Lomanno’s involvement in the embezzlement scheme. It provided him with about $60,000 in 1987 and 1988. All money was spent on obsessive sexual behavior involving prostitutes and other entertainments (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). From 1985 to 1987, the respondent spent about $60,000 to $70,000 on sexual activities, and money was acquired using illegal schemes. In such a way, Mr. Lomanno wanted to conceal the existence of this sort of cheating and misbehavior; however, the facts were discovered by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Criminal Investigation Division (CIO). The petitioner proclaimed that she did not know about the existence of this situation, which gave rise to the case.

Court’s Decision

Having considered all existing factors and pieces of evidence, the court concluded that the petitioner did not intend to the filing of joint income tax returns with Mr. Lomanno during the discussed years (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). Additionally, the petitioner was not responsible for any additions or differences to tax as it was proclaimed by the respondent (“Lomanno v. Commissioner”, n.d.). In such a way, the husband’s position was not justified, and he was taken liable for manipulations and embezzlement schemes utilized to acquire additional income. The reasoning for the given decision rests on the existing IRS regulations and investigations, and information obtained due to the analysis of all reports provided by the husband. Additionally, the reasons provided in the summary of the case were considered.

Tax Court

A person who does not agree with the conclusion of the IRS has to file a petition with the Tax Court. It consists of 19 judges from all states that consider any case. An individual who initiates the trial should offer existing evidence and records to prove his/her position. It is also allowed to take a witness and attorney who has the needed experience in the given case to protect a petitioner. After the consideration of all existing factors, the court decides the situation and issues in taxation. In such a way, the discussed case is the example of a tax court that works with a particular case to analyze it and come to a certain conclusion.

Conclusion

The Tax Court case of Regina M. Lomanno vs. Commissioner, 68 T.C.M. 565 (1994) provides an example of how issues in the taxation and reporting sphere are solved. It considers all respondent and petitioner’s claims and makes a decision resting on the existing pieces of evidence and investigations made by agencies such as the IRS and CIO. The analysis of the trial contributes to the improved understanding of how the system works and what factors are considered.

Introduction

The planet today is experiencing serious environmental consequences at a relatively increasing rate due to human activities and this calls for the introduction of a judicial body in the already existing international tribunals and courts. (Peck 1997).

For some years, there has not been much success in enforcing the rules concerning the international environment. Thus, there was a need to create International Environmental Courts or Tribunal (IEC) that was capable of issuing binding and enforceable decisions to those states that are defiant to the Environmental issues. (Louka 2006).

Etiology of environmental issues

Those states that support the existence of these courts may be required to convince the government of their states on some two basic factors so that they can be allowed to review or even change the international environmental courts. These key issues are that they will need to show or convince the government that the existing national and international judicial fora or tribunals are incapacitated in seeking solutions to international environmental disputes. Murphy 2000).

Secondly, they must demonstrate that the current judicial bodies are inadequate and that they can not be fixed to be made appropriate and satisfactory. In which case they would be required to come up with a new judicial system free from these inadequacies. It appears that at present, advocators of an international environmental court would have a problem addressing these issues (Murphy 2000).

It becomes difficult to come up with a new international court because the current ones are capable of dealing with the environmental disputes placed before them although few difficulties arise when dealing with international issues. For example, the international court of justice which is the Judicial Wing of the United Nation is in a position to hear environmental cases and fully attend to them. As little as filing an environmental dispute before the international court of justice may set the parties to negotiate a settlement for dispute as it happened in the certain phosphate lands between Nauru and Australia.

Just before one successfully thinks of a new international court, other factors also affect the process. Such is the UN law of the sea conventions. This one requires that the parties involved in a dispute solve their disputes and forward the results in which case if they fail the convention intervenes offering very few options. Such would be difficult to scrap or reconstitute since it is a strong body in case a new environmental court is to be constituted. (Peck 1997).

Also, to be considered in this case is the World Trade Organization. Environmental issues are closely interlinked with trade issues. This means that several environmental issues have been handled through a review of the dispute resolution process of the World Trade Organization. This means that a new international environmental court would require a chapter that will cater to the duties attended by this organization. (Cullet 2003).

Also, there is the issue of regional Fora and some other Ad Hoc Arbitration. Some of these fora exist with extensive competence over inter alie, environmental matters such as in the court of justice of the European Communities. The organization has jurisdiction not only to matters relating state to state but also to individual matters and private entities. It would be very difficult to do or to scrap such a powerful institution to rebuild it. (Peck 1997).

Also, some disputes have been known to be settled in the national court. Such is that relating to damage along the Rhine River in Europe 48 and those damages along the US, Canada border. This would make it difficult to prove that the court is unable to execute its duties. (Cullet 2003).

A new international environmental court

It becomes clear that under the first point of showing that the already existing international and National judicial fora are inadequate, it would be quite a task to prove this because the judicial tribunals happen to be very broad and dealing with almost all the disputes that would be there at different levels. If one dispute is become difficult to solve on one level, it is moved to the next. Other tribunals or institutions such as the United Nations law of sea convention required the involved parties to opt to solve the dispute. To prove such a system inadequate would be very difficult. Also, environmental law constitutes a member of subsidiaries. This means that if a new international law is to be made, it would take a long time and a lot of resources to come up with it. (Cullet 2003).

Conclusion

Therefore, the world does not need a new international environmental court but the use of the permanent court of Arbitration (PCA) which currently exists in The Hague which is a fairly inexpensive organization to look at and suggests possible solutions to disputes including environmental disputes. This proves that the world does not need a new international environmental court as it involves more tasks that look almost impossible to accomplish. It is also not clear that the new international court will be free from the problems that the current one is experiencing. (Murphy 2000).

References

Cullet P (2003) Differential Treatment In International Environmental Law. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Louka P (2006) International Environmental Law; Fairness Effectiveness and World Order. Cambridge University Press.

Murphy S (2000) The George Washington Journal Of International Law And Economics.

Peck C (1997) Increasing the Effectiveness of The International Court Of Justice, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

From October 1944 to September 1945, the 14 Army Group of the so-called Japanese Imperial Army as well as military governance that were taking operations in the Philippine was under the Command of General Tomoyuki Yamashita. In this case it was stated that just before World War II, there were various atrocities that were carried out by troops that were under the command and control of General Yamashita against the Philippines’ civilian population. “It is important to note that immediately Japan surrendered unconditionally to the United States of America, General Yamashita surrendered and ended up being a war prisoner (Reel, 1949:73).

Main Issues before the Court

After being taken as a war prisoner Army’s Judge advocate General Department ended up charging General Yamashita as a violator of war laws. Under this charge, the allegations were:

[…those forces under his command engaged in a deliberate plan to massacre and exterminate a large portion of the civilian population of Batangas Province as a result of which more than 25,000 men, women, and children all unarmed noncombatant civilians, were brutally mistreated and killed] (Paine, 2011: 23).

However, the General pleaded not guilty and argued that he never engaged in such criminal acts and he never ordered his troops to engage in such acts (Paine, 2011). In addition he never had control over the troop that was under his command.

Another issue was the determination of whether General Yamashita was given a fair trial under the U.S Articles dealing with wars and the convention of Geneva as well as the U.S constitution

Court’s Decision and Rationale Concerning the Issues

The court found General Yamashita guilty and sentenced him to death. The Court held that it is the responsibility of an Army Commander to ensure that he or she has taken appropriate measures to ensure that he/she has controlled the troops under him/her. This enables him/her to prevent acts and practices which violate war laws, which might “attend the occupation of hostile territory by an uncontrolled soldiery,” (Mahle, 2011: 122), the General was found guilty for his failure in taking measures that would have save lives of the victims.

Concerning the legality of the commission that was formed by General Styer, the commission was constitutional as it was formed by the military command, political wing of the government, Japanese government terms of surrender and international law along with usage. “It is clear that, military commission can be created by any appropriate military command, when the offense is defined by the law of war which might be included in jurisdiction constitutionally” (Paine, 2011).

