The Subject of Jurisprudence - Research Paper Example

JURISPRUDENCE RESEARCH PAPER Date Introduction This essay examines the topic of jurisprudence by analyzing the following: a case law and areas of law touched; summary of the case law; comparison with other decided cases; examination of the judge’s decision; examining the jurisprudential merit of the decision; and finding out whether the judge’s logic serves the functions of law. In a nut shell, Jurisprudence originates from a Latin word ‘jus’ meaning ‘law’ and ‘prudentia; meaning ‘knowledge’. Therefore, Jurisprudence means the knowledge of law which deals with a deeper understanding of nature of law; legal reasoning; legal systems and legal institution (Peter, 2005). This essay covers the criminal perspective of jurisprudence focusing on a murder case and the death penalty. Historical development of capital punishment The death penalty came up after (18) eighteen years failure to execute convicts, arising from the Supreme Court’s moratorium as issued in the case of Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S 238 (1972) (Burton, 2007) where the learned justice held death penalty to be cruel and discriminatory applied to the poor, Negros and low class people. Thereafter, the supreme court reinstated the death penalty by imposing the death penalty, the case law of Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (Burton, 2007). In New York Court of Appeal in the case of People v. Davis 43, N.Y.2d 17 (1977) ruled that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment on Human rights this followed that, in the subsequent years, New York Legislature passed new capital punishment statutes every year only to be abolished by the ruling governors. Later in 1994 a governor who promised to bring back the capital punishment got elected to represent New York, after which the 1995 death penalty statute got passed, this saw many prosecutors oppose capital punishment as a mechanism of deterring violent crimes (Burton, 2007). Some declared never to infer death penalty. The people started challenging death penalty until the Court of Appeal in the case of People v. Lavalle 3 N.Y.3d 88 (2004) ruled that at the close of a penalty trial, the clause the judge should inform the jury that on failing to agree on the punishment, then death imprisonment would be effected, violated New York Constitution (Melvin, 1992). Despite the ruling in Lavalle’s case above, the prosecutor in the case of John Taylor continued pursuing the death penalty that the jury had not agreed on the punishment (Betty, 1995). The defense objected on the constitutionality of this provision on the jury’s agreement. Then the trial judge anticipating appeal on this ground, informed the jury that by failing to agree on the penalty the defendant gets five consecutive life sentence making the confinement period hundred and seventy five (175) years. The jury then agreed on imposing the death penalty against John Taylor, from this sentence John Taylor appealed to the New York court (Betty, 1995). The Facts of the Case during Appeal The facts stated that Taylor and the co accused had robbed a restaurant where Taylor had previously worked as a manager. The evidence in record states that, John Taylor and the accomplice gathered seven employees of the restaurant to the basement, bound them with plastic tape and shot each on the head, only two victims survived. The question during trial focused on who shot who and whether John Taylor instructed the accomplice to shoot. The appellate Court applying the principles of res judicata quashed the death penalty, but refused to rely on the defense of the unconstitutionality and imposition of the death penalty (Betty, 1995). Areas of Law Dealt with The case of Taylor as compared with the other discussed cases touches on different areas of law as discussed herein. On law making process, the enacting of sentencing statutes came out in the case of Georgia with the court holding death penalty to be cruel and discriminatory. Similarly, a New York governor enacts a death penalty statute which comes to force. This area of jurisprudence demonstrates that laws get made by those in authority, but the courts reserve discretion on application of the law. The court in the case of Lavalle declares the process of capital punishment unconstitutional. On the same note, the governor gets elected by the people because of promising to bring back the death penalty. Secondly, jurisprudence involves prosecution in the application of law (Martin, 2002), with the prosecutor in charge. The prosecutor has influence in the outcome of a court process, after the enactment of the death penalty some prosecutors declare never to infer death penalty irrespective of the statute. The stand forces the governor to transfer prosecutors and coerce them to infer death penalty. This shows that apart from the written law many other factors influence the outcome of a court process. Similarly, the case of Taylor, the prosecutor pursues the death penalty and so at the end the death penalty gets given. This supports the American realist’s theory that other factors other than the evidence given the influence the final decision of a case. Thirdly, evidence and sentencing areas of law crops up, during the trial and before sentencing the facts of what happened get narrated, and then the trial judge bases the decision of proving an allegation on the evidence by giving reasons for the decision (Ted, 2010). The law of sentencing crops up in both the initial trial and appeal. In the initial trial, the provision for determining capital sentence requires that the jury decide and on failing death sentence prevails. The prosecutor affects the sentencing process by preferring a sentence. The final authority rests with the judge who delivers the sentence while basing