In the case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, the Respondent Gerald Scarpelli was a convicted criminal who originally pleaded guilty to armed robbery in Wisconsin. The presiding judge, in this case, sentenced him to 15 years incarceration for the robbery offense but suspended the imprisonment and placed him on probation, which is a community transition program, for 7 years (Gagnon v. Scarpelli 411 US 778 - Supreme Court 1973). I think the judge had the expectation of Scarpelli fulfilling the terms of his probation and the other stipulations that were required during his time since it was certainly less than the originally stated 15 years. Scarpelli was given permission to live in Illinois under the Adult Probation Department of Cook County but was later
…show more content…
Second, the case considers ass that facts of the case both physical evidence and nonphysical evidence to determine that it more likely than less likely that the person who is on trail is the one who committed the offense and they were the one who had the means of committing the crime. If we conducted the hearing based on this viewpoint Scarpelli would have also been sentenced. He would have lost the case. It would not have mattered. The evidence was overwhelming. In the Gagnon, I hearing (initial hearing) a person who is picked up by the police or probation authorities for a new crime or for a technical violation is entitled to due processes while they are officially detained. The individual is required to have a hearing scheduled within 7-10 days of initial detention to determine if they should remain in custody until the full hearing with the judge or trial commissioner. Only one of these two people holding official rank can release the probation or parole prior to an official hearing (Laguzzi, …show more content…
This hearing is set 30 days from the initial hearing. In this form of hearing the outcome can go one of possibly three ways from what I gather. The judge can choose not to violate them, he can choose to give a technical violation which can consist of failure to report, bad urine, or for not complying with the terms of probation. The judge can also chose to give what is called a direct violation. A direct violation are typically greater sentences then technical violation charges and they consist of new charges such as what Scarpelli was picked up on, but technical violation sentences can also hold longer penalties at a new sentencing hearing (Laguzzi, 2011). In my opinion, I can not say without certainty how i would have held the hearing had I been the judge in this case. One of the things that they tell each other not to do as officers are to say “what I would do , if it were me” when we look at the decisions that another individual made. I don’t know what all of the other material facts that they judge used in sentencing Scarpelli. But I guess if I must answer that question I think he would definitely do jail time. He would walk around free not a second time because he didn’t use his newfound freedom wisely as a person who was given a second chance at live should have. I actually compliment the judge who tried to give Scarpelli probation over
Second, the case considers ass that facts of the case both physical evidence and nonphysical evidence to determine that it more likely than less likely that the person who is on trail is the one who committed the offense and they were the one who had the means of committing the crime. If we conducted the hearing based on this viewpoint Scarpelli would have also been sentenced. He would have lost the case. It would not have mattered. The evidence was overwhelming. In the Gagnon, I hearing (initial hearing) a person who is picked up by the police or probation authorities for a new crime or for a technical violation is entitled to due processes while they are officially detained. The individual is required to have a hearing scheduled within 7-10 days of initial detention to determine if they should remain in custody until the full hearing with the judge or trial commissioner. Only one of these two people holding official rank can release the probation or parole prior to an official hearing (Laguzzi, …show more content…
This hearing is set 30 days from the initial hearing. In this form of hearing the outcome can go one of possibly three ways from what I gather. The judge can choose not to violate them, he can choose to give a technical violation which can consist of failure to report, bad urine, or for not complying with the terms of probation. The judge can also chose to give what is called a direct violation. A direct violation are typically greater sentences then technical violation charges and they consist of new charges such as what Scarpelli was picked up on, but technical violation sentences can also hold longer penalties at a new sentencing hearing (Laguzzi, 2011). In my opinion, I can not say without certainty how i would have held the hearing had I been the judge in this case. One of the things that they tell each other not to do as officers are to say “what I would do , if it were me” when we look at the decisions that another individual made. I don’t know what all of the other material facts that they judge used in sentencing Scarpelli. But I guess if I must answer that question I think he would definitely do jail time. He would walk around free not a second time because he didn’t use his newfound freedom wisely as a person who was given a second chance at live should have. I actually compliment the judge who tried to give Scarpelli probation over