Const. amend.V) The 5th Amendment consists of rights that are meant to defend citizens in the event that the Government attempts to outsmart its authority over the people. In other words you are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court. We are supposed to be protective of this kind of incidents that happened to Mr. Diaz. These are the facts of the law that these police officers should be following.
Which amendments focus on the rights of people accused of crimes? What rights do these amendments guarantee? The Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment focuses on the rights of people accused of crimes. The Fifth Amendment protects an accused citizen of self incrimination and double jeopardy. It also guarantees that life, liberty and property cannot be taken away without the due process of law.
(2) “RICO law refers to the prosecution and defense of individuals who engage in organized crime. In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in an effort to combat Mafia groups. Since that time, the law has been expanded and used to go after a variety of organizations, from corrupt police departments to motorcycle gangs. RICO law should not be thought of as a way to punish the commission of an isolated criminal act. Rather, the law establishes severe consequences for those who engage in a pattern of wrongdoing as a member of a criminal
Due process is based on the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, the constitutional amendments are to make sure that a person cannot be accused of a crime without a grand jury investigation, they have the right to an attorney and a person should not be deprived of life. For example if a person was being accused of robbery but there was no evidence that this person did the crime he/she would need to be represented by an attorney to plead their innocence than the case would be taken in front of a jury for them to deliberate on whether this person should be found guilty
As though it is not a fundamental right to have an appointed counsel to those who cannot afford one, Betts v. Brady did bring up rather valid points. The Court goes back to the foundation of our “adversary system.” It claims that a person whom has no funds to obtain an attorney is more likely to have an unjust trial. The court states that much money is used to charge or “accuse” defendants of crimes they may or may not have committed. Prosecutors which are lawyers of the government are to be looked at as a necessity to keep public order. However, it does not make sense that only prosecutors can keep public order without the publics best interest in a poor individual.
The rule is intended to prevent police officers from violating the rights granted by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, evidence obtained by the police that violates the Fourth Amendment cannot be used to convict someone accused of a crime. Some people think that without this rule, the Fourth Amendment would not make sense. As with many other legal rules, this rule has several exceptions. In the Supreme Court relied on the rule of "good faith" holding that the evidence obtained by the officers conducting inquiries based on a "good faith" court order that is subsequently found to be deficient is also admissible.
The exclusionary rule is “based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, that incriminating information must be seized according to constitutional specifications of due process or it will not be allowed as evidence in a criminal trial.” This corresponds with the fourth amendment because it protects us from unreasonable search and seizure from police. So, if police would find something incriminating evidence during an unreasonable search and seizure, it would not go through in the court of law hence the word “Exclusionary rule.”
The second amendment can potentially legally protect a criminal with claims of self defense (with an underlying intent to harm without any received threats) after their involvement in an act of a heinous gun-related crime. Principally, this tends to favor injustices in our society over the logical fallacies. Beyond a shadow of doubt, my personal disposition would lean more toward that of the rational route: to promulgate a revision to the laws and impose actively enforced control - thus banning the privilege of private ownership of automatic weapons in The United States forevermore, to bring justice to our many lost gun violence victims’
In fact, brandishing laws were designed to discourage people from threatening others using weapons because of the tragic events that might potentially occur if the weapons are used. Legal Defenses for Brandishing As with other criminal offenses, the defense your attorney will take will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. Common defenses include, but are not limited to: a) Self-Defense Here, the defendant must prove that the elements of self-defense existed before they can be exonerated of brandishing. These elements include: - Reasonable belief that you (or another party) were in imminent danger of
However, what if it were instead that we accepted a person is "guilty until proven innocent". In this case, we would have to go through every applicable law in the United States and prove that a person has not broken a single one of those laws to be truly innocent. This isn't only unreasonable, but almost impossible to go through every condition necessary to verify that a person is innocent. And with this reasoning, every person in the United States would be classified as "guilty," and we would almost never be able to prove otherwise. This analysis is very similar to how Karl Popper proposes we solve the problem of induction.