Torres Vs Trivino - Paper Example

Introduction

This case was very interesting and kind of tricky to find in the courthouse because they kept changing the room number that they were in. This particular murder case was similar to the movies but had a lot of different aspects than the movies. Basically, there was a confrontation between two men while they were drinking and one person stabbed the other person. The defense moved to unreasonable doubt for 1st-degree murder and was able to note his charges on day 4 and five of the hearing. With the knife that the Torres used, he stabbed Trivino multiple times and the cause of death from the doctor's perspective was a homicide. There were a total of 15 people in the stands, 14 people on the Jury, 1 judge and 2 clerks assisting the judge as well as 1 stenotype operator. One of the most interesting things about this case is how the lawyers cross-examined the Travis, the doctor who determined what the cause of death was. At the end of the doctor still would not say if the cause of death was self-defense related or not because the blunt object to the eye was not sharp.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Each role of the court personnel was specific and it looked like with all of the different positions in the courtroom everyone was very professional and didn't say too much regarding the hearing. One thing that I noticed that was very different from the movies is that the lawyers used modern technology such as PowerPoint slides to show pictures instead of printing off pictures and blowing them up to show the jury. There was also a CCTV footage taken on the first day showing a man stabbing another after an argument but it was taken from far and therefore their images were not clear. Overall I had a great experience going to the courthouse.

The judge, prosecutor and others members of the court followed certain ethics during the criminal proceeding. I noted that they followed the constitutional rights of both the accused and the plaintiff. The rights to counsel, speedy trial, and protection against self-incrimination are aimed to protect both innocent and guilty individuals. During criminal procedures, the courts are required to follow them according to determine the criminal case. They start at the initial stages of investigations, arrests, arraignments in court, negotiation for pleas, court hearings proceeding, main trial, motions that carry on after the trials and questionings before sentence is applied (Neubauer & Fradella, 2015 p. 60). I noted that the court did not delay this case for unreasonable reasons and they were in a hurry to analyze all the available evidence to prevent any delay. Torres could not afford an attorney and the state provided one for him (Allen, Stuntz, Hoffmann, Livingston, & Meares, 2016 p. 50). The lawyer was not biased and did all he could to ensure that he proves beyond any doubt that Torres is not the person who committed the crime. These policies maintain justice administrations in courts. Another reason is that they protect innocent and guilty from discrimination during case preceding.

The research from the library is similar to the practical judicial proceeding. An individual has rights to a public court trial, and it should not be delayed for no valid reason. When police officers arrested Torres, they had to act fast and do all the investigations on the case without delays. In a public trial relative of the defendants should be allowed in the hearing. And he was not sentenced before the judge could prove that he was the one who committed the crime. The case should not be delayed for more than one year because he will be a violation of the defendants' rights to a speedy trial. During the trial, if a witness is asked a question that can incriminate him/her the amendment gives him/her rights of not answering the question. The imperial jury right makes sure the defendant's case is given a hearing by a non-biased party who will give a non-biased ruling (Whitebread, & Slobogin, 2000 p. 101).

However, the prosecutor was biased in this case and I believe he wanted Torres to be proven innocent. A was present in most of the hearings and noted that he did not like Trivino based on his color. Trivino was black and comes from a poor family while on the other side, Torres was white and came from a well up family (Reiman, & Leighton, 2015 p. 176). Torres was a close friend of the prosecutor and perhaps he was given money to ensure that Torres will be proven innocent. Racism is one of the major factors influencing criminal justice in the US and many have been proven innocent despite the fact that they were guilty. I was able to talk to Trivino lawyer and, he mentioned that he had prepared an eyewitness affidavit (Hartley, Rabe, & Champion, 2017 p. 235). He had attached it to the case file but on the day of the hearing, it was missing. He was sure that the prosecutor had taken it out of the file. In this case, I noted that the prosecutor had violent the courts ethics and code of conduct.

The court listened to an eyewitness who was present at the same bar when the incident happened. I became attentive to see if there was truth to want John was saying. The prosecutor asked him to hold a Bible and swear that he will tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Afterward, he explained that on 7th August 2016, he was having a drink in a bar when two men started yelling at each other. He could not tell exactly what they were saying and before anyone drew attention to what was happening he Torres removed a knife from his jacket and stabbed Trevino. The lawyers from the two sides asked him few questions and he was requested to leave the courtroom.

