MAPP VS OHIO

Mapp vs Ohio

Mapp vs Ohio

Introduction

On 23 May 1957, Ms. Dolree Mapp's Cleveland, Ohio, refused to admit the police in their home unless they had a permission for searching the house. Three hours later, police forced the door, handcuffed to Ms. Mapp for being "belligerent" and raided the house thoroughly, looking for a person to be required for questioning for committing the crime of illegal gambling. Found books they considered obscene, was arrested by them. At trial, Ms. Mapp gave evidence that a pensioner had left them, as well as clothing, but no other direction. The police never proved to have any order. But Ms. Mapp received a prison sentence and the Supreme Courtyard of Ohio supported failure. In 1961, the Supreme Courtyard decided to prevent the passage through the doors of every courtyard, state or federal-"to evidence given by official lawlessness." The Fourth Amendment establishes standards for the search and arrest, and the Fourteenth requires judges to support them in every state Union (Zotti, Priscilla and Machado, 2005). 

As for the arrest and the police methods used, since 1966 there has been what called "Miranda warnings" to give protection to the rights of arrested. The protections against environmental conditions surrounding the police interrogation. A suspect can waive their rights, but no waiver of these rights can be recognized unless made ??after the warnings are given. This amendment is closely connected with the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth, because the suspect should be told their right to an attorney, either retained or (if indigent) assigned (Long, Carolyn, 2006). 

The Eighth Amendment is the one that perhaps has given rise to more controversy because it involves matter of life or death. While the fact that the individual is violating any of its rights it means to die a little, the rights implicit in the Eighth Amendment have to do with physical death when considering the causal a "cruel and unusual punishment." For years, Americans have wondered whether capital punishment is a "cruel and unusual punishment" for victim. The controversy and debate for decades, and are reinforced to be groups organized to defend this issue and others that attack. Some argue that judges are lax, other than the police are not allowed to obtain evidence, others think the system sometimes seems to courtyard the defendant to take better care of the victim. Here the controversy arises also because the system must protect both society and the individual. And this is because concepts of "cruel" and "unusual" have changed over time. To elucidate these problems, the Supreme Courtyard after the trial "Gregg v. Georgia in 1976, has decided that capital punishment does not is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment in each instance. Before imposing it, Judge sentencing or jury must consider carefully the nature of the offense, the character of offender, and any mitigating circumstances. On the other hand, the controversy also arises because these trials the sentence may be applied unfairly under the clause of "equal protection" of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, in other words, or run at all for the same offense or not executed ...