Constitutional Protection Of The Rights Of The Accused

Constitutional Protection of the Rights of the Accused in the United States

Constitution of the United States The Influence of the Constitution Protecting Personal Rights Rights of the Accused

The Bill of Rights provides specific procedural protections for people accused of committing crimes. These include the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against double jeopardy (the right not to be tried twice for the same crime), the right to fair procedures during trial, and the right against self-incrimination (the right not to have to testify against yourself at a criminal trial). The Bill of Rights also guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the charges, to cross-examine witnesses, to compel witnesses for the defense to come to court, and to have the assistance of lawyers. The Supreme Court has also used the Bill of Rights as the basis for other protections. From the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches, for example, the Court developed the so-called exclusionary rule, which excludes evidence from a trial if it was seized unconstitutionally.

For most of U.S. history, these rights generated little comment because they applied only in federal prosecutions. Since most crimes were tried in state courts, a criminal defendant gained these procedural protections only if provided for in state constitutions. But beginning in the 1960s, the Supreme Court ushered in a criminal-law revolution by applying these provisions in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments directly to the states. In 1961, for example, the Court ruled in Mapp v. Ohio that evidence illegally seized by local police may not be introduced in state criminal trials. In the 1963 case Gideon v. Wainwright the Court said that if a person being charged with a felony cannot afford a lawyer the state must provide one free of charge. In 1966 in the famous case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Court held that the police must advise arrested suspects of their basic constitutional rights: the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If the police fail to give a suspect Miranda warnings, any confession must be excluded from evidence.

At the same time, the Supreme Court greatly expanded habeas corpus – the right to challenge state criminal convictions by going to federal court to contest the constitutionality of the procedures used. Until the late 1980s prisoners were permitted to file not just one but multiple habeas corpus appeals, inundating the courts with prisoner petitions.

These and many other rulings initiated a national debate about whether the Supreme Court has ruled too strongly in favor of defendants’ rights, making the job of law-enforcement officials too difficult. In recent years more conservative justices have declared many exceptions to the liberal rulings of the 1960s. In particular, the court has drastically reduced the availability of habeas corpus appeals. But despite the Court’s changing philosophy, the core of the most important protections remains in place. (1)

In this Section about the Influence of the Constitution and Protecting Personal Rights: Constitution Influence, Federal Government Role, Constitutional Regulation of Business and Commerce, Constitutional Protection of Personal Rights, Constitutional Protection of the Right to Privacy, Constitutional Protection of Free Speech, Constitutional Protection of Religious Rights, Constitutional Protection of the Rights of the Accused, Constitutional Protection of Civil Liberties.

Resources

Notes and References

  1. Encarta Online Encyclopedia

See Also


Posted

in

, ,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *