Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional Essay Example

Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? Essay Is Plea Bargain Unconstitutional The goal of this research paper is to analyze plea bargain and discuss whether it complies with Constitution of United States. In order to accomplish this goal, conception of plea is explained in details, as well as its advantages and disadvantages for some of the participants and the system as a whole. Also Constitution is analyzed in terms of plea bargaining case in order to find out how it correlates with principal law. Besides cases of using plea bargaining and their results are explained in this research paper. Before going into further discussion I would like to briefly explain the basic conception. Judicial system is designed to punish those people that committed crimes through the system of jury trials where criminal defendant is considered as guilty or not guilty. So, at first glance it looks unavoidable that all criminals are punished according and in proportion to their crimes. In fact, there is another way of judging and punishing criminals that does not include jury trials and fair judicial process that finds defendant guilty or not guilty. This system is called plea bargaining. A plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecutor offers the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with recommendation of a lighter than maximum sentence. Plea bargains have its advantages and disadvantages. First of all, plea bargain has benefits for criminals that really did the crime. It allows them to avoid the risk of conviction at trial and receive full term of punishment for their crimes. We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer For example, they could be offered to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge instead of felony charge. No wonder that this practice became very popular in United States. Also most of the involved parties benefit from plea bargaining. Criminals receive lesser punishment and therefore they tend to plead guilty. The cases finish earlier with predicted results so prosecutors also enjoy less workload as well as clerks that work with documentations. Money of taxpayers is also spent less both on the trial process and imprisonment. The most obvious disadvantage of plea bargaining is that it does not protect innocent people and leave no chance for them to be free after the court. Plea bargain presumes minimization of imprisonment term, not its full abolition. So, innocent people may choose plea bargain option because they fear to receive even stronger punishment. And that is indeed the most serious problem of this agreement. Plea bargain minimizes punishment for criminals with serious record, but punishes innocent people that were not able to prove their innocent to the prosecutor and therefore they go to prison for the same period of time as people that did accomplish the crime. Also this is another problem of plea bargain. It presumes that defendant is guilty without proving this with evidence and reasoning, while according to legislation nobody can be called guilty without proving. As well plea bargain becomes popular choice for people that do not their rights and legislation system and do not have money to afford a lawyer to defend their rights in court. So, besides unfairness and infringement of rights, this agreement uses weak position of the defendant to punish him or her without guilt and therefore is not democratic process, but creates groundless advantages for those who know judicial system very good or have enough money to hire a lawyer to defend them in court. So, in general plea bargaining proves to be unclear practice that creates benefits for criminals that know and infringe laws and puts innocent people in unstable position where they should choose between taking short term punishment without being guilty or receive even higher term after trial. But what is even more impressive is that statistically 9 out of 10 such criminal cases finish with plea bargain. Such proportion becomes clear after we go deeper into this system. In fact, judicial system does not only encourage criminal defendants to use plea bargain to receive less severe punishment, but it also retaliates those who dared to request trial by jury in order to defend their right for liberty. The most well-known case of such situation is so-called watershed precedent of Paul Lewis Hayes, which was indicted for attempting to pass forged check to the amount of $88. Such kind of crime is punishable by prison term of two to 10 years. So the prosecutor offered Hayes five years if he would plead guilty and waive this right to trial. Also the prosecutor made it clear that if Hayes rejects the offer, the state would seek a new indictment from a grand jury under Kentucky’s Habitual Criminal Act. Under this Hayes would receive life sentence taking into consideration his previous criminal record. Despite all these circumstances and high pressure, Hayes decided to insist on his right to jury trial. But in spite of his expectations, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Thus, plea bargaining has another advantage over jury trial – it allows criminal defendants not only to avoid full punishment, but also protects them from additional convictions. But as this case proves, it is possible to receive even higher punishment if one tries to defend his or her rights in trial. In order to prove or disapprove unconstitutional character of the plea bargain practice one should refer to the source. First of all, Bill or Rights guarantees the following rights: †¢the right to be informed of the charges, †¢the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself, the right to a speedy and public trial, †¢the right to an impartial jury trial in the state and district where the offense took place, †¢the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses, †¢the right to call witnesses on one’s own behalf, †¢the right to the assistance of counsel. So, Fifth Amendment prohibits self-incrimination while Sixth Amendment guarantees impartial juries. Thus, Bill of Rights limits powers of police and prosecutors in order to safeguard our freedom. Thus, all this basically confirms that plea bargaining limited rights of U. S. itizen in many aspects: †¢it limits the right to be informed of the charges because defendant prepares a waiver that enable the prosecutor to set punishment as he or she pleases and offers, †¢it limits the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself because the person actually incriminates oneself and plead guilty, †¢it limits the right to a speedy and public trial because no trial is conducted in case of plea bargaining, †¢it limits the right to an impartial jury trial in the state and district where the offense took place, †¢it limits the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses because no witnesses are used in this case, †¢as well it limits the right to call witness es on one’s own behalf and the right to the assistance of counsel. So, Constitution gives a citizen the right to defend oneself and guarantees his or her liberty before it was proven by the court that he or she is guilty. According to Justice Hugo Black, defendant â€Å"has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to ‘Prove it! ’† Thus, in spite of providing such extended rights by Bill of Rights, efendants lose all of them because they are forced into practice of plea bargain that offers them to plead guilty without any trial and abandon all their rights given by Constitution. Therefore, by formal evidence we see that plea bargain is unconstitutional. It does not only takes the citizen rights, which are guaranteed by Constitution of United States, but also punishes those who dared to object against this and want to realize their right to jury trial. The problem is that it is impossible to convince the court that by offering plea bargain, the prosecutor violates the Constitution by threatening to punish the defendant or simply invoking his or her right to trial. And therefore the defendant will receive the most hard punishment possible in case of trial after offering plea bargaining. In case of Hayes, he was not able to defend his right to trial because the court admitted that a new indictment was filed against him that deterred him from exercising this right. Also the Court declined to overturn his sentence because he could have avoided life imprisonment risk if he admitted his guilt and accepted five years of prison. Still, there are viewpoints that find this decision improper and unlawful. Indeed detailed analysis of Hayes case shows that the idea of plea bargaining cannot withstand any serious scrutiny. First of all, the choice that was offered was not within constitutional rationale. The defendant should choose between two evils: going to prison for five years or for a lifetime. Actually it has nothing to do with freedom of choice, but with forcing to agree with proposed punishment. The same principle can be applied to false imprisonment action from one female to a male acquaintance that forced her to travel by car instead of going by train. Actually he gave her choice – to go without her purse by train after he took the purse out of train. And when he dragged her out of train he gave her another opportunity to leave or to go by car. So as we see offering limited choices has nothing to do with fair conduct. Another fiction of plea bargaining that is used by its followers is that government does not retaliate against individuals that wish to execute their right to jury trial. When, in fact, these people are punished very severely like in the case of Hayes. Also plea bargaining is used in cases when legislation of different states is opposite like strict laws against handgun possession in Washington D. C. Tourists from other states are often taken by the local police that takes their guns and offers them to plead guilty is possession of illegal arms. In case if the tourists disagree with this offer, they can receive worse accusations – for example, for each bullet. So most of the tourists decide to agree that they are guilty and give their handgun to the police. Thus, in spite of the fact that Constitution of United States provides its citizens with rights to defend themselves against accusations, in reality there are numerous practices of ignoring these rights and offering propositions that do not comply with Act of Rights but can lead to much worse situations if they are to be rejected and if defendant decides to defend his or her rights at court. Moreover, there are viewpoints that there is nothing wrong with such practices. There are many followers among prosecutors and civilians that argue that Constitution defended citizens in old times when court practices were different. Nowadays we have courts without jury so in some cases it should be beneficial for the defendant to reduce his or her punishment by pleading guilty. Such people argue that right to trial is not inalienable because most of the rights are beneficial due to their abilities to be sold and purchased. So, they offer to view plea bargaining as a deal – to waive the right for trial and receive less punishment instead of it. It should be emphasized that there was no single opinion about this topic. For example, in 1858 New York court decided in case Cancemi v. People that defendant should not be able to waive a jury trial because â€Å"the law does recognize the doctrine of waiver to a great extent even to the deprivation of constitutional private rights†. Still in 1879 Iowa Supreme Court took the opposite decision in case State v. Kaufman. According to the Court, â€Å"Reasons other than the fact that he is guilty may induce a defendant to so plead et the state never actively interferes in such case, and the right of the defendant to so plead has never been doubted. He must be permitted to judge for himself in this respect. Why should he not be permitted to do so? Why hamper him in this respect? Why restrain his liberty or right to do as he believed to be for his interests? Whatever rule is adopted affects not only the defendant, but all others similarly situated, no matter how much they desire to avail themselves of the right to do what the defendant desires to repudiate. We are unwilling to establish such a rule. † In several years after this case, Iowa Supreme Court changed his mind in State v. Carman case and then one more time in 1980 in case State v. Henderson. Connecticut Court disallowed ury waivers in 1878 while Louisiana allowed them in 1881. Nowadays it is well-known that jury trial right is alienable and nothing in the Constitution said the opposite. Thus, defendant can sell this right in order to receive some benefits. And in case of guilty people this enables them to improve their situation. From this point of view case of Hayes becomes more complicated. If defendant has a right to w aive his or her rights to get benefits, then Hayes should take his opportunity and agree to plead guilty in order to receive shorter term of imprisonment. And indeed he should not complain that after trial his punishment increased significantly – from up to 10 years to lifetime in prison. Another argument against plea bargaining states that in case of several people that committed the same crime, these people will receive different punishment on the basis of their decisions to agree that they are guilty without trial or go to trial that can decide about different terms for each of them. Also someone who is not guilty may be so afraid that he or she decides to plead guilty in order to avoid trial. These arguments can be opposed with the same reasoning that people choose their future on the basis of their decisions and plea bargaining is one of them. Thus, there are a lot of discussions about plea bargaining and actually no single opinion about the agreement. There are viewpoints that it is not constitutional because it does not comply with Act