Personal Opinion on Court’s Decision

In my opinion, the Court was right in sentencing to death General Yamashita on violation of war laws. This is based on the fact that, it is the responsibility of those in leadership position to take control of their groups. Though General Yamashita asserts that he did not involve in such practices directly, or even he did not give an order for such actions, then it is true that that ought to be described as unlawful breach of duty. As a commander, he is empowered to take control of all operations carried out y the troops that are under his command. The law of war clearly states that a violation can be prevented through the control of troops operations by commanders who should be responsible for his subordinates (Shanor, & Hogue, 2003). As a result, General Yamashita was the commander of all Japanese forces that were operating in Philippine, so he was responsible for their actions.

References

Mahle, E. (2011). “The Yamashita Standard” Web.

Paine, T. (2011). “In Re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)” Web.

Reel, A. (1949). The Case of General Yamashita. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Shanor, E. & Hogue, L. (2003). Military Law in a Nutshell. Saint Paul: West Publishers.

Abstract

This essay provides an insight into various court cases that adhered to different ruling proceedings. In the first case, the essay presents a case that depicts the unique processes that are followed by different courts. Secondly, the essay provides an example of a case where the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Lastly, it presents a court incident in which the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated.

Introduction

Formal decisions that are presided over by judges in a court are known as verdicts. On the other hand, trials refer to examinations of any evidence that adjudicators allege against a defendant. This essay examines various court cases that follow unique court proceedings in different courts. It includes cases in which defendants accept plea-bargaining as an alternative to trial and instances where a court wrongly accuses, grants a death sentences, and vindicates the innocent suspect.

Cases that depict the unique processes of different courts

Grobler Vs the State (433/13) [2014] ZASCA 147 9 26^th September 2014)

This case was handled at three court levels. At the outset, the regional trial court considered the appellant’s personal situation to present a non-custodial verdict. This act of crime also encompassed family issues that involved his wife and children among other stakeholders. The regional court also confirmed that the case took a longer period than it was expected before the adjudicators made judgment. This situation affected the appellant mentally and emotionally. As a result, the jury advanced a three-year jail term and house arrest (The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, 2014).

However, the high court averted the verdict and advanced a sentence of five years imprisonment to the offender. The presiding judge of the high court further confirmed that the regional adjudicator granted a fine that was to be paid by the appellant through a third party to compensate the petitioner. This situation flagged various disputes that led to time wastage. As a result, the high court suspended the order of the three-year imprisonment and house arrest. Indeed, the high court had no evidence to confirm that a fine was paid, as stated by the regional court. Consequently, this decision was petitioned in the court of appeal that ordered the high court to pass a non-custodial sentence because of the long process it had taken to preside over the case (The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, 2014).

Cases where the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial

Missing from an Officer’s First Guilty Plea: A Crime

In this case, an officer, Admir Kacamakovic, was accused of spraying pepper and illegal handcuffing to a man who had staged a fight with a colleague in front of a bar that belonged to his cousin. Further, the officer was accused of unlawful access to file databases concerning the man in question. Kacamakovic later negotiated with the government to plead guilty of civil right violation. The court proceedings took place in the federal district court. The officer issued a vague statement that the action he took caused injuries to the man. He narrated that he noticed two men who were fighting and went on to separate them by handcuffing one man. Through this action, the officer claimed that he violated the civil law.

The prosecutor insisted that he had not pleaded guilty of the crime through his statement. As a result, Kacamakovic was ordered to reaffirm his statement but he still failed to plead guilty. The proceedings went on until he reinstated his declaration of oath. The judge provided an option of proceeding to trial in case he declined to plead guilty. He was further ordered to shade more light on the incident amidst his breakdown in tears. At this point, he requested the judge to take his plea since this was a probable benefit to his family. This situation compelled the judge to ask him to admit his crimes against the defendant. Accordingly, he confessed that he did not handcuff the man to separate them from fighting but rather to revenge because of the statement that was made to file a complaint against him. Therefore, the crime qualified to be a civil violation. Both lawyers reached a consensus and accepted the plea (John, 2013).

From the above court proceedings, justice was not administered. It is clear that the ruling was based on unfair judgment because the client was forced to accept plea-bargaining as an alternative to trial. The prosecutor was a probable cause of lower standards because his ability to prove the judgment beyond reasonable doubt was questionable. A situation of overcharge was suitable for such a case. A plea-bargaining was only meant to force guilty supplication to the defendant since the prosecutors focused on winning the case at all costs (Hessick & Saujani, 2002).

