American Legal Systems - Essay Example

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments The foundation of the American criminal justice system is located withinthe U.S. Constitution, specifically in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution which guarantees every U.S. citizen certain fundamental liberties and rights. With regard to criminal procedures, the foremost of these rights is the assumption of innocence. Though not explicitly written into the Constitution, this presumption has been interpreted by several court rulings as implied in the Fifth Amendments. It has become a fundamental right that is universally recognized by the courts and public alike. Under this presumption, defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence. Defendants do not have to prove their innocence. The government must establish guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This right and others are outlined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments which will be further examined in this discussion. Fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s the Bill of Rights includes the right to due process of law (Fifth Amendment) and the right to a speedy, public and fair trial along with the right to counsel and to confront the accuser, (Sixth Amendment). These aforementioned two Amendments are essential to the U.S. criminal justice system functioning as the framers of the Constitution envisioned it. The omission of all or parts of these Amendments in any phase of the criminal justice system deprives a defendant their right to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Due process, in essence, is a clause that encompasses the precepts of these Amendments. It protects U.S. citizens from policies or practices which infringe upon basic, fundamental concepts of justice and fairness whether or not actions by the government violate specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The criterion of criminal law is whether the disputed policy or practice violates an essential standard of justice and liberty inherent in the concept of a free society. Particularly important to this precept is the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Criminal justice in the U.S. is a complex system involving local, state and federal jurisdictions, all unique in their structure and policies but decisions handed down by any court is based on the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the defendant’s right to ‘due process of law’ and from being subjected to ‘double jeopardy’ or testifying against themselves. Double jeopardy means being put on trial twice for the same offense (U.S. Department of State, 2001). The ‘Miranda Rights’ are covered by the Fifth Amendment. Even those who have never been issued a traffic citation can recite these rights if they have watched television in the last 40 years. In 1966, the Supreme Court cited the Fifth Amendment in its decision to require law enforcement officials to read every arrestee their rights including the phrase ‘you have the right to remain silent.’ This ensures that the police do not coerce someone into testifying or being a witness against themselves. According to this ruling, “if at any time the suspect indicated a wish to stop talking or to see a lawyer, police had to stop questioning immediately. Failure to deliver the warning, obtain the waiver, or cut off questioning when requested automatically bars the use at trial of statements obtained from the suspect” (Cassell & Markman, 1995). Defendants are guaranteed the right to a ‘speedy trial’ and an ‘impartial jury’ by the Sixth Amendment. Furthermore, it assures that defendants are able to confront, ‘cross examine,’ any witnesses brought by the prosecutor against them and have adequate legal representation to defend their case (U.S. Department of State, 2001). Until relatively recently, the Sixth Amendment was interpreted to mean the defendant had the right to an attorney of their choice but not to be appointed one if they could not afford it. Today, the courts interpret this Sixth Amendment right to include appointing an attorney for defendants that can’t pay for one. Prior to the Gideon v. Wainwright ruling in 1963, courts had generally understood that legal representation would be appointed in special situations only such as when the defendant was not capable of comprehending the charges brought against them because of a mental deficiency. This was accepted as being fair and just but disregarded the indigent who could not afford legal counsel. Gideon was a compelling affirmation that both groups, those that could not understand the charges and those that did not have the financial means to retain counsel, were at equal disadvantage and that all citizens had a fundamental right to be represented by legal counsel. “The underpinning of Gideon is the notion that a fair trial requires a balance of power, and to the extent that the government spends money in support of the prosecution, it should also spend money on defense” (Black, 1963). Of course, the Gideon decision did not create a system in which the rich and poor have equal access to justice; it remained a system in which money buys the best attorneys and the means to appeal a decision to the full extent allowed. The case did establish that during the initial phase that defendants enter the justice system, the pretrial process, both rich and poor are treated in a similar fashion. The right to have an attorney during the pretrial phase is a vital aspect of the due process of law because “it holds everyone up to the same standards at the most critical stages of criminal justice, preventing the creation of a dual system of justice at the bottom, one for the rich and one for the poor” (Black, 1963). Critics of the PATRIOT Act (October 2001) suggest that is in contradiction to the tenants of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments among others. As an example, a citizen can be identified and treated as a terrorist if they are a breaking federal law such as trespassing on public property during a protest when a federal official is injured, not by that person but simply injured during the protest. This allows any person who was exercising their constitutional right of free speech to be arrested and detained indefinitely without benefit of legal counsel, a violation of the Fifth Amendment.  Though the Justice Department disagrees with this assessment of the Act, it is conceivable that a person could be prosecuted as a terrorist if that person played a part, however unintentionally, or is present while another person is injured while making a political statement. The Justice Department insists that individuals cannot be arrested if they are involved in a peaceful protest. The Department claims that domestic terrorism regulations instituted by the PATRIOT Act “is limited to conduct that breaks criminal laws (which results) in death and was committed with the intent to commit terrorism” (Ward, 2002). The ‘intent to commit terrorism’ is an ambiguous phrase open to wide interpretation as are many aspects of the Act which causes many to question to what extent civil liberties are affected by it. The dispatching of the due process of law has been the most visible of the civil liberties that have been curtailed by the Act. Those members on both sides of the aisle have allowed the president to circumvent his constitutionally-bestowed authority as well as the Constitution itself largely to give him latitude following the 9/11 attacks. The 2004 Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court which ruled U.S. detainees, specifically the ones at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had no Constitutional right to contest their incarceration to federal courts. This appeals court ruling was deemed as a triumph for the Bush administration but a defeat for the concept of basic human rights and the Constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial. Prisoners were not allowed to petition a court for a writ of habeas corpus and can be held in prison indefinitely without being formerly charged (White, 2007). This certainly seems to defy at least the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of it. Birmingham, England resident Moazzam Begg had recently relocated from Afghanistan to Pakistan when he was violently kidnapped from his home by armed, masked men. Begg said the last thing he saw as they put a hood over his head was the gunmen heading to his children’s room. The shackled Begg was taken on a long, terror filled van ride then held in a prison before being shipped to Guantanamo Bay. He spent a total of three years in custody without legal representation, a trial or as much as an explanation of why he was being imprisoned. Begg had felt the long reach of the Bush administration’s power. He was released only after Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, appealed for his release and now resides back home in Birmingham. Indeed, the administration has all the authority it needs to strip away basic civil liberties which are guaranteed by the very Constitution Bush had sworn to protect and uphold. If any good news can be taken from this it is that, much as in the aftermath of Nixon, the Democratic-controlled Congress will restore the balance of power between the branches of government as outlined in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the guide for all criminal law processes within the judicial system. The Bill of Rights safeguards citizens against the abuse of governmental powers by imposing limits on the methods by which it can treat people accused of crimes against the state and provides for the equal treatment in the justice system. References Black, J. (1963). “Opinion of the Court Supreme Court Of The United States 372 U.S. 335 Gideon v. Wainwright.” Supreme Court Collection. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved May 16, 2008 from Cassell, Paul & Markman, Stephen J. (December 25, 1995). “Miranda Rights and the Criminal Justice System.” National Review. U.S. Department of Justice. (July 2001). “Criminal Justice in the U.S.” Issues of Democracy. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of State, Vol. 6, N. 1. Ward, Elaine N. (February 7, 2002). “USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.” The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved May 16, 2008 from White, Josh. (February 21, 2007). “Guantanamo Detainees Lose Appeal.” Washington Post. Retrieved May 16, 2008 from Read More