of Rights and Fifth and Six Amendments. Therefore it should not be practiced. Also there are opinions that there is no direct objection against it in Constitution so there is no reason to argue about unconstitutional character of plea bargaining. In my opinion, plea bargaining should be an additional option for the defendant, not the main one and obviously not the best possible. Nowadays it is an instrument of pressure of prosecutors on defendants in order to win the case. The only defendants that benefit from this agreement are criminals that decided to confirm their guilt in order to reduce the punishment, while innocent people are threaten by severe punishment might decide to agree with plea bargaining to avoid risk of longer terms of imprisonment. Therefore, in my opinion, the accents should be shifted and court should not make pressure on defendants to take this decision and obviously not to retaliate against them if they express wish to defend their rights in court. References: 1. Colquitt J. , (2001), Ad Hoc Plea Bargaining. Tulane Law Review, Vol. 75 . 2. Cooley Th. , (1868), A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations on the Police Power of the States, Boston, Mass. : Little, Brown. 3. Fine R. A. , (1987), Escape of the Guilty. New York. 4. Fisher G. , (2003), Plea Bargaining’s Triumph, Stanford, Calif. , 5. Stanford University Press. 6. Guidorizzi D. , (1998), Should We Really â€Å"Ban† Plea Bargaining? The Core Concerns of Plea Bargaining Critics, Emory Law Journal, Vol. 47. 7. Langbein J. H. (1980) Torture and Plea Bargaining, The Public Interest. 8. Lynch T. , (2002), An Eerie Efficiency, Cato Supreme Court Review, Vol. 1. 9. Lynch T. , (1994), Rethinking the Petty Offense Doctrine, Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 4. 10. Mazzone J. , (2003), The Waiver Paradox, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 97. 11. Roberts P. C. , Stratton L. M. , (2000), The Tyranny of Good Intentions, New York. 12. Ramsey C. , (2002) , The Discretionary Power of ‘Public’ Prosecutors in 13. Historical Perspective, American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 39. 14. Towne S. , (1982), The Historical Origins of Bench Trial for Serious Crime, American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 26. Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional Essay Example Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? Essay Is Plea Bargain Unconstitutional The goal of this research paper is to analyze plea bargain and discuss whether it complies with Constitution of United States. In order to accomplish this goal, conception of plea is explained in details, as well as its advantages and disadvantages for some of the participants and the system as a whole. Also Constitution is analyzed in terms of plea bargaining case in order to find out how it correlates with principal law. Besides cases of using plea bargaining and their results are explained in this research paper. Before going into further discussion I would like to briefly explain the basic conception. Judicial system is designed to punish those people that committed crimes through the system of jury trials where criminal defendant is considered as guilty or not guilty. So, at first glance it looks unavoidable that all criminals are punished according and in proportion to their crimes. In fact, there is another way of judging and punishing criminals that does not include jury trials and fair judicial process that finds defendant guilty or not guilty. This system is called plea bargaining. A plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecutor offers the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with recommendation of a lighter than maximum sentence. Plea bargains have its advantages and disadvantages. First of all, plea bargain has benefits for criminals that really did the crime. It allows them to avoid the risk of conviction at trial and receive full term of punishment for their crimes. We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer For example, they could be offered to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge instead of felony charge. No wonder that this practice became very popular in United States. Also most of the involved parties benefit from plea bargaining. Criminals receive lesser punishment and therefore they tend to plead guilty. The cases finish earlier with predicted results so prosecutors also enjoy less workload as well as clerks that work with documentations. Money of taxpayers is also spent less both on the trial process and imprisonment. The most obvious disadvantage of plea bargaining is that it does not protect innocent people and leave no chance for them to be free after the court. Plea bargain presumes minimization of imprisonment term, not its full abolition. So, innocent people may choose plea bargain option because they fear to receive even stronger punishment. And that is indeed the most serious problem of this agreement. Plea bargain minimizes punishment for criminals with serious record, but punishes innocent people that were not able to prove their innocent to the prosecutor and therefore they go to prison for the same period of time as people that did accomplish the crime. Also this is another problem of plea bargain. It presumes that defendant is guilty without proving this with evidence and reasoning, while according to legislation nobody can be called guilty without proving. As well plea bargain becomes popular choice for people that do not their rights and legislation system and do not have money to afford a lawyer to defend their rights in court. So, besides unfairness and infringement of rights, this agreement uses weak position of the defendant to punish him or her without guilt and therefore is not democratic process, but creates groundless advantages for those who know judicial system very good or have enough money to hire a lawyer to defend them in court. So, in general plea bargaining proves to be unclear practice that creates benefits for criminals that know and infringe laws and puts innocent people in unstable position where they should choose between taking short term punishment without being guilty or receive even higher term after trial. But what is even more impressive is that statistically 9 out of 10 such criminal cases finish with plea bargain. Such proportion becomes clear after we go deeper into this system. In fact, judicial system does not only encourage criminal defendants to use plea bargain to receive less severe punishment, but it also retaliates those who dared to request trial by jury in order to defend their right for liberty. The most well-known case of such situation is so-called watershed precedent of Paul Lewis Hayes, which was indicted for attempting to pass forged check to the amount of $88. Such kind of crime is punishable by prison term of two to 10 years. So the prosecutor offered Hayes five years if he would plead guilty and waive this right to trial. Also the prosecutor