+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

So far, we have covered diverse concepts and reviewed several cases. This comprehensive assignment will help pull that knowledge together into a more concrete understanding.

Review three cases that involved a felon being a repeat offender, and provide an overview of the cases as a part of the introduction.

In the body of your report, define and discuss recidivism rate and restorative justice. Identify the types of crime that were committed, and describe the impact of each crime on the victim(s).

Also in the body, examine if any of these felony arrests consisted of warrantless searches, and determine the impact, if any, that these warrantless searches had on the recidivism rate as well as the individuals’ Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.

In the summary/conclusion, analyze the historical trends as they relate to the recidivism rate.

To satisfy the three-case requirement, you may use up to two cases from a previous unit and one new case. However, do not simply copy text from your previous submissions, as it will be flagged as self-plagiarism for this assignment.

You should use a minimum of four academic sources (e.g., the three cases you select and your textbook), but you may use additional academic sources if relevant to the topic.

Your research report must be at least four pages in length, not counting the title page and references page. Adhere to APA Style when constructing this assignment, and make certain to include in-text citations and references for all sources that are used. Please note that no abstract is needed.

Running head: PLEA-BARGAINING
1
Unit V: Plea-Bargaining Case Study
Taneya N. Chandler
Seminar in Crime
Dr. Nathan Moran
July 5, 2022
PLEA-BARGAINING
2
A man Pleads Guilty to Threatening 2 Congressmen
A 63-year-old Missouri man by the name of Kenneth R. Hubert was arrested and charged
with threatening two congressmen the day after the Jan. 6 siege at the U.S. Capitol. The threat
was directed at a black congressman and a Jewish congressman in 2019. The suspect was
arrested after the prosecutor said that Hubert had directed the threats to Emanuel Cleaver II of
Missouri and Steve Cohen of Tennessee (Michael, 2021). The man pleaded guilty to the charges
that he had directed threats to the two congressmen, according to the plea agreement filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The suspect pleaded guilty to the two
offenses, which carried a maximum jail term of six years each, and his plea will assist the
criminal justice department is seeking justice for the victims.
In the plea agreement, the suspect acknowledged calling the Washington office of Mr.
Cohen on May 6, 2019, telling a staff member that he had “a noose with the congressman’s name
on it” and was planning to put the noose on his neck and drag him behind his truck. After three
days, the FBI went to his home, and he admitted to having done so because he was offended by
Mr. Cohen’s comment about President Donald Trump (Michael, 2021). The black congressman
was threatened through a voicemail message made by Mr. Hubert, calling him a racial slur and
telling him, “How about a noose around his neck?” According to the plea agreement, the suspect
admitted to having called Mr. Cleaver’s office and also acknowledged his message was meant to
threaten him due to his comments in the House of Representatives. According to the plea
agreement, the suspect was upset with Mr. Cleaver because he ended the opening prayer by
saying amen.
According to the prosecutors, the suspect had a history of making threatening phone calls
and this is enough evidence to prosecute him. Another incident that was considered is when he
PLEA-BARGAINING
3
threatened the Democratic Party, telling it to stay in hiding and that if they plan to steal the
election, Mr. Hubert and the team have something for them. The plea bargaining process took
place in court where the suspect (Mr. Hubert) admitted to all the crimes he was charged with and
therefore pleaded guilty. Mr. Hubert’s pleading guilty allowed prosecutors’ time to focus on
other cases while the suspect faces the consequences of his crimes, thus giving victims the justice
they deserved. Disposing of Hubert’s case through plea bargaining helped the prosecutors reduce
their caseloads by reducing the number of cases at their desks, therefore making the justice
process more effective. Plea bargaining helps reduce the cost of deciding the cases presented in
courts, making the available resources adequate for many cases (Riederer & Golding, 2020).
Importance of Ethics in Plea-Bargaining Progression
The use of ethics in plea bargaining progression helps in offering a sustained argument
that may be rewarded through reduced penalties for the crime charged. The Code of Ethics
enables the prosecutors to have an effective argument on whether to reduce the fixed sentence,
which may act as a reward for their cooperation with the prosecutors and the court fraternity
(Wilford et al., 2021). Hence, ethics in plea-bargaining progressions help in avoiding deliberate
over-charging by prosecutors, and hence suspects are given the punishment they deserve for their
