The Rights Of Criminal Defendants

                The rights of those accused of crimes are protected by Article I of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees writs of habeas corpus, court orders in which a judge requires authorities to prove that a prisoner is being held lawfully and that allow the prisoner to be freed if the judge is not persuaded by the government’s case. In addition, Article I prohibits ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. Ex post facto laws make an act punishable as a crime even if the action was legal at the time it was committed, and bills of attainder are laws declaring an act illegal without a judicial trial. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments expand on these rights with different guarantees.

                The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the court has generally refused to allow evidence seized in violation of this safeguard to be used at trial. Over the years, the Supreme Court-through a number of decisions-has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to allow the police to search the person arrested, things in plain view of the accused person, and places or things that the arrested person could touch or reach or are otherwise in the arrestee’s immediate control. A warrantless search could occur if the police suspect that someone is committing or is about to commit a crime. Searches can also be made without a warrant if consent is obtained. In a situation where no arrest occurs, police must obtain a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate before conducting further searches. Ultimately, the purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to deny the national government the authority to make general searches.

                The Fifth Amendment imposes a number of restrictions on the federal government with respect to the rights of persons suspected of committing a crime. It provides for indictment by a grand jury and protection against self-incrimination, and prevents the national government from denying a person life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. It also prevents the national government from taking property without just compensation. The right not to incriminate oneself means that criminal defendants do not have to take the stand at trial to answer questions, nor can a judge make mention of their failure to do so as evidence of guilt. In addition, prosecutors cannot use as evidence in a trial any of a defendant’s statements or confessions that were not made voluntarily. In Miranda v. Arizona, a man accused of rape was interrogated without being told his rights. After his conviction, his case was appealed on the grounds that his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself had been violated because his confession had been coerced. A confession obtained in this manner was not truly voluntary; thus, it was inadmissible at trial. The Fifth Amendment also includes the double jeopardy clause in which protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime in the same jurisdiction.

                The Sixth Amendment sets out the basic requirements of procedural due process for federal courts to follow in criminal trials. These include speedy and public trials, impartial juries, trials in the state where crime was committed, notice of the charges, the right to confront and obtain favorable witnesses, and the right to counsel. The provision of the right to counsel has been interpreted differently over time. Initially it only meant that an individual could hire an attorney to represent him or her in court. After Congress realized most defendants were too poor to afford an attorney, they required federal courts to provide an attorney to those who could not afford one. The Sixth Amendment also requires an impartial jury, although the meaning of impartial continues to evolve through judicial interpretation.

                The Eight Amendment prohibits states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments has been a concept rooted in the English common-law tradition. With this concept, comes the debate of whether the death penalty is constitutional. The people who are for the death penalty may argue that the availability of DNA testing and careful application of the rule of law can ensure that only guilty people are put to death, and that the death penalty is a cost effective way to deter capital offenses. People who are against the death penalty may argue that it is a cruel and unusual punishment, that there is a possibility that an innocent person may be put to death, and that the death penalty has been applied unevenly with respect to race and gender. However, as of now, the Eighth Amendment’s ban against “cruel and unusual punishments” has been held not to prohibit imposition of the death penalty.