made it clear that if Hayes rejects the offer, the state would seek a new indictment from a grand jury under Kentucky’s Habitual Criminal Act. Under this Hayes would receive life sentence taking into consideration his previous criminal record. Despite all these circumstances and high pressure, Hayes decided to insist on his right to jury trial. But in spite of his expectations, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Thus, plea bargaining has another advantage over jury trial – it allows criminal defendants not only to avoid full punishment, but also protects them from additional convictions. But as this case proves, it is possible to receive even higher punishment if one tries to defend his or her rights in trial. In order to prove or disapprove unconstitutional character of the plea bargain practice one should refer to the source. First of all, Bill or Rights guarantees the following rights: †¢the right to be informed of the charges, †¢the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself, the right to a speedy and public trial, †¢the right to an impartial jury trial in the state and district where the offense took place, †¢the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses, †¢the right to call witnesses on one’s own behalf, †¢the right to the assistance of counsel. So, Fifth Amendment prohibits self-incrimination while Sixth Amendment guarantees impartial juries. Thus, Bill of Rights limits powers of police and prosecutors in order to safeguard our freedom. Thus, all this basically confirms that plea bargaining limited rights of U. S. itizen in many aspects: †¢it limits the right to be informed of the charges because defendant prepares a waiver that enable the prosecutor to set punishment as he or she pleases and offers, †¢it limits the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself because the person actually incriminates oneself and plead guilty, †¢it limits the right to a speedy and public trial because no trial is conducted in case of plea bargaining, †¢it limits the right to an impartial jury trial in the state and district where the offense took place, †¢it limits the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses because no witnesses are used in this case, †¢as well it limits the right to call witness es on one’s own behalf and the right to the assistance of counsel. So, Constitution gives a citizen the right to defend oneself and guarantees his or her liberty before it was proven by the court that he or she is guilty. According to Justice Hugo Black, defendant â€Å"has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to ‘Prove it! ’† Thus, in spite of providing such extended rights by Bill of Rights, efendants lose all of them because they are forced into practice of plea bargain that offers them to plead guilty without any trial and abandon all their rights given by Constitution. Therefore, by formal evidence we see that plea bargain is unconstitutional. It does not only takes the citizen rights, which are guaranteed by Constitution of United States, but also punishes those who dared to object against this and want to realize their right to jury trial. The problem is that it is impossible to convince the court that by offering plea bargain, the prosecutor violates the Constitution by threatening to punish the defendant or simply invoking his or her right to trial. And therefore the defendant will receive the most hard punishment possible in case of trial after offering plea bargaining. In case of Hayes, he was not able to defend his right to trial because the court admitted that a new indictment was filed against him that deterred him from exercising this right. Also the Court declined to overturn his sentence because he could have avoided life imprisonment risk if he admitted his guilt and accepted five years of prison. Still, there are viewpoints that find this decision improper and unlawful. Indeed detailed analysis of Hayes case shows that the idea of plea bargaining cannot withstand any serious scrutiny. First of all, the choice that was offered was not within constitutional rationale. The defendant should choose between two evils: going to prison for five years or for a lifetime. Actually it has nothing to do with freedom of choice, but with forcing to agree with proposed punishment. The same principle can be applied to false imprisonment action from one female to a male acquaintance that forced her to travel by car instead of going by train. Actually he gave her choice – to go without her purse by train after he took the purse out of train. And when he dragged her out of train he gave her another opportunity to leave or to go by car. So as we see offering limited choices has nothing to do with fair conduct. Another fiction of plea bargaining that is used by its followers is that government does not retaliate against individuals that wish to execute their right to jury trial. When, in fact, these people are punished very severely like in the case of Hayes. Also plea bargaining is used in cases when legislation of different states is opposite like strict laws against handgun possession in Washington D. C. Tourists from other states are often taken by the local police that takes their guns and offers them to plead guilty is possession of illegal arms. In case if the tourists disagree with this offer, they can receive worse accusations – for example, for each bullet. So most of the tourists decide to agree that they are guilty and give their handgun to the police. Thus, in spite of the fact that Constitution of United States provides its citizens with rights to defend themselves against accusations, in reality there are numerous practices of ignoring these rights and offering propositions that do not comply with Act of Rights but can lead to much worse situations if they are to be rejected and if defendant decides to defend his or her rights at court. Moreover, there are viewpoints that there is nothing wrong with such practices. There are many followers among prosecutors and civilians that argue that Constitution defended citizens in old times when court practices were different. Nowadays we have courts without jury so in some cases it should be beneficial for the defendant to reduce his or her punishment by pleading guilty. Such people argue that right to trial is not inalienable because most of the rights are beneficial due to their abilities to be sold and purchased. So, they offer to view plea bargaining as a deal – to waive the right for trial and receive less punishment instead of it. It should be emphasized that there was no single opinion about this topic. For example, in 1858 New York court decided in case Cancemi v. People that defendant should not be able to waive a jury trial because â€Å"the law does recognize the doctrine of waiver to a great extent even to the deprivation of constitutional private rights†. Still in 1879 Iowa Supreme Court took the opposite decision in case State v. Kaufman. According to the Court, â€Å"Reasons