In the 1999 film Double-Jeopardy starring Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones the “Double- Jeopardy” clause of the 5th Amendment was questioned with a particular circumstance. In the movie, the lead character Libby has a great life with her husband and young boy. The husband recently had a business success and bought a yacht to celebrate. After a long night on the water with the family Libby passed out drunk from too much wine. When she wakes she is covered in blood and finds a knife next to her.
The Sixth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 and the states’ constitutional or statutory provisions establish the right to a speedy trial of criminal defendants. In particular, the 6th Amendment’s Clause states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial” (Susskind, 1993).While the U. S. Constitution does not provide a precise frame of time, states’ laws specify the time within which prosecution must try a defendant. However, the computations are so complex that cases are rarely dismissed on the ground of violation of the speedy trial right (Shestokas, 2014). In fact, ironically defendants have to demand a speedy trial for these time periods to run and their
The Three Strikes Law states that a penalty enhancement should be handed down to anyone who had previously been convicted of one or more supposedly serious or violent felonies. Under the same laws, an offender who had previously been convicted of a violent or serious felony, regardless of how diminished it may be, face the risk of double-sentencing under the guidelines of the second strike. On the other hand, a third- strike sentencing guideline is applied when an offender with two or more previous crimes is convicted. Under this guideline, a minimum of twenty-five years to life is applied. However, for the third-strike sentence to be passed, the previous crimes committed must be either violent or serious. Any felony classified by the California law warrants a third strike.
Just by denying others the better treatment you would be violating other individual rights of dual process. The court system wouldn’t be equal and fair as promised by dual process. That is how having the “uniqueness” thinking error can mess with individual rights. How having the same thinking error can affect the public order is on the extreme end of consequences, it could lead to favoritism among those people with the criminal thinking errors. In societies perspective favoritism coincidentally, is not favored.
The Constitution states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” ( US Constitution) As you can see, the Bill of Rights 6th Amendment allows the accused to understand the charges against them: the accused is told what he/ she is being accused of, who is accusing them, and is allowed to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Moreover, it allows for the movement of rightful convictions.
The Fifth Amendment has specific protections which includes the right to due process, “rights require the government to provide some type of hearing and procedure whenever has taken some action that deprives
The accused person has the right to enjoy a speedy trial but that does not mean that the trial will be done within two days but rather means that, "The country or state cannot make the person sit in jail for a very long time, for example 5 years, while they wait for their trial. This would be very unfair to anyone who is not guilty." ; that was mentioned by the website Laws.com. This means that a person can not get punished for committing a crime the rest of his life, that would go against his right of pursuiting happiness. The sixth amendment also allows the accused person to know the cause of accusation and his accuser, and that leads to the second ideal which is opportunity or chance to defend oneself or even ask a lawyer to defend
This system is put into place to be fair to those accused. There are many cases in which the due process was not followed and the case was considered unfair and thrown out. Ex: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Clarence Gideon was accused of burglary and while in court he asked for an attorney to be appointed to his case because he could not afford one, but he was denied. At the time attorneys were only appointed to those who were poor, but who is to say whether or not a person is not poor enough to get an attorney appointed to them.
However, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the Sixth Amendment provided criminal defendants with a right to counsel who provides "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances. " The Court of Appeals outlined the standards for judging whether a defense
The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity.
This amendment, along with others in the Bill of Rights, were proposed in order to ensure that the people would have the innate rights that everyone should have. They served as a reminder to the government that they recently fought a war to attain these rights and taking them away was not an option. Overall, the second amendment was found to be a necessity throughout the Revolutionary era in matters of not only the Militia, but also as a defensive tactic and symbol of innate liberties for the American