Learning Objectives
The rights of those accused of a crime are spelled out in four of the ten constitutional amendments that make up the Bill of Rights (Amendments Four, Five, Six, and Eight). For the most part, these amendments have been held to apply to both the federal and the state governments. The Fourth Amendment says in part that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Although there are numerous and tricky exceptions to the general rule, ordinarily the police may not break into a person’s house or confiscate his papers or arrest him unless they have a warrant to do so. This means, for instance, that a policeman cannot simply stop you on a street corner and ask to see what is in your pockets (a power the police enjoy in many other countries), nor can your home be raided without probable cause to believe that you have committed a crime. What if the police do search or seize unreasonably? The courts have devised a remedy for the use at trial of the fruits of an unlawful search or seizure. Evidence that is unconstitutionally seized is excluded from the trial. This is the so-called exclusionary rule, first made applicable in federal cases in 1914 and brought home to the states in 1961. The exclusionary ruleEvidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights from the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are generally not admissible at trial. is highly controversial, and there are numerous exceptions to it. But it remains generally true that the prosecutor may not use evidence willfully taken by the police in violation of constitutional rights generally, and most often in the violation of Fourth Amendment rights. (The fruits of a coerced confession are also excluded.)
The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from prosecuting a person twice for the same offense. The amendment says that no person shall be “subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” If a defendant is acquitted, the government may not appeal. If a defendant is convicted and his conviction is upheld on appeal, he may not thereafter be reprosecuted for the same crime.
The Fifth Amendment is also the source of a person’s right against self-incrimination (no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”). The debate over the limits of this right has given rise to an immense literature. In broadest outline, the right against self-incrimination means that the prosecutor may not call a defendant to the witness stand during trial and may not comment to the jury on the defendant’s failure to take the stand. Moreover, a defendant’s confession must be excluded from evidence if it was not voluntarily made (e.g., if the police beat the person into giving a confession). In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that no confession is admissible if the police have not first advised a suspect of his constitutional rights, including the right to have a lawyer present to advise him during the questioning. These so-called Miranda warnings have prompted scores of follow-up cases that have made this branch of jurisprudence especially complex.
The Sixth Amendment tells the government that it must try defendants speedily. How long a delay is too long depends on the circumstances in each case. In 1975, Congress enacted the Speedy Trial Act to give priority to criminal cases in federal courts. It requires all criminal prosecutions to go to trial within seventy-five days (though the law lists many permissible reasons for delay).
The Sixth Amendment also says that the defendant shall have the right to confront witnesses against him. No testimony is permitted to be shown to the jury unless the person making it is present and subject to cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to have the assistance of defense counsel. During the eighteenth century and before, the British courts frequently refused to permit defendants to have lawyers in the courtroom during trial. The right to counsel is much broader in this country, as the result of Supreme Court decisions that require the state to pay for a lawyer for indigent defendants in most criminal cases.
Punishment under the common law was frequently horrifying. Death was a common punishment for relatively minor crimes. In many places throughout the world, punishments still persist that seem cruel and unusual, such as the practice of stoning someone to death. The guillotine, famously in use during and after the French Revolution, is no longer used, nor are defendants put in stocks for public display and humiliation. In pre-Revolutionary America, an unlucky defendant who found himself convicted could face brutal torture before death. The Eighth Amendment banned these actions with the words that “cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted.” Virtually all such punishments either never were enacted or have been eliminated from the statute books in the United States. Nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment has become a source of controversy, first with the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1976 that the death penalty, as haphazardly applied in the various states, amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Later Supreme Court opinions have made it easier for states to administer the death penalty. As of 2010, there were 3,300 defendants on death row in the United States. Of course, no corporation is on death row, and no corporation’s charter has ever been revoked by a US state, even though some corporations have repeatedly been indicted and convicted of criminal offenses.
The most important constitutional right in the US criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned lower courts in the United States that juries must be properly instructed that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This is the origin of the “beyond all reasonable doubt” standard of proof and is an instruction given to juries in each criminal case. The Fifth Amendment notes the right of “due process” in federal proceedings, and the Fourteenth Amendment requires that each state provide “due process” to defendants.