other than the fact that he is guilty may induce a defendant to so plead et the state never actively interferes in such case, and the right of the defendant to so plead has never been doubted. He must be permitted to judge for himself in this respect. Why should he not be permitted to do so? Why hamper him in this respect? Why restrain his liberty or right to do as he believed to be for his interests? Whatever rule is adopted affects not only the defendant, but all others similarly situated, no matter how much they desire to avail themselves of the right to do what the defendant desires to repudiate. We are unwilling to establish such a rule. † In several years after this case, Iowa Supreme Court changed his mind in State v. Carman case and then one more time in 1980 in case State v. Henderson. Connecticut Court disallowed ury waivers in 1878 while Louisiana allowed them in 1881. Nowadays it is well-known that jury trial right is alienable and nothing in the Constitution said the opposite. Thus, defendant can sell this right in order to receive some benefits. And in case of guilty people this enables them to improve their situation. From this point of view case of Hayes becomes more complicated. If defendant has a right to w aive his or her rights to get benefits, then Hayes should take his opportunity and agree to plead guilty in order to receive shorter term of imprisonment. And indeed he should not complain that after trial his punishment increased significantly – from up to 10 years to lifetime in prison. Another argument against plea bargaining states that in case of several people that committed the same crime, these people will receive different punishment on the basis of their decisions to agree that they are guilty without trial or go to trial that can decide about different terms for each of them. Also someone who is not guilty may be so afraid that he or she decides to plead guilty in order to avoid trial. These arguments can be opposed with the same reasoning that people choose their future on the basis of their decisions and plea bargaining is one of them. Thus, there are a lot of discussions about plea bargaining and actually no single opinion about the agreement. There are viewpoints that it is not constitutional because it does not comply with Act of Rights and Fifth and Six Amendments. Therefore it should not be practiced. Also there are opinions that there is no direct objection against it in Constitution so there is no reason to argue about unconstitutional character of plea bargaining. In my opinion, plea bargaining should be an additional option for the defendant, not the main one and obviously not the best possible. Nowadays it is an instrument of pressure of prosecutors on defendants in order to win the case. The only defendants that benefit from this agreement are criminals that decided to confirm their guilt in order to reduce the punishment, while innocent people are threaten by severe punishment might decide to agree with plea bargaining to avoid risk of longer terms of imprisonment. Therefore, in my opinion, the accents should be shifted and court should not make pressure on defendants to take this decision and obviously not to retaliate against them if they express wish to defend their rights in court. References: 1. Colquitt J. , (2001), Ad Hoc Plea Bargaining. Tulane Law Review, Vol. 75 . 2. Cooley Th. , (1868), A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations on the Police Power of the States, Boston, Mass. : Little, Brown. 3. Fine R. A. , (1987), Escape of the Guilty. New York. 4. Fisher G. , (2003), Plea Bargaining’s Triumph, Stanford, Calif. , 5. Stanford University Press. 6. Guidorizzi D. , (1998), Should We Really â€Å"Ban† Plea Bargaining? The Core Concerns of Plea Bargaining Critics, Emory Law Journal, Vol. 47. 7. Langbein J. H. (1980) Torture and Plea Bargaining, The Public Interest. 8. Lynch T. , (2002), An Eerie Efficiency, Cato Supreme Court Review, Vol. 1. 9. Lynch T. , (1994), Rethinking the Petty Offense Doctrine, Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 4. 10. Mazzone J. , (2003), The Waiver Paradox, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 97. 11. Roberts P. C. , Stratton L. M. , (2000), The Tyranny of Good Intentions, New York. 12. Ramsey C. , (2002) , The Discretionary Power of ‘Public’ Prosecutors in 13. Historical Perspective, American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 39. 14. Towne S. , (1982), The Historical Origins of Bench Trial for Serious Crime, American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 26.

Word Choice Altar vs. Alter - Proofeds Writing Tips

Word Choice Altar vs. Alter - Proofeds Writing Tips Word Choice: Altar vs. Alter One little letter can make a very big difference sometimes, so it is important to make sure you know the difference between similarly spelled words which nevertheless have dissimilar meanings. In the case of altar and alter, for instance, the contrast couldn’t be much bigger! Whilst alter is a commonly used verb in English, altar is a noun which should only be used in a very specific context. Mixing these words up can therefore seriously impact upon the quality of your written work. So to help out we’ve thrown together this guide on how to use them. Alter (Modify) Alter is a verb which means â€Å"change† or â€Å"modify.† Thus if you are looking to describe an adjustment or change that something has undergone, use the word alter: After his sister forgave him, William decided to alter his will to include her. Altar (A Ceremonial Table) Altar, on the other hand, is a noun which refers to a table or raised surface used in religious ceremonies, including the Christian Eucharist. For example: The congregation faced the altar as they awaited Holy Communion. The word altar is also sometimes seen in the idiom â€Å"to sacrifice X on the altar of X.† This means to give up or neglect something in favor something else. Usually this is used in a negative way, such as: John sacrificed his family life on the altar of his career. The above relies upon the religious meaning of altar, metaphorically suggesting that John has failed to fulfill his family duties by sacrificing them in favor his work. Alter or Altar? It is quite easy to remember which of â€Å"alter† or â€Å"altar† to use in any given situation. Just keep the following in mind: Alter (verb) = Change Altar (noun) = A ceremonial table If you’re looking for a word meaning â€Å"change† or â€Å"modify,† it will always be a verb you need. As such, â€Å"alter† is the term you’re after. The noun â€Å"altar,† meanwhile, will usually only be applicable if you’re describing a religious ceremony of some kind. For further advice on vocabulary in your writing, you will find plenty of helpful tips in the word choice archive section of our academic blog. And to make sure that the spelling, grammar and vocabulary in your work are perfect, Proofed’s professional proofreaders provide a comprehensive range of proofreading and formatting services.