Case where the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated

Seth Penalver, acquitted in 2012 in Florida

This case involves Penalver who was arrested in 1994 following allegations that he had brutally murdered three people. His case had no physical evidence to link him to the incident of murder. The police only provided vague and poor quality video evidence in which the appellant’s face was not clear. He was retained in custody until 2012, when the judge in charge of the trial acquitted him of the charges.

As for the above ruling, I support the decision to acquit the appellant of his charges because the evidence that was presented before court did not provide sufficient indication that the culprit in the video clip was Penalver (Rafael, 2012). Various reasons such as inadequate legal representation in court and police misconduct can lead to wrong accusation of the defendant. In addition, court incidences that involve deceitful prosecutors, racial prejudice, misinterpretation of evidences (as in the case of Penalver), and political pressure result in unfair judgment.

Conclusion

The above analysis reveals various court cases that followed unique court proceedings of different courts. It is realized that some defendants are wrongly proved guilty irrespective of their innocence while others accept plea-bargaining in expense of less penalties. Such trials are against the law because they do not lead to administration of fair judgment. Currently, court rulings take into consideration types of cases that should be granted plea-bargaining processes and their magnitudes. Nowadays, procedural court cases are conducted within minimal time. Those cases that require different court levels such as the high court and court of appeal are given ample time to ensure fair trials. Conduct of judges and prosecutors is also taken into consideration through thorough training on ethics of work to minimize cases of wrong interpretations and confession of lies among other unscrupulous practices that deny justice to both appellants and victims.

Reference List

Hessick, F., & Saujani, R. (2002). Plea bargaining and convicting the innocent: The role of the prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the judge. Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 16(1), 189.

John, M. (2013). Cop gets probation for cuffing man who threatened to file complaint: Admir Kacamakovic also pepper sprayed the victim, but that bad act was not part of his guilty plea. Web.

Rafael, O. (2012). Seth Penalver acquitted in 2012 in Florida. Sun Sentinel. Web.

The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. (2014). Grobler v The State (433/13) [2014] ZASCA 147. Web.

Established in 1945, the International Court of Justice is the judicial extension of the United Nations. It serves dual purposes—to utilize the tenets of international law in order to settle legal disputes among the nations of the United Nations and to serve as an advisory body to provide opinions on legal questions raised by the United Nations. It comprises fifteen (15) judges who are elected by the United Nations General Assembly as well as the United Nations Security Council. The justices are elected to serve nine (9) year terms (International Court of Justice—The Court

The International Court of Justice is not the first world court. Its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) was the first world court. It was established under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in 1920. This article charged the Council of the League of Nations with the responsibility of establishing the first international judicial body which was responsible for dealing with arbitration between disputing nations and advising the nations with regards to the scope and ramifications of actions involving multiple nations (International Court of Justice—History.

The International Court of Justice operates in accordance with its dual purposes. In cases where the Court is called upon to settle disputes among nations, the cases have to be brought to the Court by member states of the United Nations. These cases commonly referred to as contentious cases are brought to the Court only on the condition that they accept the jurisdiction of the Court. Jurisdiction is accepted by either the entry into a special agreement, jurisdictional clause, or declarations made under statutes. Jurisdictional clauses are essentially agreements that any further clarification in a case that was settled should be rendered by the International Court of Justice.

When a jurisdiction has been established, the case is then handed over to the court in one of two ways. The first way in which this is done is through notification of the existence of a special agreement. The second way in which this can be done is through an application made to the Court by the applicant nation against a responding nation. The case is submitted to the Registry. The Registry serves as the administrative body of the Court. This body is headed by the Registrar.

All of the cases of the Court are submitted to the Registrar and when the Registrar receives the case, it is dated based on the date of receipt by the Registrar (International Court of Justice—How it works The Registrar serves as the channel of communication between the Court and the disputing nations. In so doing, he/she handles notifications, the transmission of documents, maintenance of a list of cases, entry of orders, attendance of Court meetings, minutes taking at each Court meeting as well as the signing of all judgments, advisory opinions, and Court orders. Additionally, he/she has custody of the seals and stamps of the Court as well as the archives of the Court.

