Compare And Contrast Ring Vs Arizona

RING vs ARIZONA
Cody Hammer

In 2002, Timothy Ring was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree by an Arizona jury and was sentenced to life in prison. Later, a state judge made the decision to increase the penalty to death. That death penalty sentence was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court by looking back at Walton v. Arizona. That case affirmed the state judge’s choice to increase the penalty to death. The United States Supreme Court later granted Ring’s petition for a review of the case and later reversed the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling. On November 28, 1994, at Arrowhead Mall in Glendale, Arizona, there was an armored car that was robbed. The driver of the armored car was shot in the head as he was leaving his vehicle for …show more content…
New Jersey, the United States Supreme Court stated that any fact that increases the punishment above the statutory maximum punishment must be either submitted to a jury or admitted by the defendant. In a 7 - 2 decision delivered by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court overruled Apprendi v. New Jersey and Walter v. Arizona. They also held that, because Arizona’s enumerated aggravating factors operates as “the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense.” Because the jury had convicted Ring of felony murder, not premeditated murder, Ring would be eligible for the death penalty only if he was found to be the victim’s actual killer. The sixth amendment requires that any other factors of a case be found by a jury. Justice Ginsburg wrote that, “The right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment would be senselessly diminished if it encompassed the fact finding necessary to increase a defendant’s sentence by two years, but not the fact finding necessary to put him to …show more content…
Arizona. I do not believe that one person should have the power to find facts and increase the punishment of any case. What happens if one person/judge has a personal vendetta against the person or against the act. For instance if a judge had a family member that was killed by a drunk driver and there was someone charged of vehicular manslaughter because of alcohol, they may not be able to judge correctly. This is close to the same reason that we have double jeopardy. That way you can only be tried on one crime one time. That way there isn’t a whole lot of retrials. A better system that I think might work, would be if the judge could find and review the facts and then present them to a separate jury to decide if it is enough to upgrade the original ruling. Yes, this would cause the process to be extended and take longer, but I don’t feel like this would be fair to the person accused of the crime. Once they decide on a ruling, they should have to stick with it. I think that Arizona’s original ruling overstepped the sixth amendment by entrusting the judge to find sufficient facts to impose the death penalty. I fully believe that the sixth amendment is fair and that one should be judged by a group of their peers. I also think that if they are trying to upgrade someone's sentencing, it should be another unanimous

Show More

Managing Information Technology (7th Edition) Essay

Essay on preschool

Compare And Contrast Ring Vs Arizona

Related Documents: Compare And Contrast Ring Vs Arizona

Managing Information Technology (7th Edition) Essay

Essay on preschool