DETERMINATION OF THE GLYCAEMIC INDEX OF NOVEL FOODS Essay

DETERMINATION OF THE GLYCAEMIC INDEX OF NOVEL FOODS - Essay Example In the long term, this speeds up the development of the disease (Giugliano, Ceriello and Esposito 2008, n.p.). The condition of postprandial glycemia also results in the cells developing a resistance to the insulin. The strong evidence that links vascular complications to postprandial glycemic levels on the upper side also necessitates the control. GI ratings rank foods as being high, medium, low or very low GI foods (Foster-Powell, Holt and Brand-Miller 2002, p. 10). This system involves providing an estimate of the sugar that will be available for absorption once the food is consumed. Assigning a GI to a food will enable control of postprandial glycemia that aides to avoid complications associated with different glycemic levels. Low GI diets result in low postprandial glycemia. Increased postprandial glycemic levels are associated with increased insulin resistance and reduced release (Shobana et al. 2012, p. 179). The high GI diet will also result in lower HDL cholesterol and increased LDL cholesterol. As such, it is necessary for diabetics to have low GI diet that facilitate lower postprandial glycemia that will improve insulin production and reduce its resistance. The result will manifest in the loss of weight as well as its maintenance that will improve insulin sensitivity, all of which are necessary for the care of diabetes (Marsh et al. 2011, p. 126). The diet will also result in the development of good lipid profiles that will prevent cardiovascular diseases associated with diabetics. Novel foods have sugar and fatty acid contents that differ from traditionally grown foods. For example, in the western diet, in the last century, there has been the introduction of novel foods that contain a higher sugar to fiber ratio, which has meant that they have a higher GI than their traditional counterparts (Cordain et al. 2005, n.p.). This means consumption of the former with the thought that they are similar to the latter may be potentially

UN Millenium Development GoalsFinal Project Essay

UN Millenium Development GoalsFinal Project - Essay Example Criticism which has accompanied the achievement of millennium development goals has taken note of uneven progress, difficulty in measurements of some goals and lack of proper analysis. Some developed countries had achieved more than what was expected of them while some were behind realizing any of the targets intended to achieve the goals. The key goals and targets were outlined so that every individual could have at least the dignity to his right of freedom and the basic standard of living. Various goals and their corresponding targets outlined below have been found to be the key to economic development in the world. The indicators of how progress has been made show the effort and determination of the United Nations to achieve the goals within their specified timeline (United Nations). Poverty has been a hindrance to economic development. It has brought about the suffering of mankind all over the world. Many people in most developing countries are living in substandard conditions (Snarr and Snarr 25). Eradication of poverty is vital to the development of developing nations, every means has been tried to make sure that the standard for the threshold of poverty which lies at 1.25$ per day has been achieved by most nations. When a large portion of people lives in poor conditions, it becomes difficult for a country to make any huge step in economic development. The provision of jobs to people holds the main key in minimizing the levels of poverty. Through creation of jobs that provide adequate wages, people earn income that enables them to sustain their living. Discrimination of the youth and women in employment spaces provide and increase the levels of poverty in a given country. As a result, the World Bank has come up with various strategies which entail providing z ero-interest loans and development grants to countries. The strategies include provision of capital to

Qualitative Analysis Lab Essay Example for Free

Qualitative Analysis Lab Essay The purpose of the experiment is to identify every cation present in an unknown solution by performing specific chemical tests. Chemical tests such as adding specific chemicals to make precipitates, adding strong and highly concentrated acids and bases, centrifuging the precipitate from the supernate, and performing a flame test are carried out to determine the presence or absence of the ions in each group. Experimental Procedure: Separation of Group I Cations: Ten drops of the unknown solution C were placed into a small test tube. Four drops of 6 M HCl were added to the unknown solution. After being stirred, the yellowish unknown developed a white, cloudy precipitate. The solution was centrifuged and a white precipitate sunk to the bottom of the test tube. One drop of 6 M HCl was added to the solution making the clear yellow supernate cloudy, which showed that not all of the Group I ions precipitated. Two more centrifuges were performed until no more precipitate formed. The clear yellow supernate was decanted into a clean dry test tube. The yellowish white precipitate was rinsed with five drops of cold tap water and stirred. This solution was then centrifuged and added to the supernate in the other test tube. Fifteen drops of tap water were added to the washed precipitate and the test tube was placed in a hot-water bath. The solution was stirred in the water bath for one minute. The now clear purplish liquid was centrifuged and there was no precipitate formed which confirmed the absence of Ag+. Three drops of 1 M K2CrO4 were added to the purple supernate, and a thick, cloudy yellow precipitate formed confirming the presence of Pb2+. Separation of Group III Cations: Five drops of 2 M NH4Cl were added to the test tube containing the clear yellow supernate from group I. The solution was stirred. Then, seven drops of 15 M NH3 were added until the solution was basic and the litmus paper turned blue. The addition of NH3 caused a light-orange precipitate to form. The two additional drops of NH3 and the twenty drops of water created a reddish-brown precipitate and a clear supernate. The solution was stirred and centrifuged. The light blue supernate was decanted from the caramel brown precipitate. Twelve drops of 12 M HCl