After the case has been filed and referred to the Registry, the parties have the opportunity to present their pleadings in which the facts of the case are presented. The facts are presented orally in a public forum and can be presented by either an agent of the disputing nation or the counsel for that nation. After all of the deliberations are presented, a judgment is then rendered (International Court of Justice—How it works.

Advisory proceedings are slightly different from contentious cases. Advisory proceedings are not open to the public. They can only be attended by entities within the United Nations. The General Assembly of the United Nations as well as the UN Security Council can request the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on any legal matter which arises as a direct result of their course of conducting business and is contained within the scope of their activities.

In so doing, the Court can utilize written and oral facts to clarify the question being asked. In an attempt to ascertain the facts which can be utilized in the formulation of an advisory opinion, the Court creates a list of nations that can provide valuable information on the subject in question. The nations then provide their input on the subject and the Court deliberates and then provides its opinion (International Court of Justice—How it works.

In contemplating the similarities between the International Court of Justice and the United States Supreme Court, one can clearly see that they are similar in structure in that both the Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice serve as the highest court in their perspective areas. For the Supreme Court, it is the highest court in the United States and for the International Court of Justice, it is the highest court which deals with international disputes.

They are both governed by elected justices who are elected to serve terms of predetermined lengths of time and are charged with the responsibility of settling disputes. In the settlement of disputes, the justices are presented with the facts of the case as seen by both sides and a decision is made based on the tenets of the law. One major difference can be seen in the fact that the decisions made by the United States Supreme Court are binding and those made by the International Court of Justice are not. Another major difference can be seen in the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States does not provide an advisory opinion. It only has one single purpose—to settle disputes utilizing the tenets of the law. This requires an interpretation of the law.

Finally, it is prudent to offer an operational definition for the term advisory opinion in order to illustrate a complete understanding of the way in which the International Court of Justice Operates. One of the functions of the International Court of Justice is to provide an advisory opinion on matters of international law. An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a Court that is not charged with the responsibility of resolving a specific case. Its only responsibility is to interpret the law with regards to a question presented to the Court.

References

International Court of Justice (n.d.). How it works. Web.

International Court of Justice (n.d.). The Court. Web.

International Court of Justice (n.d.). The History. Web.

Jury selection is a complicated process. The prosecution and defense must weight whether or not having a particular juror on the panel will benefit or harm their case. In some cases, psychologists are employed to help the attorneys determine which jurors would be the best suited for the case. Jury panels can be easily influenced by the personality of the defendant so that must be taken into consideration as well. Finally, some juries are selected through scientific jury selection, but it is debatable whether or not this method is an effective means of jury selection.

First of all, some attorneys will hire psychologists to analyze the prospective jury pool and help pick out which jurors would be the most effective for the case at hand. Attorneys use the process of voir dire to select a jury. Included in this process are preemptory challenges, meaning that each side has a certain amount of times they can dismiss a juror for no reason (Greene, Heilbrun, Fortune, and Nietzel, 2006). Ultimately, the goal in jury selection is to have a jury that is unbiased; however, this does not always happen (Greene et al, 2006). Psychologists or jury consultants typically come into play when the case is high profile (Hutson, 2007). This is because the defendant or defendants can typically afford this luxury. These psychologists analyze the jurors based upon their behavior and advise the attorneys which juror will be the most beneficial to their case (Hutson, 2007). In addition, psychologists are often employed months before the trial and they do research in the community to determine what type of person would be best for the jury (Hutson, 2007). Psychologists work very hard to figure out before the trial begins what kinds of questions the attorneys should ask during voir dire.

Secondly, psychologists also help the attorneys choose which jurors they think will react least to the defendant, if he or she has a different personality. For example, a psychologist might advise an attorney against putting a conservative, religious, middle aged man on the jury panel if the defendant is a tattooed Satanist. In addition, they might ask develop questions about the defendant’s personal life in order to figure out how the potential juror would react. An example of this was used in the Kobe Bryant rape case when psychologists had the attorneys as potential jurors how they felt about interracial relationships (Hutson, 2007). If a juror responded negatively about them, it can be assumed that the defense attorney would not want that particular person on the jury because they might judge the defendant guilty.

As briefly mentioned before, psychologists use a method of scientific jury selection when they are hired to consult on a case. Psychologists or other jury consultants will begin by doing a phone survey of the people in the area, asking them basic questions such as name, age, prior jury experience, etc (Diamond, 1990). Next, they will develop questions for the attorneys to ask during voir dire and finally, a further set of questions will be developed to make sure that the juror is partial to their side of the case (Diamond, 1990). There are several factors that come into play when determining whether or not scientific jury selection does work. These include: the publicity surrounding a case, the length of a trial, and the preparation put in by the attorneys before and during the case (Greene et al, 2006). Most of the time, it has been shown that the side that does use scientific jury selection will be successful in their endeavors (Diamond, 1990).

In brief conclusion, psychologists should not be used in trials because they provide an unfair advantage to the side that can afford to use them. With most prosecutor offices not having a large amount of money and having to work within a budget, there is little chance that they will be able to hire jury consultants. I believe that the rich are more likely to get off with crimes because they can afford to do these things. Scientific jury selection should be banned and it should be up to an attorney to use their skills to properly select a jury.

References

Diamond, S.S. (1990). Scientific jury selection: what social scientists know and do not know. Judicature, 73(4), 178-183.

Greene, E., Heilbrun, K., Fortune, W. H., & Nietzel, M. T. (2006). Psychology and the legal system (6th ed.). Florence, KY: Cengage Learning.

Hutson, M. (2007). Unnatural Selection. Psychology Today. Web.

What are the chief criticisms that Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent makes of the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right?

Obergefell v. Hodges is one of the most significant cases of the US Supreme Court, in which the Court ruled that marriage equality is a fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Issued June 26, 2015, the decision declares that all states are obliged to issue marriage certificates to all same-sex couples, as well as to recognize such certificates issued legally in other jurisdictions. Before “Obergefell” 11 American states refused to recognize marriage certificates of same-sex couples in other states. The case appeared in the Supreme Court for the reason that Jim Obergefell could not make Ohio recognize dying John Arthur as his legal spouse and heir, despite the fact that they were married before in Maryland.

The majority considers same-sex marriages as a fundamental right to marry inherent in the liberty of the person¹. However, Justice Roberts expressed his dissenting point of view.

First of all, he reveals the comprehension of a new law and its true value. “It is not for us to decide, whether same-sex marriages are a good or bad idea; taking into consideration this particular matter, we are depriving the voters of the right to choose, and impose their opinion,” notes the Chief Justice Roberts in his dissenting opinion².

Second, Justice Roberts emphasizes the meaning of a marriage that is de jure, free, and voluntary union of a man and a woman, aiming to create a family generating mutual rights and obligations³. Marriage enjoys the protection and patronage of the laws only at the conclusion of its compliance with the conditions and entails legal effects known in the field of personal and property rights and responsibilities of spouses in relation to each other and children. In the course of history, nowhere and never, same-sex marriages were not legalized since the purpose of marriage is having children and caring for them. Humankind should multiply.

In addition, children born in same-sex families would have an automatically defined stigma⁴. For example, it might promote sexual confusion and sexual experimentation in young people’s lives. Justice Roberts states, “the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia”⁵. In this case, the right to marry is not the same as the initial right.

Do you agree with the majority or with Justice Roberts on whether the right to marry is a fundamental right, and why?

In my opinion, the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US Supreme Court would certainly go down in the short-list of key events of American history and the whole world as well.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees all citizens equality before the law of the United States and gives them legal guarantees. Translated from the law, this amendment requires the proof of the power that denies specific rights and services of a separate group of people pursuing a clear and rational legitimate interest. I consider that marriage should meet the most pressing human needs and embody deepest hopes and aspirations making it possible to develop and be enjoyed in the family. From this point of view, same-sex marriage does not support the vital need in marriage. Therefore, I agree with Justice Roberts who reckons that it is not a fundamental right but something invented artificially.

What is Justice Thomas’s view of the meaning of “liberty” as used in the Due Process Clauses?

Judge Thomas states that liberty within the meaning of the Founding Fathers of the United States was liberty from state regulation, but not the liberty to receive benefits from the state.

He reckons that it goes without saying that those who were refused to obtain privilege for marriage from the government do not lose their dignity due to the fact the government denies them these privileges⁶. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot pick it up as well. Although the creators of the Constitution might recognize the fundamental right to marry in the framework of the definition of liberty in the broadest sense, at the same time, it would not mean that it implies the right to state recognition and privileges.

On the contrary, it was only to the right of the plaintiffs to do what they are now free to do: bring vows to carry out religious rites fastening these vows, raise a family, and enjoy the company of a husband. Incidentally, government intervention is considered unnecessary. Therefore, Justice Thomas’s outlook on the meaning of “liberty” as used in the Due Process Clauses does not recognize same-sex marriage as something should be legalized and regarded within the confines of liberty.

Analyze whether under Justice Thomas’s views of “liberty,” the Supreme Court was justified in using the Due Process Clause to strike down Virginia’s ban on inter-racial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) is the historic civil rights decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that established the liberty of intermarriage. All the members of the Court unanimously supported the decision.

Justice Thomas is saying that the Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) case decision was actually about letting interracial couples live together without being arrested.

In the context of analysis, it seems appropriate to note that US Supreme Court Justice Thomas is married, but many years ago, such marriages were prohibited by US legislation. For nearly thirty years, African-American Clarence Thomas is married to American Virginia Thomas. Their marriage took place in 1984. The historic verdict of the Supreme Court in the case Loving vs. Virginia 1967, in which a white man and a black woman were fighting for the right to marry, in particular, marriage between persons of different races was illegal in many states.

Judge Thomas says, “slaves have not lost their dignity because of the fact that the government allowed making them slaves. Those who were contained in the internment camps have not lost their dignity because of the fact that the Government has entered them into such conditions”⁷.

Thus, one might conclude that the Supreme Court was justified in using the Due Process Clause to strike down Virginia’s ban on inter-racial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) from the point of Justice Thomas. According to Thomas, interracial marriages and same-sex ones are fundamentally different because the primary did not require any privileges from the state.

What do you think is the primary point that Justice Scalia is making in his dissent? Support your arguments with examples from Scalia’s dissenting opinion.

Among the four dissenting opinions, there is Judge Scalia. He writes that the decision showed in this court threatens American democracy. “The practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the people of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776,” argues Judge Scalia⁸. The most important of these liberties is the right to self-government.

According to Judge, the decision taken by the Supreme Court demonstrates that democracy in America is in serious danger. Scalia believes that his colleague’s verdict guided by extremely selfish reasons. “Most of them graduated from the same university on the East Coast of the United States, they have never held elected office, and none of them ever and never elected by the people,” he says⁹. Moreover, they represent only a small group of Americans, and none of them belong to the evangelical or Protestant churches.

Openly ridiculing arguments in favor of the majority opinion, Justice Scalia argued that the Constitution does not contain any justification for the verdict: when in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, each state meant by marriage only the union consisting of one man and one woman, and there were no doubts about the constitutionality of such a state of affairs¹⁰. The limitation of marriage to one man and one woman contradicts common sense. Moreover, the support of the traditional institution of marriage is as old as government itself, and it is generally accepted among all nations in the history of up to 15 years.

According to Judge Scalia debate that lasted around issues of same-sex marriages in the United States more than 20 years is an essential attribute of democracy. Therefore, the decision to legalize or ban such unions should take the voters themselves and their chosen representatives in local and federal legislatures. I consider the primary point of his dissenting in the conclusion when he claims that the very fact that a group of nine patricians who was not elected but appointed put an end to such political issues contradicts the fundamental principles of a democratic society¹¹.

Bibliography

Kennedy, Justice. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556. Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015.

Roberts, Justice. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556. Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015.

Scalia, Justice. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556. Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015.

Thomas, Justice. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556. Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015.

1. J. Kennedy. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556. Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015 1.
2. J. Roberts. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556 (Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015) 1.
3. J. Roberts. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556 (Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015) 3.
4. J. Roberts. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556 (Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015) 3.
5. J. Roberts. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556 (Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015) 3.
6. J. Thomas. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556 (Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015) 4.
7. J. Thomas. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556 (Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015) 5.
8. J. Scalia. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556 (Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015) 1.
9. J. Scalia. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556 (Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015) 2.
10. J. Scalia. Obergefell Et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health Et al. No. 14–556 (Washington: Supreme Court of United States, 2015) 3.