The original text of the Constitution contained very little about the protection of natural rights. With the addition of the Bill of Rights, the people’s rights became clear. The first Congress passed twelve amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing freedom and justice to all people. This settled uncertainty about the central government taking away the power of the people (Doc. F).Farmers from Massachusetts remind their state, “... the people may, and will rise to arms to prevent it (injustice)... to keep our liberties in our own hands…”
The Eighth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791 and was introduced by James Madison. The United States Constitution states that the eighth amendment “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
The language of that provision is clear and unmistakable, and upon that limitation we are all agreed. “I part company with my colleagues, however, in their conclusion that subsection (a) is limited in application to, practically speaking, only those cases where the complaint uses language parroting the words of the statute.” Put another way, according to the majority, the prohibition against suing public employees applies only when the complaint, on its face, asserts that the allegedly negligent
The prisoner’s rights movement is mostly recognized for the events that occurred through the 1960s until the 1980s but it is important to review cases beforehand that led up to the movement itself. In the case of Pervear v. Massachusetts of 1866 a case was fought through the Supreme Court. The court ruled that prisoners should have no constitutional rights, which concluded the Eighth Amendment did not apply to them. The Eighth Amendment states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (US Const. Amend XIII).
RECOMMENDATIONS The contention was raised in the Gian Kaur Case that treating different circumstances of attempt to suicide by the same measure (Section 309) is violative of Article 14. The Court held that the section ‘cannot be regarded as violative of Article 14, inasmuch as the nature, gravity and extent of attempt may be taken care of by tailoring the sentence appropriately.’ The Court further observed that Section 309 gave a maximum punishment of one year. The Court thus maintained that the those booked under Section 309 were provided adequate compassion via the provision of probation under the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, they did instruct the jury that "Before you can find the defendants guilty you must be certain of his guilt as charged on the counts of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt." Ironically, the lower court then prepped the jury extensively on the principle of reasonable doubt and how it relates to evidence (Knappman, Edward W). By and large, the appeal of the case to the Supreme Court was rooted in part on the lower court 's refusal to allow the 44th count. Ultimately, their task was to decide whether the lower court had violated the defendants ' rights by not instructing the jury on the presumption of innocence, assuming that reasonable doubt was fundamentally the same as presumption of innocence. What is reasonable doubt?
Also, the government should not be excused by its claim that consultation with the states and territories is necessary, nor should the federal election be an excuse for failure to act upon this. George Williams, a Professor of Law at the University of NSW, states that Australia has the concept of stopping terroristic regimes wrong. He states: “We place too much weight on the idea that terrorism can be prevented by enacting new laws.” (Williams, 2015) Williams continues to state that 64 anti – terrorism statues have been put into place since the September 11 attacks.
On the same lines section 300 of code of criminal procedure , 1973( hereinafter referred as cr.pc) provide protection against double jeopardy. It says:- The section embodies the common law principle contained in the doctrine of autre fois acquit and autre fois convict which means that if a person is tried and acquitted or convicted of an offence he cannot be tried again for the same offence or on the same facts for any other offence. This doctrine is also incorporated in Article 20 (2) of the Constitution.
An application is required to be made before the commencement of the trial and will be accepted if the court considers it in the interests of justice to do so. However, to maintain the constitutional rights of the accused, if the prosecution has applied for the order, the court will only make the order if the accused is consenting. Section 651A provides that an order for a trial by judge only cannot be made if the accused is accused of two or more crimes that are required to be tried together unless the order is made for all charges. Similarly, if two or more are accused, an order may not be made unless the order is made for all the accused. This process ensures a judge only trial is only applied if it is in the best interests of justice and protecting the presumption of innocence of the
The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause explicitly opposes to encourage any form of racial discrimination as the Bill of Rights does not possess equal protection clause. Therefore, in a case revolving around segregation in the area of Washington, D.C. that come under federal law, it has been determined that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause function against the federal government and the states respectively. The Due Process Clause is strongly connected with apprehension of fair procedures. Moreover, it follows the Magna Carta of Great Britain which resolutions were applied to ensure the noblemen that the king would make his decisions in accordance with procedures of law.
Our class should study amendment number eight. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants, either as the price for obtaining pretrial release or as punishment for crime after conviction. (Constitutioncenter.org) states that, "The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause clearly prohibits cruel methods of punishment. " This means that if the federal government tried to bring back the rack, or thumbscrews, or gibbets as types of punishment, such efforts would violate the Eighth Amendment This amendment still
According to criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/bribery.html, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977 makes it unlawful for a United States citizen, as well as certain foreign issuers of securities, to pay a foreign official in order to obtain business with any person. Thus, if a judge or jury was persuaded or bribed to place you in jail, guilty or not, then that’s simply prejudiced. No one should bribe another to put a faultless citizen in jail. We should all stand together to prevent others from being treated unfairly in
Carol I am in agreement with you concerning this matter. The United States has allowed nine-black robed executioners to become the rulers by fiat. According to Madison in his Report of 1800 on the Virginia Resolution, the role of the SCOTUS is to judge whether the other two branches are acting constitutionally. The failure today is not with the constitution, it is with the reaction of the states to the unconstitutional actions of the high court.
The Eighth Amendment was created to prohibit cruel punishments that the colonists would receive from the British. The British brought colonists over to an unfair trial and then received punishment that sometimes would be death. The writers of the wanted to make sure that the colonists received the fair trial and fair punishment they deserve. The Eight Amendment was ratified in December 5, 1791 as a part of the Bill of Rights. The Eighth Amendment has not been changed since the ratification in 1791.
The modern federal court system was established with the Articles of Confederation in 1777. This court system had little or no power and was replaced, with the establishment of the U.S. Constitution and Article III which created the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1789, the Judiciary Act of 1789 created the lower federal courts. ? In 1803, Marbury v. Madison, established the modern day check and balances by the court systems, judicial review.