Judge's Political Ideology Like Their Behavioral Characteristics example essay topic

When the first amendments to the constitution were constructed, they were developed to ensure certain civil liberties to every person in the United States. These civil liberties included freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, and many more (O'Connor, 150). One of the most controversial amendments to the constitution is freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. This is because it is very difficult to define cruel and unusual in terms of sentencing a criminal. This controversial issue is very present in a recent capital crime case, the case of Steve Roach. "Steve Roach was born in Greene County, Virginia.

By the age of seventeen, Steve had already had several run-ins with the law, two instances of car theft and one count of breaking an entering, for which he was put on probation". (The Killing of Steve Roach) Surprisingly enough, Steve was a very caring person; he spent much time volunteering his services to others especially the elderly people in his neighborhood. Steve very often helped them with chores and ran errands for them. He worked, especially often, for a woman named Mary Ann Hughes, who was a 70 year old women. Mary Ann was like a grandmother to him and he showed his appreciation by tending to her needs. But, on December 3, 1993, Steve found Mrs. Hughes counting money in her living room shot her.

He had his shot gun laying on the door and he simply shot her, took her money, her credit card, and her car, and fled. He fled from the police for three days and gave himself up to the police. He said, "I don't know what was going through my mind. I wish I could take it back". (The Killing of Steve Roach) On January 13, 2000, six years later, Roach died form a lethal injection, after all of his appeals and petitions of clemency have been exhausted (The killing of Steve Roach). Roach's death by lethal injection was not considered cruel and unusual punishment by the judges that determined his sentence.

But how does a judge make a decision of whether or not a man should be sentenced to death? There are six factors that can alter a judge's decision: judicial philosophy and original intent, precedent, behavioral characteristics, ideology, attitude, and public opinion. Probably, the most important issue a judge takes into mind is his or her judicial philosophy; whether they believe in judicial restraint or judicial activism. If a judge prefers judicial activism, they believe that a judge should go out of his or her way to promote equality for a minority. This is because they believe that the majority is not upholding the rights of the minority. Furthermore, believers of judicial activism hold that the courts should use their power to further justice.

Activists believe it is their duty to correct injustices committed by the other branches of government. If a judge prefers judicial restraint he or she believes that the judiciary as a whole should stick to issues that are close to their jurisdictions, and allow the decisions of other branches to stand. Judicial restraint activists justify their stance by arguing that judges are non-elected officials and therefore are less democratic than the other two branches (O'Connor, 408). The second factor that can sway a judge's decision is precedent. Precedent is theory based on stare dec isis, which means, "let the decision stand". In other words, judges refer back to old cases to determine how they should decide on a current case.

This provides a sense of continuity when it comes the interpretation of the laws and constitution of the United States. It also provides for a sense of predictability in determining how a judge will rule on case (O'Connor, 409). A factor that does not provide for a sense of predictability is behavioral characteristics of the judge. Behavioral characteristics are childhood experiences, education, religious values, political party influences, and many other factors that a judge uses to determine his or her logic. These factors are ones that have shaped a judge their entire life and can very rarely be altered.

This is because, they have grown up with these sets of values and beliefs, and refer to them by force of habit (O'Connor 409). A judge's political ideology, like their behavioral characteristics, can also sway his or her decision. A political ideology is basically what a person stands for politically. If a judge is conservative he or she usually does not vote for things like abortion right, expanded rights for criminals, or increasing power of the other two branches of government. Liberals tend to vote is support of issues like these. Like behavioral characteristics, ideology is something a judge usually has developed over time.

This ideology could come from parental influence, educational standards, income, or religion. Like precedent, it does provide for a sense of predictability in a judges decision, but not nearly with the magnitude of precedent. This is because the amount of influence a political ideology has on a judge varies from person to person (O'Connor, 410). Another factor that varies from person to person is judicial attitude.

Basically, this means that judges decide a case by using the facts of that particular case and reflecting them with his or her own policies and principles. There are many factors that determine a justice's attitude; among them are their party identification, the president that appointed him or her to the stand, and their liberal / conservative leaning. These factors in light of the evidence of the particular case are what might sway a judge's decision (O'Connor, 410). The final factor that determines a judge's or justice's decision is public opinion. If a case is particularly controversial, a justice is almost forced to use extreme precaution when considering that case. If the public feels strongly about a case, a justice usually takes that into consideration.

This is especially important in Supreme Court cases because most cases that reach the Supreme Court through the lower courts are usually quite controversial. Capital crime cases are ones that get extreme public attention because of its controversial nature. The case of Steve Roach, in particular, was debated in excess because it dealt with a 17 year-old-boy who quite misled as a child. Some people argued that he was a minor when he committed murder and therefore cannot be sentenced to death, and other argued that he had a criminal record before he committed murder, so he knew exactly what he was doing and the repercussions of his actions. Both of these points of view were probably taken into consideration when Steve was finally sentenced to die six years later. All of these factors that determine a judge's decision are a part of bringing justice to the people of the United States, but justice, like many things, is in the eye of the beholder.

Everyone has different views and different opinion as to what to do with a convicted criminal. The topic of punishment for capital crimes is an extremely controversial one, because some people believe the death penalty is necessary and some believe it is not. This is the question that puzzles me, how can a society, so based on logic and fact, believe that killing a person is justice? Capital punishment is wrong and should not be used to deal with capital offenders. This case in particular should not have resorted to the death of a 23-year-old-man that was 17 when he committed murder. Not only is it cruel, but it barely works at deterring crime.

In a poll taken in 1995, by Hart Research, police chiefs place the death penalty last at deterring crime, and that only one percent of police chiefs believe that expanding the death penalty would reduce crime (Death Penalty Statistics). As a matter of fact, Texas, Florida, and Virginia, all have a murder rate above the national average, yet those three states most frequently use capital punishment (Study). Another alarming fact is that, on average, it costs $3.2 million dollars to execute someone, and it costs a mere $535,000 to support an inmate for 40 years (Death Penalty Statistics). This obviously provides a cost dilemma for taxpayers. The final and most powerful fact is that over the last 100 years, 48 inmates on death row were released after being proven innocent and 13 people have been wrongfully executed (Death Penalty Statistics).

In those 13 cases, the United States government is guilty of murder. So, why does the Government take the risk of killing an innocent person? The answer is simple, Vengeance, an emotion, which can sway a decision as easily as logic. The justice department calls this emotion closure for the family of the victims of capital crime. While condolences go out for the dead, killing another person does not justify their death. Furthermore, killing an innocent person is even worse.

In the case of Steve Roach, like any other, killing a person in the name of justice is wrong. It should not even be considered justice in the United States or anywhere else for that matter.