Why have civil right and liberties remained such as big-ticket topic? History of the United States shows a major gap between what is written and what is practiced (Ginsberg, Benjamin, et al. 96). The first ten amendments to the constitution were made specifically for the protection of American citizen’s rights against the federal government in 1787, (against the wishes of some whom stated to put restraints on “powers which are not granted” could allow for governments to claim more powers than given) though before the civil rights protests of the 1960’s some of these rights were being overlooked. Civil liberties and rights has had a steady push for expansion dating back almost a hundred years before the marches with the ratification of the fourteenth amendment in 1868 which nationalized the bill of rights to safeguard Americans from both the federal and state governments, which translates to mean citizenship rights cannot be abridged by the states either, however congress largely ignored this amendment (Ginsberg, Benjamin, et al.
Whereas by accident that very indigent accused sometimes had to spend indefinite periods in jail while awaiting trial because he could not take bail. Early 1961, the attorney general (USA) Robert kennedy stated: "I have a strong feeling that the law, especially in criminal cases, favours the rich man over the poor in such matters as bail, the cost of defense counsel, the cost of appeals and so on." Justice to the poor is one of the trouble spots in the criminal justice system. Equal justice under law is a valid ideal but we can hardly expect to wipe out all the advantages the rich defendant has over the poor. The little effort has been made to guarantee fair treatment to the indigent.
Eliminating capital punishment does not mean that supporting crime rate and put the society into danger. It intends to have feature of promoting human rights. When almost the world wants to remove death penalty from all of legal system, people must think of replacing punishment, which still protect the life. In various punishments, it seems that life imprisonment is the best choice. Life imprisonment (or life sentence) means having to spend the rest of a person’s life in jail.
However, the age limit act was amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The act states that a person who serves on the jury must be between eighteen years old and seventy-five years old. This amendment increased the age limit in serving in the jury thus giving an opportunity to the majority of the citizens to participate in the service. Giving a small group of people the chance to the jury service while locking others outside received criticism from the members of the society who felt denied the chance to exercise their democratic rights. If the defendant pleads guilty, the jury service is not needed.
The Eighth Amendment states that punishments should be fair and cannot be cruel. In the summer of 2012, Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who have committed murder cannot be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole because of violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, young adults or juveniles should be given life without parole when committing a serious crime. If teens can commit crimes knowing there will be consequences then they should be prepared to face them. Many juveniles will fight against receiving jail time by saying, they are depressed, or have not reached a full level of maturation.
An individual cannot be tried more than once after being acquitted. It also protects the accused from self-incriminating his/herself (Bohm, 2018). This gives the accused the right to remain silent. Cruel interrogating tactics are also prohibited under this amendment. The sixth amendment gives the accused the right to counsel, a speedy and public trial, to know the accusations against them, and guarantees a specific venue for trial (Bohm, 2018).
Even if A ends up dying B is not liable for A’s death. He may only merely have a moral obligation to help but he cannot be charged with murder or battery. Basically, B cannot be prosecuted for his failure to act. Although this is the general principle, it is subject to exceptions. Where a person is under a duty to act and he fails to do so he is deemed to be criminally liable for the omission.
In that case, one of the convicts who was juvenile could not be sentenced to death due to juvenile law. But, now if any law is passed to reduce the juvenile age he could not have been convicted again for the offence as per the protection provided against retrospective law by the Indian Constitution. Advantages of retrospective application of criminal laws: 1. As article 20(1) only prohibits the conviction and sentence under ex post facto law for the acts prior to enactment of the law, but does not prohibits enactment of validity of this law. Thus, it provides liberty to the courts to interpret this law in such a manner that any objection against it may be removed.
For victims, they will be able to tell all their grievances to the court as they will not have any fear of society, also by this they can get better legal assistance. For accused, it will help him in the process of rehabilitation, as society will accept him after he has been released, as incamera proceedings does not tell the society that “how he did the crime”. Take the recent example, juvenile being accused in Delhi rape case, if that has been done incamera proceedings has he might have not faced this much aggression from the society, even his village in which he was residing is not accepting him. So, incamera proceeding help in