Rights of the Criminally Accused- Please consider the following questions in a thoughtfully organized mini-essay:
PROMPT: How are the rights of the accused defined by the Bill of Rights? Do these rights go...a) far enough, or b) too far...to protect those accused of crimes? Please explain your position. (You must talk about the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendment only, while discussing specific clauses within them, the pdfs i provided discuss these specific clauses, in my old response the only amendment i didn't talk about was the 8th so add discussion of that amendment in the intro, body, and conclusion, my old response needs a lot of work so please fix it up, this assignment in critical to my final grade. Follow all the direction/requirments below STRICTLY.)
In addition to answering the questions above, your answer MUST include:
- A thesis statement and introductory paragraph
- At least 1-2 body paragraphs that support your thesis and include evidence from the materials covered this week
- Please be sure that you include in-text citations and a bibliography/works cited notation
- Works cited notations must be included at the bottom of the post NOT in a separate post!
- Please be sure that you include in-text citations and a bibliography/works cited notation
- A concluding paragraph
- Please review the Discussion Board Guidelines for a full list of requirements.
Requirements for original responses:
- Original responses are due on Saturday (by 11:59 pm) of the week they are assigned.
- Original responses must include:
- a clear thesis statement, which directly addresses the question posed and gives readers an indication of the argument you plan to make;
- direct reference to the assigned materials (to illustrate your comprehension of the reading materials);
- a body of factual examples/evidence that supports your thesis and develops your argument;
- To be clear, you MUST reference the assigned materials using direct quotations, or cited, paraphrased passages, in order to receive full credit for your submission.
- Responses that don't have substantial and significant references to the assigned materials will receive a grade no higher than a D.
- a coherent paragraph structure that emphasizes the main points of your argument and college-level English; and,
- a succinct concluding paragraph.
- In other words, you should have multiple paragraphs!
CURRENT RESPONSE NEEDS ALOT OF REFINEMENT:
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments are necessary protections of accused individuals from government overreach and ensuring a fair justice system. The Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures. The 4th preserves individual privacy and liberty by requiring warrants based on probable cause. Similarly, the Fifth Amendment's due process clause ensures that no one is deprived of life, liberty, or property without lawful procedures which prohibits potential abuse of power such as coerced confessions. These protections are fundamental to preventing government tyranny, maintaining public trust, and ensuring justice is fair. While critics argue that these protections hinder the efficiency of law enforcement, they are essential to upholding fairness, limiting police overreach, and preventing the erosion of democratic values.
The Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are absolutely necessary to preventing police tyranny. When searching a home, If police don't need a warrant based on probable cause, law enforcement could force entry into individuals homes anytime they saw fit, for essentially any claim. Our farmers created the 4th amendment because they experienced unreasonable searches and seizure under Britain rule (Khan Academy), contributing to the tyranny they were subject to. It must be noted that in addition to not granting search without warrant, the warrant must be based on probable cause, otherwise its purpose to prevent police overstep is nullified. For example, The British colonial government produced “general warrants” without reasonable cause, which allowed them to raid the property of colonists with “no limit” (Khan Academy). In a reality where search and seizure does require validation justification via warrant, individuals would lose their liberty and privacy. Police and prosecutors are normal citizens just like anyone else, although their job is to protect against crimes, they are capable of making mistakes in their claims or acting based on unreasonable judgment. In order to prevent government tyranny, no individuals, police included, should be granted easy access to another's home. Homes are private places where citizens should feel safe from intrusion; it's fundamental to a peaceful society.
Critics may argue that the exclusionary rule makes law enforcement less effective by foregoing unlawfully obtained evidence. However, Exceptions should not be granted even in cases concerning serious offenses like murder. It is better to live in a society without government tyranny than to live with a more efficient justice system. If exception to exclusion were granted, police would not be incentivized to force entry into home and seize whatever they please. The best way to prevent unconstitutional searches is to make them pointless to the proceedings of a case as all evidence will be inadmissible. This rule is not about aiding criminals but about holding the government accountable. A justice system that allows illegally obtained evidence would undermine its own legitimacy. As the Court observed, "nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws" (Justia). This principle is essential to persevering fairness and trust in law enforcement.
The Fifth Amendment's due process clause ensures that no one is deprived of life, liberty, or property without lawful procedures. This right prevents coerced confessions or other tactics that exploit individuals who may not fully understand their rights. Critics may argue that The Fifth Amendment's due process clause creates more obstacles for efficient justice, but the alternative system where coerced confessions are respected would incentivize corrupt and abusive interrogation tactics by police. It should be noted that “the Court has used substantive due process to protect the civil rights of individuals, especially racial minorities and women, against state government actions that threatened these fundamental rights”, (Oxford reading). Addressing minority groups, historically they have been victims of police aggression and misconduct, so much so that it helped flame the BLM movement. The long history of distrust African Americans show towards law enforcement highlights how abuses of police power can be biased and cause heated polarization between minorities and law enforcement. Without enforced due process, police might prioritize extracting confessions rather than uncovering factual evidence, possibly leading to unjust judicial outcomes. Coerced confessions are historically tied to injustice, as they often reflect pressure or fear rather than the truth. As noted, due process protections ensure that "justice requires the use of lawful evidence" and prevent law enforcement from undermining public trust by using unconstitutional practices (Due Process of Law). Without these protections, the justice system risks becoming complicit in misconduct, eroding its integrity.
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which guarantee due process in court proceedings and require that searches be justified by law, offer crucial safeguards against abuses of power. These rights are essential protections for avoiding tyranny and upholding public confidence in our system, not only barriers to police enforcement. Allowing unlawful searches or forced confessions compromises the ethics of our legal system and runs the risk of further destroying the public faith in law enforcement. These constitutional protections preserve individual liberty and promote the core principle of democracy, emphasizing accountability and fairness. Our justice system must balance the demands of justice and the rights of the people.
Works Cited
"Due Process of Law." Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press.
"Exclusionary Rule." Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Justiça, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/.
"Probable Cause." Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press.
"Searches and Seizures." Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press.