Compare and contrast U.S. v. Henry (1980) with Illinois v. Perkins (1990). Take a stance on each of these two positions, and explain your reasons. Can these two decisions be reconciled, or do you believe that they are too contradictory in nature for this to be possible?
What will be an ideal response?
In United States v. Henry (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court held that incriminating
statements made to a government informant sharing a suspect's jail cell were not
admissible in evidence, because they violated the suspect's right to a lawyer. In
Illinois v. Perkins (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an undercover law
enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate did not need to give the Miranda
warnings to a suspect in jail before asking questions that might produce an
incriminating response. Henry dealt with a post-indictment questioning. Perkins
dealt with a pre-indictment questioning. Thus they can be distinguished by the
dividing line like pre-trial identifications once a charge has been filed, rights accrue.
You might also like to view...
In this study, police officers were randomly assigned to respond to domestic violence calls in one of three ways: (1) separate parties and order one of them to leave, (2) inform both parties of alternatives to violence, such as attending dispute resolution centers or counseling, and (3) arrest the abuser.
A. Perceptual Deterrence Social Experiment B. Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment C. Logan, Walker, and Hunt Project D. project interventions
Explain what is meant by the rule of law.
What will be an ideal response?
Punitive sentiments have led to an increase in the use of ______.
A. all forms of corrections B. community corrections C. treatment programs D. none of these
Which of the following is not an associated problem with intake?
a. The child's right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination b. Basing intake solely on the prior record rather than by the seriousness of the current offense c. The degree to which the child needs to consent to nonjudicial disposition as recommended by the intake officer d. Allowing juvenile courts to enter into consent decrees with juveniles without filing petitions and without formal adjudication