the reason of the outcome on the contribution of the jury or prosecutor as the case may be. By examining the case of John Taylor, and other decided cases and the history of capital punishment, it becomes clear that Jurisprudence process involves many areas and covers different groups of individuals at different levels of decision. First, the citizens participate in law making process, this happens when citizens elect a governor for promising to bring back the capital punishment. The governor represents the peoples wish by enacting the law, and goes ahead to oversee the implementation of the law. Therefore, the people through their leaders ignite the process of the law which, goes to the hands of prosecutors, juries, advocates, witnesses and presiding judges for implementation. Jurisprudential Merit of the Judge’s Decision The question here concerns whether the appellate court decision to set aside the death penalty against Taylor considers with the law. The decision arises from the fact that the law allows a higher court to agree or differ with a lower court (Stoney 2002). Similarly, a New York Court of Appeal in the case of Lavalle had declared the death penalty unconstitutional, so in the case of Taylor, the Court acts properly by setting aside the death sentence. The other reason regards the way the death penalty got given by the lower court, by following the jury’s agreement a practice declared unconstitutional. Therefore, the decision of the appellate Court remains well informed and has jurisprudential merit. Whether the Judge’s Logic Serves the Functions of Law The functions of criminal law come from the theories of punishment which have two philosophies: utilitarian and retributive. The former seeks to punish offenders to deter future offending while the later seeks to punish because the offenders deserve to be punished (Burton, 2007). The question here concerns, whether the decisions of the judge in the case of John Taylor serves the purposes of criminal law to either deter or punish the offenders because they deserve to be punished. Under utilitarian philosophy, several functions of law arise such as deterrence; incapacitation; rehabilitation; while retributive philosophy focuses on punishing the offender as vengeance for the offended citizens (Burton, 2007) The case of John Taylor decision fails to serve the retributive philosophy functions by setting aside the death sentence, because happiness occurs as a result of vengeance to the offender under the confines of the law. In contrast to Taylor’s case the supreme Court of Appeal in the case of Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 115 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1990) (Betty, 1995), where the offender got convicted to life imprisonment for a felony. The court refused to lift the sentence holding that severe penalties may be cruel but not unconstitutional. The case of Michigan illustrates a cruel punishment imposed as vengeance for the society. The function not served is wrong doers should be made to suffer for making others suffer. The appeal case of Taylor fails to serve the functions of law under utilitarian philosophy; the punishment should bring more good than evil to both offender and the society. Therefore, the total good achieved by the punishment should exceed the evil from punishment, for example, a confined sick prisoner does not benefit the society, and should be released. Utilitarian’s look at punishment as a measure for deterrence to both the offender and society from future criminal conduct, so the case of Taylor by setting aside the death penalty, fails in setting an example to the society and to Taylor by not illustrating the punishment one gets for taking another’s life. The case law of Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 30 S. Ct. 544, 54 L. Ed. 793 (Betty, 1995). The US Supreme Court compared the sentence imposed on Weems who got convicted of falsifying an item of public record got convicted for up to (20) twenty years. The Court found the sentence harsh and dismissed the sentence. On the other hand, the Court in the case of Taylor succeeds in enforcing the function of rehabilitation, which entails treatment for violent behavior, education and counseling. The court in setting aside the death penalty gives the opportunity of reforming Taylor which could not be achieved on executing death penalty. Conclusion The subject of jurisprudence covers the historical development of law and application, the purpose of law and limitation of law. Law got developed by both the statutes and case laws, with the courts applying discretion at some points and applying statutes at other times. The judges determine whether law serves the purpose because they make the final decision in a case. The functions of law get achieved depending on the perspective one looks from, one purpose may not be served under utilitarianism but might get serves under retributive theory. Therefore, laws in practice depend on the prevailing circumstances and the leaders of the time. References Brophy, Alfred L. (2009). Constitutional Law Academic Journal. Florida State University Law Review, Vol: 36, p229. Fletcher, Betty B. (1995). The death penalty in America: Can justice be done? New York University Law Review 70. Gutterman, Melvin. (1992). Prison objectives and human dignity: Reaching a mutual accommodation. Brigham Young University Law Review. Neumer, Peter. (2005). Journal of criminal law & criminology. Vol 96 issue 1 p.30-388 (book review). Stoney, Martin, J. (2002). Unlocking criminal law. Gutenberg Press, London. Occhialino, Ted. (2010) Constitutional law; evidence; governments. New Mexico Law Review, Vol: 40, p.207. William, C. Burton. (2007) Theories of punishment. Retrieved on April 28, 2012 from http//legal dictionary.freedictionary.com. Read More