offenses. In the plea-bargaining progression for Mr. Hubert, ethics were applied and he was
charged according to the weight of his crimes, where he was supposed to spend six years in
prison for each threat made to the victims. Ethics in plea bargaining encourages cooperation
from defendants, thus making the process easy and effective, and hence justice is served in the
end.
PLEA-BARGAINING
4
References
Michael L. (2021). Man Pleads Guilty to Threatening to Lynch 2 Members of Congress.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/us/kenneth-hubert-cleaver-cohen-capitol-riot.html
Riederer, A. M., & Golding, J. M. (2020). Perceptions of plea bargaining in cases of elder
financial abuse. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 32(3), 217-234.
Wilford, M. M., Wells, G. L., & Frazier, A. (2021). Plea-bargaining law: The impact of
innocence, trial penalty, and conviction probability on plea outcomes. American Journal
of Criminal Justice, 46(3), 554-575.
Running Head: SEMINAR IN CRIME UNIT VI
Seminar in Crime Unit VI
Taneya N. Chandler
Seminar in Crime
Dr. Nathan Moran
Columbia Southern University
July 12, 2021
1
SEMINAR IN CRIME UNIT VI
2
Introduction
This paper is about a felony case study in which an appeal was filed due to excessive
sentencing. The Graham v. Florida (2010) case is discussed here for this purpose. The first
section of this paper provides an overview of the case, and the second section explains the
critical analysis of the final decision rendered in this case.
Case Overview
Terrence Graham, a 16-year-old juvenile, was sentenced to 12 months in prison for armed
burglary and attempted armed robbery. He was released from prison after serving his sentence. Six
months later, Mr. Graham was tried and sentenced by a Florida state court for armed home robbery,
but he received a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole. He argued before the
appeals court that the burden of lifelong incarceration without the possibility of bail on a juvenile
violated the Eighth Amendment, and that it also included a cruel and unusual sentence, thus
violating the Eighth Amendment. The Florida District Court of Appeal rejected his argument and
decided Mr. Graham’s punishment was neither a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment nor
cruel and unusual punishment. However, when this case was heard by the United States Supreme
Court, the jury decided that juvenile wrongdoers cannot be sentenced to life in prison without the
right to appeal for non-manslaughter offenses. The Supreme Court held that the Eighth
Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause doesn’t allow a juvenile guilty party to be
condemned to live for life in jail without the chance for bail for non-manslaughter wrongdoing
(Graham v. Florida, 2010).
SEMINAR IN CRIME UNIT VI
3
Critical Analysis
In the present case, the major law involved is the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment states that excessive bail is not required, nor are excessive penalties or
cruel and unusual sentences imposed. This revision restricts the central government from forcing
unduly unforgiving punishments on criminal litigants, either as the cost of getting pretrial
discharge or as discipline for wrongdoing after conviction (Stevenson & Stinneford, 2022).
In light of this legal right, I believe the Supreme Court made the correct decision in this
case. It is because the intent of the Eighth Amendment is to prevent any accused or criminal from
being subjected to moral policing or judgment rather than being treated in accordance with the
law. The law also applies to the judges. As a result, they must judge people according to the law
rather than their personal moral perspectives on any given issue. In this case, I believe Mr.
Graham was not only a convicted felon, but also a juvenile. In his case, bail was his right that
was denied, and a life sentence without the possibility of parole was imposed on him. The
Florida state court and District Court of Appeal made the incorrect decision in preventing a
criminal from exercising his legal rights and making a moral decision. This merely carried out
the cruel and unusual punishments mandated by the Eighth Amendment. As a result, the sentence
in this case can be considered excessive. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case was
justified because it upheld the punishment for the crimes committed by Mr. Graham while also
protecting his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
SEMINAR IN CRIME UNIT VI
4
Conclusion
Overall, Graham v. Florida (2010) was a felony case that involved an appeal due to
excessive sentencing and violated the Eighth Amendment’s provision against cruel and unusual
punishments. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case and protect the right
guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution was justified.
SEMINAR IN CRIME UNIT VI
5
References
Graham v. Florida. (2010). Oyez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-7412
Stevenson, B. A. & Stinneford, J. F. (2022). The Eighth Amendment. Retrieved from
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendmentviii/clauses/103

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!