Due Process Rights

Due Process of Law

Of the 10 amendments that are the bill of Rights, Amendments Four, Five, Six, Seven, & Eight address criminal justice and rights of the accused. The fourth amendment was designed to prevent unreasonable or general searches and seizures without warrant or probable cause. This limits state police powers because it makes guidelines and restrictions for the search and seizure of "persons, houses, paper, and effects." These requirements however, don't necessarily apply to moving or movable objects and it's contents (i.e. cars and containers); because of safety concerns of both the public and police officers, the courts have been willing to limit the freedoms we have. As seen with the approved use of 'drug courier profiles,' drug wars have bent the interpretation of unreasonable search and seizure standards from 'with probable cause' to 'reasonable suspicion' and now 'slight suspicion that a person may have been involved in a crime. The Exclusionary Rule is used to remedy law enforcement violations of due process, which prevents the admission of illegally obtained evidence or information.

Rights of accused persons are further protected under the Fifth Amendment. The infamous clichÐ"© "I plea the fifth' refers to the right intended with "no personÐ'...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The 5th Amendment also requires those accused of a federal crime be indicted by a grand jury to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to warrant a trial (these proceedings have been criticized as a "rubberstamp" so that the prosecutor gets what they want). In addition, it prohibits double jeopardy and the denial of life liberty or property without due process of the law. Because of the decision made in Gideon vs. Wainwright, it is required that free legal counsel be appointed in all criminal cases, especially if it can't be afforded. Moreover, the Miranda vs. Arizona ruling set the requirement that all suspects be informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to counsel and the right to remain silent.

Our Constitution wanted so badly to make sure that all have an equal opportunity and representation, that it even prohibits excessive bail or fines and cruel or unusual punishment. The eighth amendment prevents the government from being 'excessive' in the decision to allow a defendant pre-trial release and in the end analysis, prevent the government from imposing 'overly' harsh sentences in proportion to the crime committed. When one federal judge offered voluntary castration for sex offenders in lieu of jail time, higher courts ruled this to be cruel or unusual punishment.

These are not all of the 'amenities' afforded to us in our constitution. The sixth amendment allows us a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The seventh amendment, which guarantees trial by jury in common law cases, which is a common practice, is one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that doesn't apply to state and local governments. All of these rights are set to protect criminals, or is it to protect those that 'aren't' criminal? Whatever the reason, our due process rights are fundamental to our concepts of freedom and democracy; I would want them if I were guilty of a crime because I still have rights as a person and a citizen of the U.S. I would want them if I weren't guilty to ensure that I'm not punished for a crime that I didn't commit.

First Amendment Civil Liberties

From attending Sunday service to reading news or magazine articles, we exercise our first amendment rights on a daily basis. The first amendment protects religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. Of these five fundamental freedoms, the first amendment lays the foundation for our democratic system. Although the beginning demand that 'congress' make no law implies no protection from state or local governments, most of the Bill of Rights was eventually applied to the states after the civil war with the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

Because freedom of religion and speech invoke the most passion, they also evoke the most argument and debate. Freedom of speech met its first challenge when protestors were jailed for organizing resistance during World War I. Arguments brought before the Supreme Court lead to the creation of the Clear and Present Danger test, defining the few instances when the government could suppress speech. Originally speech could only be suppressed if it presented a clear and present danger to either the government or an individual. This position has since been redefined to a "moderate insightment test" where the speaker has to intend to insight people to violence and it has to be probable that the insightment actually occurs. With this interpretation, it is easier to understand and is more easily applied by the courts.

Stalking is one issue that straddles the line between constitutionally protected behavior and crime. In order to be effective a law against staling would have the dual tasks of defining it as a crime while ensuring that it doesn't violate constitution. State Representative, Brian McCall, and legal scholars worked to compose a law that would protect victims and withstand constitutional challenges. However, in 1996, only 2 years after the law had been passed, it was overturned. The courts said that it was broad, vague, and encompassed conduct that was never meant to be criminally prosecuted. McCall rewrote the statute incorporating language that had already been reviewed by the courts; the new legislation is based on the 'reasonable person' standard. If a reasonable person fears behavior aimed directly at them or believes it could cause bodily injury, death, or damage to their property, then all this reasonable person has to do its: get a police officer, a prosecutor, a jury and judge to agreeÐ'...then the stalker can be arrested. Ironically seems quite unreasonable and many agree that the new law doesn't catch your 'average' stalker.

In many of the landmark cases that have clarified and defined the first amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union has initiated them. The ACLU, who deals with many controversial issues in our society, was formed in the 1920's when World War I resistance protestors were jailed. Whether defending the KKK or siding with teenagers on curfew laws, the ACLU sticks to defending constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, and doesn't judge the moral quality of beliefs or self-expression. Freedom of religions is one of the most polemical issues that have involved the ACLU