As such, equality law seeks to remedy a problem through imposing certain injunctions in order to solve a problem. However, one important aspect of the 7th amendment is that it bars the judges from overruling the findings of a jury unless there was such a violation of a common law; hence, in all but a few cases, the ruling of the jury will be regarded as a violation of the 7th amendment. Further, the 7th amendment makes specifications that the jury has to be unanimous in all civil cases. Therefore, in my own view, the 7th amendment is beneficial since it protects people from the rights that are abused by the government. It achieves this by ensuring that the government cannot simply lock people up in jails or prions; hence by doing so it protects the citizens from unnecessary tyranny by the government.
One group that argues this is the American Civil Liberties Union, which strongly disagrees with the Patriot Act. They have stated that investigations into the Patriot Act, “reveal thousands of violations of law,” (ACLU), while this is simply not true. One controversial piece of the Patriot Act are roving wiretaps. These allow government investigators to follow and put surveillance on certain people, rather than certain devices, so that they may save time and effort. According to Nathan Sales, a law professor at George Mason University, “Federal courts agree that Title III’s roving wiretaps authority is constitutional and… provides strong support for constitutionality,” (Sales).
First, the 7th Amendment ensures that citizens have to right to have a court. It also helps us because the common law or civil law court hear their case on the Federal level by a jury. It also helps us by providing a jury trial. For example, in court jury, the case protects and no one can change the factor otherwise it will be re-examined by another court of United States. As well as, a person can’t be a double jeopardy which means if someone commits a crime and the police didn’t find any evidence against them so they can free to go.
“Time to Assert” contains several opinion based facts within the argument when describing how to deal with crime. Within “Time to Assert,” it comments, “A case like Michael Fay’s is important because it provides a chance to challenge an inhumane practice that ought not to exist anywhere” (Time to Assert 179). This quote from the editorial illustrates no true factual evidence and supports more of a biased argument that is heavily based on the editors opinions. The editorial implies no evidence that effectively helps with supporting the argument. According to “Time to Assert,” it explains, “The Fay case provides a legitimate opening for American citizens and companies to bring political and economic pressure to bear in the propagation of freedom and basic rights” (Time to Assert 180).
Another method the Constitution protects against tyranny is Separation of Powers. Separation of Powers is the division of powers into three branches. In Document B it explains that the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces laws, and the judicial branch passes them. This evidence explains how the Constitution guards against tyranny because it separates the powers of the government and it makes sure that no branch has more power than the other.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), holds an important position in the United States law history of suspects, giving some the right to preserve their innocence and others the chance to remain silent even if they are guilty.To be a free, just nation, there lies many important responsibilities upon the lawmakers of the nation, which leads them to consider every single fact relating an individual’s rights. I personally give my stance in the favour of this decision. There are many important cases related to fundamental rights of fairness of the suspects in the United States history such as “Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 and Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, but Miranda v. Arizona was granted the top position by U.S. government. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963, being charged of kidnapping and rape. He confessed his crime, within his two hour interrogation.
To begin with, the Eighth Amendment was adopted, as part of the Bill of Rights, in 1791. It is almost identical to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which Parliament declared, "as their ancestors in like cases have usually done...that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This criminal punishment exception to the 13th Amendment is all the more brazen when one considers the inhumanity of lengthy prison sentences today – often handed out in assembly-line fashion, and dispensed more often to
The Constitution of the United States is the concrete platform that the nation is built upon which contains fundamental principles in which our nation is governed by. However, much of the Constitution is very ambiguous which leads to controversy in the court room. For example, the Eighth Amendment which states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Baltzell). The first part of the Eighth Amendment protects accused citizens of the United States from unreasonable and extreme amounts of bail that would prevent them from being released from pretrial containment and it also limits the amount of a fine that can be given to a convicted person (8th Amendment)(Kurt). The
Many jury instructions on the issue of the burden of proof invite nullification arguments. According to these instructions juries must find the defendant not guilty if the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely the jury should find the defendant guilty if the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The permissive language "should" arguably allows juries to consider nullification arguments. It is also possible to receive a specific jury instruction on nullification, though most judges simply avoid the topic and do not tell jurors of their power to judge the fairness of the law and how it is applied as well as to judge the facts of a case.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the ‘cardinal principles’ enunciated by Prof. Ian Dennis vis-à-vis reversal of burden onto the defendant in criminal cases. To what extend does it achieve it’s purpose? Introduction In Woolmington v DPP, Viscount Sankey LC laid down the golden thread rule (also known as concept of presumption of innocence) which presumed the defendant is innocence until proven guilty by the prosecution by proposed “Throughout the web of the English criminal law, one golden thread is always be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…” The prosecution bears the legal burden to prove the guilt of defendant beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases whereby the defendant bears the evidential burden