I need help with my APA essay question:

We learned about common law tradition, which is reliance on past decisions, or precedent, to resolve legal ambiguity and ensure consistency across similar cases. Yet the intent of precedent to safeguard equity may be undermined by non- conscious psychological processes. Implications for Social Justice Together, this conglomeration of evidence indicates that precedent may function as much as a rhetorical device as an actual constraint on judicial behavior. Key examples demonstrate the power of precedent to protect landmark decisions from the whims of subsequent or lower court judges. At the same time, the current system enables signicant leeway forjudges to invoke or covertly evade precedent in ways that may protect justice but also perpetuate injustice. Instructions Analyze and critically think about one of the U.S Supreme Court case (e.g. Tinker v Des Moines, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Tennessee v. Gardner, Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, Marbury v. Madison, Loving v. Virginia} to determine how precedent impacts legal protection and social justice {why or why not)? Briey explain the one of the cases? Is there fair treatment in all court cases (why or why not}? Should all convicts get the same sentence for the same charge? 0 A minimum of 300-500 words in length. 0 Title, works cited (in-text citations), and reference page from any source and reference. The Case of Mapp Vs. Ohio {1961} 2 The Mapp vs. Ohio case involved a landmark court case. Among the policies which were applicable in the Mapp vs Ohio case revolved around the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule entailed that it was illegal forthe police to use evidence which was unconstitutionally obtained from the victim. The law suggests that a suspect has a constitutional right to sue the authority in case the police violate the constitutional rights. In this case, I will talk about the overview of the case, the court's decision, and is it a fair treatment for this sentence. Overview of the Case The case rst happened on May 23, 195?. when three police officers arrived at a residence's house where a woman was originally accused of housing a suspected bomber, involved in organized crime within Cleveland. Ohio. Mapp was inside her house when the police knocked on her door and asked to come in, to which. after contacting her lawyer, she said no. Mentioning that they required a warrant, two out of the three policemen left, while one stayed, stalking the house across the street. Not even three hours later, did Mapp hear more policemen at her door, to which she did not answer. They forced her door open, and when Mapp demanded a warrant, they showed her a piece of paper. This slip never ended up showing up in court, and Mapp testied that she snatched it, only for it to be aggressively taken back from her. To continue, they handcuffed her for being \"belligerent" in response to her struggle, searched her house, discovered the "bomber" who apparently at that point had been laid off his charges, and then arrested Mapp for her possession of pornography. Additionally, it is noted that Mapp screamed in pain when the police twisted her wrist while handcuffing her, and that she begged for them to stop. She then went to appeal and defend herself in court. mentioning, rightfully so, that it was an unlawful search without a warrant. The court maintained the conviction anyways. They then stated that proof taken under unlawful seizure is permissible, as long as it is not taken bmtally or by force. Which. as stated before, the cops twisting her wrist, forcefully taking the warrant from Mapp, and handcufng her aggressively was apparently not "excessive" enough to be seen as unlawful. The court then cited Wolf v. Colorado, saying that their decision was consistent with the contents of that case, which was federal law includes federal law enforcement, but not necessarily state enforcement and law. This was then brought into the Supreme Court, where it ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully. without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts. Court's Ruling on Mapp Vs. Ohio Case The Tinker case was a pivotal moment for First Amendment rights in schools. The Supreme Court's ruling in a 7-2 decision afrmed that students do not lose their constitutional rights when entering a school. According to the MTSU article, author Hudson Jr quotes, \"Justice Abe Fortas stated, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate (Hudson Jr, 2009)". This ruling protected the rights of students to express their opinions freely, even if their opinions were unpopular or controversial. Furthermore, Justice Fortas addressed the school district's argument that the armbands could cause a disturbance to the educational process. He stated, "In our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear" (LII (Legal Information Institute) ). Justice Fortas emphasized that the right to free speech should not be suppressed due to the mere possibility of disturbance. Furthermore, Justice Fortas addressed the school district's argument that the armbands could cause a disturbance to the educational process. In addition, this further supports the argument that the students' First Amendment rights should be protected, even if their opinions are unpopular or controversial. In Tinker v. Des Moines, another justice who supported the students' rights to free speech underthe First Amendment and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment was Justice William 0. Douglas. Justice Douglas was known for his strong support of civil liberties and individual rights, which was reflected in his concurring opinion in the Tinker case. In his concurring opinion, Justice Douglas emphasized the importance of protecting students' Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969} 4 rights to express themselves in a peaceful manner. He stated: "The principal of the school testified that the reason for this decision to suspend the students was because he felt that the wearing of the armbands would distract students from their school work, that it might lead to a few of them making comments to the students wearing armbands, and that it might be offensive to some of the parents of other students" (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969). Justice Douglas went on to argue that the school's concern for potential disruption did notjustify the suppression of students' constitutional rights: "In my View, the principal's testimony about the distraction of students and the possible offense to parents fall far short of furnishing the compelling state interest which the Fourteenth Amendment requires. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to consider the impact of the school district's actions on First Amendment rights" (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969). Douglas further asserted that the students' peaceful protest should be protected under the Constitution: "The present case does not involve speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students. It involves the denial of fundamental rights of students to express their feelings on a matter of intense public concern in a peaceful and silent way" (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969). This explains that the school can't punish the students because the black armband is rather a symbol of protest, than a disruption. In addition, the protest that the students were doing was in a peaceful and silent way