THIS IS A 2 PART ASSIGNMENT

 

PART 1

 

 

Deliverable Length:  2-4 pages

 

Consider the facts of the following case when answering the questions below:

Dale and Mike Parak were twin brothers and best friends. They spent their entire lives looking out for each other’s interests. While growing up, the two were inseparable. They played sports together, double-dated frequently, and attended the same university. They grew closer as they aged, they got married at about the same time, and eventually, both were divorced. After they retired from their jobs, they decided to live together to save money, and they still enjoyed each other’s company.

When he was 70 years old, Mike was diagnosed with cancer. Doctors predicted that he had about 6 months to live. The brothers agreed that Mike should not suffer. Mike and Dale wrote and signed a note stating that they decided to commit suicide. Dale broke 20 tranquilizers into Mike’s evening meal and watched as he ate it. Yet, when Dale checked on Mike one hour later, Mike was still alive. Dale panicked. He took a .38-caliber revolver from his desk and shot Mike, killing him instantly. Dale then went into the kitchen and took a handful of tranquilizers. He did not die. He awoke the next morning as somebody pounded on the front door. It was a neighbor who, seeing that Dale was dazed and confused, decided to call an ambulance and the police.

The responding police officer conducted an investigation, and Dale was arrested and charged with the premeditated, 1st-degree murder of Mike. The prosecutor, although noting it to be a difficult case, pursued the case because she thought that no citizen had the right to decide when someone should die. Dale Parak pled guilty to 1st-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to 5 years in a maximum-security prison. (Note: This was the lowest sentence that could be given to a defendant convicted of his crime.)

• What is your personal definition of “justice”? What is the formal definition of “justice”? Do you believe that “justice” was served in this scenario?
• What is the state definition of the charge that you would file as the prosecutor against Dale? Did Dale commit each of the components and elements of the crime? The elements for 1st-degree, premeditated murder are 1) the unlawful killing; 2) with malice aforethought; 3) of another human being. Explain how each element was or was not committed.
• According to the definition of justice you provided, was this sentence just? Why or why not?
• If you were the prosecutor in this case, would you have charged Dale Parak with any crime? With 1st-degree murder? Why?
• If you were the judge in this case, how would you have sentenced Dale Parak? Why?

Please make sure that you provide academic or real-life samples in criminal justice to support your opinions.

 

PART 2

Deliverable Length:  2-4 pages

 

 

The United States criminal justice system has a court system that is modulated in different parts. The Supreme Court is the highest authoritative court in the United States, and for cases to arrive at this court, they must pass through a variety of courts and have a legitimate consequence toward the nation.

 

You also have state, appellate, and local courts that serve jurisdictions where criminal cases are initially held and decided by a jury or a judge. It is vital to understand that certain crimes like fraud can be tried in the criminal sections of the criminal justice system, but there is also a civil justice system where parties seek civil relief for injustices that may or may not result from criminal activities. The civil courts, another set of courts, provide judgments over the civil cases. Judges decide if the plaintiff’s claim of harm by the defendant is justified.

 

Criminal cases are heard in criminal courts where, at the conclusion of the trial, the defendant may receive sentences of incarceration or fines as a result of being convicted at the criminal trial.

 

In a civil court, a person (plaintiff) pursues a civil action against another person (defendant), which may result from damages resulting from a criminal action of the defendant, an accidental action by the defendant, or a disagreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

 

Please answer the following questions. As you answer each question, you must provide support or evidence that will enhance and empirically prove your answers. Academic criminal justice articles or real-life criminal justice findings that are not found in journals or other academic sources must be used in supporting your answers. Please use APA style for all cited sources, including your References page.

 

• What is the dual-court system?
• Why does America have a dual-court system?
• Could the drive toward court unification eventually lead to a monolithic court system?
• Would such a system be effective?

 

Judges have specific philosophical rationales and sentencing guidelines when providing a judgment over presented facts.

 

• If you were a judge, what would be your sentencing goals and philosophical rationales? Why?
• Can you envision any circumstances that might make your guidelines or sentencing goals change? Why?
• Provide an example of a situation that might be extremely difficult to judge that could put you as a judge in a situation to change your sentencing goals or philosophical rationales.

 

NO PLAGIARISM!!!!!! List all references and resources in APA format… Place both parts on seperate docs.