Fay Vs Noia Case Analysis

Introduction

The access of the utmost standard of physical and mental health without discrimination is the basic right of every human being. Any violation of these basic rights results in the compromise and elimination of the human rights. However, when a person is accused of some grave crime, his fundamental rights are stake. The Oxford Dictionary defines accused as, “a person or group of people who are charged with or on trial for a crime”. An offence is defined as an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. An Accused is often confined when found guilty of the most grave of criminal offences and as a consequence, it is perhaps a basic instinct which determines that retribution, and only retribution is warranted in such circumstances. However, in this active human

One of the most serious abuses of governmental power that the Framers sought to prevent was the imprisonment or detention of citizens without an indication of why they were being held. The Supreme Court in Fay v. Noia further declared that the “government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man 's imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to confirm with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release”

Applicable

Self Incrimination In addition to the guarantee of a jury trial, the Fifth Amendment states that no person "shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself." The accused, however, cannot simply avoid testifying because of potential embarrassment. Rather, they must have a legitimate concern that their testimony will contribute to their conviction of a crime. Persons accused of crimes or witnesses in legal proceedings will often invoke this right by “pleading the Fifth” or by “claiming their Fifth Amendment rights.”