Posted: June 22nd, 2022

Law Cases

Law Cases
Student’s Name:
Institution

Law Cases
The 4TH, 5th and 6th amendment needs to be applied consistently in courts of the law and to every American Citizen. On the contrary, the application of the amendments has been applied selectively and differently leading to a contradiction. The amendments need to be applied consistently to ensure that the law is upheld while at the same time being fair and just in delivering court rulings. However, different and selective application of the Amendments contradicts the initial intention of the creation of the amendments as per the constitution. The Amendments need to be applied consistently to enhance fairness, equality and just to Americans, however, they have been applied with inconsistency in the cases of Ewing v. California, Solem V. Helm, US v. Booker, and the US v. Grayson leading to a contradiction.
Facts of the cases
In the case of the United States v. Booker the judge violated the Sixth Amendment right to ensure that sentencing was based on the facts not reviewed by the jury (Hofer, 2007). Based on the guidelines, Booker sentence by the federal district court judge on facts that the judge determined. Booker argued that the move by the judge violated the 6th Amendment.
In the case of Ewing v. California, Ewing was arrested for stealing three golf clubs while he was still serving a probation form an earlier case of robbery and burglary convictions (Lewis, 2003). Ewing was convicted and sentenced for twenty-five years under the California three strikes law.
In the case of Solem v. Helm, Helm was arrested and convicted for writing a cheque from a fictitious account (Lerner, 2011). The crime was carrying a five-year jail sentence. Additionally, this was the seventh time he was being convicted of a similar felony thus the court gave a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
In the case of Roper v. Simmons, Simmons planned to steal and kill a woman and further brought to of his friends on board. Simmons and the friend brought into the woman’s home committed the crime (Alford, 2005). Later, Simmons confessed of the crime. He was found guilty and the jury recommended for a death penalty which the trial court imposed.
Issues
The issues in the case of the United States v. Booker was that the sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional (Hofer, 2007). Additionally, if giving an enhanced sentence under the U.S. sentencing guidelines, founded on the on judicial determination violates the Sixth Amendment.
According to Lewis (2003) the issue in the case of Ewing v. California was if the California three strikes law was in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the US constitution.
According to Lerner (2011) issue in the Solem v. Helm case was if the 8th Amendment can be interpreted to mean give an offender a life sentence without giving them parole.
The issue in the Roper v. Simmons whether it was constitutional for a court to impose a death penalty on a juvenile offender who was below the age of 18 at the time of the crime.
Holding rule
The courts argued that sentencing guidelines enabled the judges to make a ruling based on the available facts not reviewed by the juries amounted to a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by the jury. On the other hand, the sentencing guidelines were not fully unconstitutional but rather advisory.
The rule in Ewing v. California case is the Eighth Amendment. The law prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment.
The rule held in the case of Solem v. Helm was the principle that punishment prescribed should align with the crime and frequency of the crime under the common law.
The legal principle used in the case of Roper v. Simmons was that it was unconstitutional to prescribe a death penalty to a person who was under the age of eighteen.
Rationale or dissent
The dissent in the United States v. Booker case that the decision repealed the sentencing reform Act denying the congressional right to make sentencing and that overturning the sentencing guidelines gave way for litany making it possible to have a different ruling for the same crime (Chiu, 2004). Therefore, the former ruling had violated the Sixth Amendment rights but allowing the use of evidence not presented to the jury.
The dissent in the case of Ewing v. California that the proportionality of the case could be determined by considering the time the offender will spend in prison, criminal conduct and circumstances and the criminal history (Peck, 2003). Additionally, there was a dissent based on the fact that the Eighth Amendment “expresses a broad and basic proportionality principle that takes into account all of the justifications for penal sanctions.” The first ruling contradicted the Eighth Amendment by imposing a cruel and harsh punishment.
The dissent in the case of Solem v. Helm was that Solem was given a harsh sentence for a crime that was minor and a crime that was not against the people (Lerner, 2011). Therefore, the ruling in the case contradicted the Eighth Amendment by giving a cruel and unusual punishment for a minor crime.
The dissent in the case of Roper v. Simmons was the evolving standards of decency should drive the interpretation of the bill of rights and that there was no national consensus on handing juveniles death sentences (Alford, 2005). Therefore, the court former decision was in the contradiction of the eighth and fourteenth Amendment regarding the execution of juvenile offenders.

References
Alford, R. P. (2005). Roper v. Simmons and Our Constitution in International Equipoise. UCLA L. Rev., 53, 1.
Chiu, J. (2004). United States v. Booker: The demise of mandatory federal sentencing guidelines and the return of indeterminate sentencing. U. Rich. L. Rev., 39, 1311.
Hofer, P. J. (2007). United States v. Booker as a natural experiment: Using empirical research to inform the federal sentencing policy debate. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3), 433-460.
Lerner, C. S. (2011). Juvenile Criminal Responsibility: Can Malice Supply the Want of Years. Tul. L. Rev., 86, 309.
Lewis, S. J. (2003). The Cruel and Unusual Reality of California’s Three Strikes Law: Ewing v. California and the Narrowing of the Eighth Amendment’s Proportionality Principle. Denver. UL Rev., 81, 519.
Peck, R. C. (2004). Ewing v. California: Upholding California’s Three Strikes Law. Pepp. L. Rev., 32, 191.

Order | Check Discount