The US Constitution provides several important protections for criminal defendants, including a prohibition on the use of evidence that has been obtained by unconstitutional means. This would include evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and confessions obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Exercises
What are the rights of an accused person under the Indian Constitution? Well, like every other country, there exists certain rights of an arrested person in India. The rights of the accused in India are divided into rights before trial, rights during trial and rights after the trial. Accused rights include the right to fair trial, get bail, hire a criminal lawyer, free legal aid in India, and more. As per the legal principle, one is considered innocent until proven guilty. The legal maxim reads out – “ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”. This translates to – the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on the one who denies. This is what appropriately defines why it’s necessary for having the rights of accused persons. Definition under various laws, suggests that each person has basic human rights. There are certain fundamental rights of an accused person under the constitution of India. These rights are given to all, irrespective of the fact if a person is accused of a crime. Therefore, till the time the crime isn’t proven, there are certain rights of persons accused of crimes. In India, these rights to the accused are given on the lines of – ‘Let hundreds go unpunished, but never punish an innocent person’. Wondering what are rights of the accused in India? Well, the right of accused persons at different stages include: the rights of an arrested person before his/her trial begins, rights of accused in India during a court trial, and the rights of an arrested person in India after his/her trial is completed Rights of Arrested Person in India The Right to Appeal: The rights of arrested persons include the right to file an appeal against his conviction in a higher court. The Right to Humane Treatment in Prison: Accused persons have the right to have all their human rights when in prison. Also, be subjected to humane treatment by the prison authorities. Right to have Family Visits in Jail Right against solitary confinement What are Rights of the Accused in India? Pre-Trial Rights of Accused in India These are the rights of a person accused of a crime such that their freedom and liberty are not hampered. The first stage of a trial is the pre-trial stage. Here an FIR is filed on the basis of which the police arrests a person, searches his property. The stage prior to the commencement of a court trial is extremely crucial. So, any person accused of a crime must be granted the following accused rights: Right to know about the accusations and charges: Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, the rights of an arrested person under CrPC include to know the details of the offence and the charges filed against him/her. Right against wrongful arrest: The rights of accused in India are provided only in cases where a warrant is issued. Section 57 of Cr.P.C. and Article 22(2) of Constitution provides rights of accused in CrPC, that he/she must be produced before a Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. Right to accused of privacy and protection against unlawful searches: The police officials cannot violate the privacy of the accused on a mere presumption of an offence. As per right of accused in India, his/her property cannot be searched by the police without a search warrant. Right against self-incrimination: A person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself as per Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution (pdf). Right against double jeopardy: A person cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once as per Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The Right against the ex-post facto law: The rights of accused in India also gives a person the authority where he/she cannot be tried for an offence that was the earlier crime and now is not. This means that the retrospective effect law is not applicable. An act that was not a crime on the day when it was done, cannot be considered as an offence. Bail as the rights of accused in India: The right of an accused person allows them to file a bail application to be released from jail custody. There are three kinds of bail under Indian law- anticipatory bail, interim bail and bail by a bond. A bail application for normal bail can be filed only in case of bailable offences. However, a person can also file an anticipatory bail through his criminal lawyer, before his arrest. Right to legal aid: In this, the rights of an accused person allow him/her to hire a lawyer to defend them and in case, he is not able to afford a lawyer, the State has to provide free legal aid to him for his representation in court. Right to a free and expeditious trial: The rights of accused in India has the right to fair trial in India and an expeditious trial, which is free of any bias or prejudice. Rights of the Accused during Trial There are many rights of accused persons in India provided when their trial is ongoing in the court. It has been observed that the State has to ensure that due process of law is followed. The accused gets a quick and impartial trial, the accused is not subjected to torture or forced to implicate himself. The rights of the accused during the trial include the following: The Right to be present during a trial: Section 273 of the Code provides that all evidence and statements must be recorded in the presence of the accused or his criminal lawyer. Right to get Copies of Documents: It comes under the rights of accused persons in criminal cases to receive copies of all the documents filed by the prosecutor in relation to the case. Right to be considered Innocent till proven guilty: The accused has the right to be considered innocent until his guilt is proven in court on the basis of evidence and statements by witnesses. The Right to be present at the trial: The accused person has the right to be present during his trial and have testimony presented in front of him. Right to cross-examination: It’s the right of the accused in criminal cases to be cross-examined by the prosecutor to prove their innocence. Post-Trial Rights of the Accused Person An accused person also has certain rights once his trial is over. These rights of the accused depend upon the outcome of his trial. This means, whether (s)he has been acquitted by the court or has been held guilty and arrested by police. Rights of the Accused, if declared innocent When a person is declared innocent and acquitted by the court, the following rights are given to him: Accused persons have a right to get a copy of the judgment Right to receive protection from police if there are reasons to believe there is a threat to his life post-acquittal |
What is the first right of the accused
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketajaman Inc.