and five drops of 16 M HNO3 were added to the brown precipitate. The mixture was carefully stirred and turned into a clear yellow liquid. The test tube was heated in a hot-water bath for about forty-five seconds to dissolve any remaining precipitate. Ten drops of water were added to the solution and was centrifuged. There was no remaining precipitate, and the clear yellow supernate was divided into two separate test tubes. Two drops of 0.2 M KSCN were added to one of the test tubes containing the yellow supernate. The solution turned to a deep, blood-red which confirmed the presence of Fe3+. After fifty drops of 6 M NH3 were added to the second test tube of the yellow supernate, the solution remained acidic and it only caused the solution to turn a paler yellow. Five drops of 15 M NH3 were added to make the solution basic by turning the litmus paper blue. The addition of the 15 M NH3 also caused an orange precipitate to form in the solution. The solution was centrifuged and decanted into a separate test tube to remove the precipitate. Four drops of dimethylglyoxime reagent was added to the solution which was then stirred. The solution turned a deep pink with the formation of a pink precipitate which confirms the presence of Ni2+. Separation of Group IV Cations: Eight drops of 6 M CH3CO2H and one drop of 1 M K2CrO4 were added to the light blue supernate from the Group III procedure. The mixture was stirred and turned to a clear yellow color with no precipitate which confirms the absence of Ba2+. Four drops of 15 M NH3 were added to the yellow supernate from the previous step to make it basic and turn the litmus paper blue. The solution retained its yellow color with no precipitate. Seven drops of 0.1 m K2C2O4 were added which caused the formation of a small amount of white precipitate. The small amount of precipitate was dissolved in ten drops of 6 M HCl. A small sponge was used to soak up a small amount of solution. Using a Bunsen burner, the solution soaked sponge was placed into the top of the blue flame. The flame was initially orange and then had sporadic bursts of red flame which confirmed the presence of Ca2+. A small amount of the original unknown solution C is absorbed by a section of sponge. A flame test is performed using a Bunsen burner. The solution soaked sponge produced an orange-yellow flame; however, the yellow was not very prominent. The solution did contain Na+, but not in a substantially large amount. 2 mL of original unknown solution C and 2 mL of 6 M NaOH were combined in an evaporating dish. Litmus paper was wetted with water and placed on the bottom of a watch glass. The litmus paper watch glass was placed over the evaporating dish. The litmus paper without extra heating immediately turned blue which confirms the presence of basic NH4+. Results: Table for Unknown C Pb2+| Ag+| Fe3+| Ni2+| Ba2+| Ca2+| NH4+| Na+| Yes| No| Yes | Yes| No| Yes| Yes| Yes| Discussion: The lead ion was found by making a supernate from water and the precipitate formed by mixing the unknown solution and 6 M HCl and decanting out the supernate. The unknown solution and HCl were added to a test tube and centrifuged to separate the precipitate from the supernate. The supernate was then decanted from the precipitate. Water was added to the precipitate and put into a hot-water bath. There was no precipitate formed after the solution was heated and centrifuged which confirmed the absence of the silver ion. The addition of K2CrO4 caused a yellow precipitate to form in the supernate. The formation of the yellow cloudy precipitate confirmed the presence of the lead ion. The iron ion was found by taking the supernate from group I and making a precipitate by mixing it with 2 M NH4Cl and 15 M NH3. The precipitate was mixed with 12 M HCl and 16 M HNO3 and heated in a hot water bath until the precipitate was completely dissolved. The supernate was then divided equally into two test tubes. One of the samples was combined with 0.2 M KSCN to form a blood-red precipitate which confirmed the presence of the iron ion. The second supernate sample was used in confirming the presence of nickel. 6 M NH3 was added to the supernate, but 15 M NH3 had to be used to make the solution basic. After centrifuging and decanting out the precipitate formed, the dimethylglyoxime reagent was added to the supernate and created a deep pink precipitate that confirmed the presence of nickel. The supernate from the group III sample was mixed with 6 M CH3CO2H and 1 M K2CrO4. There was no precipitate that formed which confirmed the absence of the barium ion. The calcium ion was found by using the supernate from the previous test and adding 15 M NH3 until the solution was basic. The precipitate was then centrifuged out and discarded. The addition of 0.1 M K2C2O4 created a small amount of white precipitate that suggested the presence of the calcium ion, but a flame test was conducted to confirm the presence of calcium. The expected red-orange flame produced by a solution soaked sponge confirmed the presence of calcium in the unknown solution. Ammonium ions were found by combining the original unknown solution and 6 M NaOH in an evaporating dish and testing if the fumes were basic. Moist litmus paper was stuck to the bottom of a watch glass which was then placed over the top of the evaporating dish. The litmus paper immediately turning blue proves the existence of ammonium ions. The sodium ion was found by performing a flame test on the original unknown solution. The original solution was added to a sponge which was put into a flame which showed a yellow-orange flame which shows the presence of sodium ions, but the intensity of the yellow did not suggest that there was a significant amount of sodium. The flame tests seem to be not as accurate since the sponge alone would burn an orange flame. Attention to the small bursts of reds and yellows in the dominate orange flame had to be highly focused since it was one of the only indications of which ions were present in the unknown solution. Conclusion: Through the formation of precipitates and supernates, the additions of acids and bases, the additions of highly concentrated solutions, and flame tests specific ions were separated out in order to determine the characteristics of the unknown solution. Unknown solution C was found in conclusion to the experiment to contain the cations lead, iron, nickel, calcium, ammonium, and sodium.