The second witness was Travis, the doctor who examined Trevino and declared that the course of death was due to bleeding after being stabbed. After swearing to say the truth, Trevino's attorney questioned him about the incident. The doctor said that Trevino was brought to the hospital on 7th August 2016 while unconscious. After few minutes of examining him, he realized that he had lost after of blood which caused his death. The doctor insisted that the injury was fresh as it was from a blunt object like a knife. The doctor said that they performed a post-mortem to determine the main cause and, it proved that it was due to excess bleeding. The lawyer from the other side requested the doctor to explain how a blunt object would cause such injury and the doctor clarified that it had cut a vein.

In modern society capital punishment is practiced to punish offenders who commit heinous crimes as rape, treason, espionage, first-class murder, and aircraft hijacking which may cause death. The death penalty is referred to as the act of killing a person by the state as a punishment for a specific crime subsequent to a legal trial. Lethal injection, hanging, electrocution, and firing squad are the most common methods used to kill a criminal. According to Penalty Information Centers (2017), 20 people were killed in 2006 indicating the least number of people sentenced to the death penalty since 1991. The public feel that capital punishment is the most effective was of punishing serious criminals. A study carried out by Gallup showed that 61% support the death penalty because it prevents further crimes in the society and they live without fear of being attacked by these criminals (Muhlhausen, 2014 par 2). Although 32 states still practice it, the number of criminals executed has been reducing every year and in 2014, only 7 verdicts were murdered. It allows redistribution in the society where serious criminals such as murders pay with their lives and this serves an equal justice. The death penalty should be practiced because it deters criminals, prevent crimes and maintain law and order by protecting people in the society.

Death penalty prevents crime because it makes other serious offenders to reform and change their criminal activities after they watch a verdict being executed.

Every human being is afraid of dying and criminals are not an exemption. When they witness an offender being electrocuted to death they refrain from committing such activities because they do not want to lose their lives. When criminals are murdered they will never repeat similar crimes since they are dead (Vito & Gennaro, 2016 p.50). Death penalty allows for incapacitation by physically restraining criminals from committing crimes.

In most cases when these criminals are sensed to life imprisonment, they break out of the prison and risk the lives of other citizens. If a verdict committed murder, there is no guarantee that he would not repeat the same crime in the society. There is no reason why a serial killer should not be executed because when he gets a chance and return to the public may commit more murders than when he did before he was arrested. Cases of criminals getting out of prisons and commit more crimes continue to happen and it worries how an individual can escape in a maximum prison which is surrounded by guards and CCTV camera to monitor every movement.

If a person is convicted by a judge or plead guilty, he or she should be subjected to pain proportional to the crime he/ she committed. For instance, if a serial killer stubs to death an innocent citizen, the judicial system should ensure that he dies a painful death. Factual justice involves that individuals should be subjected to the suffering that is proportional to their offenses and this would deter others from committing similar offenses. A rapist or murder deserves death without mercy because they were not merciful when committing these crimes (Gibson, 2015 par 5). There should be no over-punishment or under-punishment in the judicial system and therefore everyone would receive what he or she deserves.

Death sentence deters criminals from committing crimes. In 2003, Emory University carried out a research examines the relationship between the death sentence and reduction in death rates. The data was gathered from the number of murders committed from 1996 to 1997 in 3000 regions. The results of the study after data was regressed proved that there was a decrease in the number of murders committed following death sentence. Homicides had decreased by 18 (Muhlhausen, 2014 par. 4). This validates that the death sentence effective in deterring and preventing crimes in the society because it decreased the homicide rates by 18 percent. In another research in 2005 by Kenneth and coauthors aimed to examine the correlation between the decrease in murders in Texas and capital punishment. The researchers collected data from 194 through 2005 using samples from different counties. The results presented that in each murder, there was a 2.5 percent reduction in homicide rates in Texas (Muhlhausen, 2014 par. 5). Based on these two research studies, it is evident that capital punishment deters crimes and prevents crime in the society.

After criminal proceedings, the defendant is either convicted or pleads guilty. The judge listens to the two sides attentively make his decisions after to analyzing the conformities and non-conformities of the case. During a criminal case sentencing, the judge decides on the appropriate punishment the defendant deserve based on the magnitude of the offense. The judge may reduce or enhance a sentence depending on the level of crime. The judge may require the defendant to participate in rehabilitation programs so that he can reform. If the crime is of low magnitude, the judge may require the defendant to participate in rehabilitation programs outside prison but if a crime is a heinous one, the judge may require the defendant to attend rehabilitation centers inside prisons.

Conclusion

In con...