In order to establish justice, laws need to be interpreted and judged. When the contents of a law are used to “honor” the criminal's actions the judicial branch will bring justice to the victim and the law. The judicial branch does not prejudice, therefore they judge fairly and justly. The way the judicial branch works makes it so that it establishes justice. In Article Three of the Constitution, it states “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” This means that the judicial branch is the only branch that can judge whether or not an act is considered treason.
The District Court denied relief and found that the counsel made judgment errors in failing to further investigate mitigating evidence, but the respondent 's sentence did not result from any prejudice from any of the counsel’s judgment errors. 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 defense counsels can argue against the safeguard of accused before they are proved guilty with support of constitutional safeguards. The law enforcement officers cannot harass the accused or defame the accused because they are protected by the amendments in the constitution. The 4th Amendment states that unless there is warrant the house or accused cannot be searched. The law enforcement officers need to take permission before arrest or searching the accused. Due to this amendment in the constitution the adult criminal can get relief before they are proved guilty.
Article 2 stipulates that there is a protection of the right to life. Article 3 stipulates that there is a right to protection from degrading treatment. An example of where the courts have had to decide where the courts have had to decide which of the conflicting rights outweighed the other is in the case of John Venebles, the murderer of James Bulger. After he was arrested for possession of child pornography some years back, it was considered whether his anonymity should be lifted. The court considered however, that there was a “clear and present danger to his physical safety and life” and so he should retain his anonymity.
Waiving Miranda Rights: Waiving Miranda rights is not an option, though, until the family has been knowledgeable of those privileges, and are fully comprehends them. Few of the authorities allow an indirect waiving of these rights, which actually means that a accused’s performance indicates that he wants to capitulation those rights, even if he has not explicitly stated this. For example: Juan is under arrest for burglary, at which point he is understand his Miranda rights. Right away after being read his constitutional rights, Jarrod makes declarations that are self-incriminating, deprived of an attorney present. In this example of Miranda rights, Juan’s activities imply a renunciation, as he first unspoken his rights, then immediately chose to express.
 Lord Keith mentioned that the opinion that section 1(1) of the Act of 1976 presents no obstacle to the House declaring that in present day the alleged marital rejection in rape forms no part of the Law of England. [The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) shared a similar view. Lord Lane C.J said, at p.1074: "The remaining and no less difficult question is whether, despite that view, this is an area where the court should step aside to leave the matter to the Parliamentary process.
Thus, because relationships cannot be proved true, an attempt is made to prove them false. This is called falsification. For example, instead of proving that a defendant is truly guilty of a crime, a prosecutor attempts to prove with a certain confidence level that the defendant is not innocent of the crime. For example, if there is a 95% confidence level that a defendant is not innocent, then jurors may find the defendant guilty. In other words, if hypotheses are not proved false, then they are accepted as true at a certain confidence level.
Parliament is equipped to make any law subject to the functioning of the Constitution and there is no other legislative power. The Judiciary is free in its field and there can be no impedance with its legal capacities either by the Executive or by the Legislature. The Supreme Court and High Courts are given the force of judicial review and they can announce any law went by the Parliament or the Legislature as unlawful. Considering these variables, many legal thinkers and scholars have accepted the fact that Separation of Powers has been acknowledged in the Indian Constitution . However, much the same as American constitution, in Indian constitution likewise, express specify the official force of the Union and of a State is vested by the constitution in the President and the Governor, separately, by articles 53(1) and 154(1), yet there is no relating procurement vesting the legislative and judicial forces in any specific organ.
Many of the court’s decisions were controversial, and critics have charged that justices/ judges have written their own values into the constitution. There are several restrictions on the exercise of judicial review courts may strike down unconstitutional laws only when cases are brought to them. In the absence of a case, judges may not issue advisory opinion – that is, they may not say what they think a constitutional rule means or whether a law is invalid, moreover not every case presents the possibility of judicial review. The parties seeking review must have “standing”- that is, they must be the ones actually affected by the law in question. Also, the dispute must be “ripe” – a person may not ask a court to void a law if it has not yet been applied to that person.
Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).