Christmas :: essays papers

Christmas Christmastime was always a magical time of year for me. The beautifully decorated shopping malls, with toys everywhere you looked, always fascinated me. And the houses, with the way their lights would glow upon the glistening snow at night, always seemed to calm me. But decorating the Christmas tree and falling asleep underneath the warm glow of the lights, in awe that Santa Claus would soon be there, was the best part of it all. As a child, these things enchanted me. Sure, the presents were great, but the excitement and mystery of Christmas; I loved most of all. Believing†¦that’s what it was all about. Believing there really was a Santa and waking up Christmas morning, realizing he’d come, as my sleepy eyes focused on all the fancily wrapped presents before me. Ah, to be a kid again. How wonderful it would be to relive the magic of Christmas. Don’t get me wrong, I have always been a kid at heart and a true lover of Christmas. But as we get older and we realize that Santa Claus and the North Pole were just stories our parents told us so we’d behave, Christmas starts to lose that magical feeling. No matter how much we might still love it, Christmastime just isn’t the same as when we were young. And at a time of all the aggravating shopping hustle and bustle, dents in the pockets, headaches, traffic jams and long lines, I begin to realize that God has sent me the most magical Christmas gift of all, a beautiful three year old whom I can relive Christmas in all over. Through my child’s eyes, I see myself each time his face lights up at the sight of Santa, and I feel his anticipation each morning as he faithfully opens up one more window on the Christmas calendar. Tonight, as we decorate the tree, I admiringly watched his tiny fingers delicately place each of the ornaments on all the same branches until they drooped to the floor. So proud of his work, I secretly placed some elsewhere, as to not hurt his feelings, and wondered how many times my own mother had done the same thing. And after a long day of shopping and excitement, I watched his eyelids begin to droop while lying underneath the warm glow of the Christmas tree lights.

One’s Self Essay

â€Å"Self† expresses an individual person as the object as his or her own reflective consciousness. It expresses one’s own interest of struggle and gain, as well as having their own consciousness of one’s being or identity. In the story â€Å"Yes Ma’am† by Deirdre McCloskey, and the Ted Talk â€Å"embracing otherness, embracing myself† by Thandie Newton both share a conception of one’s self through being mindful of the impact of society and the role that is expected to be played, but is confident and accustomed in what makes them content with themselves mentally. They differ for the reason that Deirdre explains the gesture differences amongst men and women despite the fact that she uses the women gestures to display her feminine qualities. Thandie speaks about going through hardships while she was growing up as well as obtaining her dancing and acting career. The attempt of trying to be accepted, but was repeatedly rejected by society and not being able to fit. However, she explains that â€Å"self† shapes out interactions with others and the world around us. Also how the connections of self and being judged shape the way people feel about themselves. Thandie expresses the fact of not being born with self but developing one as we are taught about ourselves the details, opinions and ideas from parents, family and friends that influence a person’s character. On the other hand those details opinions and ideas become fact to navigate the construction of ourselves (identity). She states that our self-projection is based on others projections and complicates who one is and who one wants to be. Newton Implies that the things individuals do and are successful at is mocked by others because it is perceived to be the â€Å"right way† to do things: also entitled an organized or controlled society. Thandie Newton articulates that â€Å"self is not a living thing†¦things that are affected by society like jobs, money, cars we drive and jewelry devalue life. † Newton evaluates her quote by stating self remains inside, not being defined of what someone has or what someone have earned but being content with knowing who one is intellectually and emotionally. People must use uniqueness and creativity of the mind to be one’s own person. Thandie talks about throughout her life she has been distanced in character and in the color of her skin. She explains that being a black atheist attending a white catholic school every one look at her as different. Thandie’s mother being black from Zimbabwe, and her father being from Cornwall was a problem growing up in the time period she grew up in. Trying to escape the reality of being different she finds a passion for dancing and acting. Newton expressed that she felt at peace in another world with herself. â€Å"Dysfunctional self could plug into another self, not my own and it felt so good†. She states that the nagging selfhood did not exist when she danced. Thandie says that she would put all of her expression into dancing. She would forget about where she was or even who she was and the problems of being an outcast. Deirdre was once a husband for three decades with two children, and after internal struggle she began the process of gender change. Years after her scholarly work in the field of gender studies Deirdre articulates the gestures of men and women and how they carry themselves. She explains how she watched other women in her culture for characteristic gestures and would do them on the spot. She would perceive the women to check their hair frequently, play idly with their jewelry, rest with hands together, and years after her transition she would use these gestures to be noticed as feminine women. While Deirdre was at a conference someone told her, â€Å"last year your motions were a little abrupt; now they are convincingly feminine†. (175) Deirdre and Thandie both explain the concept of being’s one’s self in different ways. Thandie expresses the point of being judged and looked down upon. In addition, she tries to understand the meaning of one’s self by recognizing who she is, and what she wants throughout her life and career. On the other hand, Deirdre has overcome who she once was and is at ease with being a women, and showing off her feminine characteristics. She has found a self that she is able to be comfortable enough to write a book on her highly personal gender crossing experience. In the book Crossing: A Memoir Deirdre states â€Å"My gender crossing was motivated by identity, not by a balance sheet of utility†. Deirdre expresses that she became a women by her choice of how comfortable she felt not because of what society looked at her as. Self† comes from the identity you give yourself or what others see you as not what you do as a career or what car you drive or how successful you are. As Deirdre talks about attempts to take a physical identity that strangers would accept her as a women and Thandie specks on the struggles of growing up as an outcast who never fit it, both authors share a conception of one’s self through being mindful of the impact of society and the role that is expected to be played, but is confident and accustomed in what makes them content with themselves mentally.