Rights of Persons Accused of Crimes (suspicion, arrest, and trial: legal counsel) There are legal protections that were created in order to preserve the rights of individuals. The most important one is the procedural due process which can be interpreted as “[a] term [that] refers primarily to procedures that authorities must follow before a person can lawfully be punished for an offence” (Patterson, 2015 p.122). This process has considerably strengthened the probability of a fair trial by offering protection to a person from things like arrest, conviction, and in some cases punishment with imprisonment or sometimes even death. As it is states in both the fifth and fourteenth amendment, “no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property
…show more content…
The only exception to this rule is if they have reason to believe that the individual may be a terrorist or something along those lines. The Court later said, “[w]e cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime” (Patterson, 2015 p.124) but that the protection of Americans’ constitutional rights was of greater importance. Not all searches need warrants though, for instance, schools are allowed to search students for drugs, weapons and other threatening items without a warrant because they are responsible for the safety of other students. Another example are roadblocks, these are allowed as long as the operation is methodical. Although Americans have protection against unreasonable searches and seizure, that doesn’t mean that police can’t acquire your picture, fingerprints, or take a cheek …show more content…
In other words, if the trial is random or prejudice than justice will be denied. Because of the Fifth Amendment, the government cannot try a suspect charged with a federal crime unless the grand jury allows it. Nevertheless, states are not obligated to use grand juries because it has not been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment provides a right to be represented by an attorney before and during trial but the question that lingered was what if a person cannot afford one? In the past individuals had no choice but to be their own lawyer and well you could assume that those cases most likely did not end in their favor. With this “the Supreme Court held that criminal defendants in federal cases must be provided a lawyer at government at government expense if they cannot afford one” (Patterson, 2015 p.126). Due to the Sixth Amendment, criminal defendants have a right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses, and in some cases, a right to an open trial by an impartial jury (impartial jury meaning that they will give a fair verdict free of biased and prejudice
The only exception to this rule is if they have reason to believe that the individual may be a terrorist or something along those lines. The Court later said, “[w]e cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime” (Patterson, 2015 p.124) but that the protection of Americans’ constitutional rights was of greater importance. Not all searches need warrants though, for instance, schools are allowed to search students for drugs, weapons and other threatening items without a warrant because they are responsible for the safety of other students. Another example are roadblocks, these are allowed as long as the operation is methodical. Although Americans have protection against unreasonable searches and seizure, that doesn’t mean that police can’t acquire your picture, fingerprints, or take a cheek …show more content…
In other words, if the trial is random or prejudice than justice will be denied. Because of the Fifth Amendment, the government cannot try a suspect charged with a federal crime unless the grand jury allows it. Nevertheless, states are not obligated to use grand juries because it has not been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment provides a right to be represented by an attorney before and during trial but the question that lingered was what if a person cannot afford one? In the past individuals had no choice but to be their own lawyer and well you could assume that those cases most likely did not end in their favor. With this “the Supreme Court held that criminal defendants in federal cases must be provided a lawyer at government at government expense if they cannot afford one” (Patterson, 2015 p.126). Due to the Sixth Amendment, criminal defendants have a right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses, and in some cases, a right to an open trial by an impartial jury (impartial jury meaning that they will give a fair verdict free of biased and prejudice