The US Criminal Justice System
According to due process, every citizen has the right
that is protected by the constitution in the event that a court of law or the
government is to take a course of action that affects the citizen. The due
process of law comprises of two categories; procedural and substantive. From a
functional point of view, fundamental safeguards are implemented to protect the
citizen from criminal injustices that are discriminatory, biased or unfair. On
the other hand, procedural due process redefines principles and rights in a
procedural manner to protect basic rights of fairness. As a key to the legal
system, due process comprises the goals that include preventing and controlling
crime and ensuring justice prevails. As such, procedural due process involves
legal activities that are regularly carried out in line with established rules
and principles. The substantive due process is a judicial requirement. It
serves to ensure that the laws in action do not result in unfair, unreasonable
and arbitrary treatment of an individual.
The first known application of due process was in the
fifteenth century. However, the current notion of substantive due process dates
back to the US Supreme Court’s decisions in the nineteenth century. There are
certain basic principles that apply to the application of procedural due
process. Among them is a formal hearing. The hearing is scheduled once a prompt
notice of charges is procedurally read to the convict, and they are aligned in
a court of law. In this case, the accused is not obligated to answer any
question as the right to counsel applies. However, the right does not protect confrontation
of accusers and cross-examination of witnesses by the jury. To be sure that the
individual does not undermine the proceedings of the case prior to conviction,
freedom from self-incrimination is exercised. It is the right of the jury to
present evidence and back it up using witnesses to ensure that the conviction
of the accused is without doubt. Prior to the rule of law and the sentencing,
written reasons are provided that form the foundation for the verdict. The
decision is then reviewed procedurally to offer an incriminating and yet
irrefutable sentence to the case. Despite the observation of the due process to
the letter, there are certain cases that emerge where the rights of the
defendant are not entirely observed.
From the
description of the principles and rights in the procedural due process, it is
evident that aspects of arresting and trying persons are encapsulated in this
clause of due process. The central provisions in the procedural due process are
as contained in the bill of rights. The rights and freedoms protect individuals
from unauthorized searches and seizures. Prior to conducting a search, a court
order signed by a judge in the form of a warrant is provided to the accused.
Other freedoms that an individual is entitled and are captured in the
procedural due process include freedom from cruel and unusual punishment,
double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. The state has to proof beyond any
reasonable doubt that the accused is convicted of the crime they committed. The
US justice system adopts a procedural approach towards arresting and convicting
criminals. During the arrest, their rights are read, and prior to alignment in
court they are presented with a public defender.
The part of the law that defines, creates and
regulates rights is substantive due process. As a result, different states have
different definitions of various crimes. As part of criminal law, there are
certain aspects that apply to substantive due process among them being the
uniformity, penal sanction, specificity, and political. Substantive due process
incorporates new rulings in the court of law that are in favor of the current
situation as provided in the justice scales of balance. In most cases, the new
ruling contradicts former decisions and judicial practices. The judgment is
influenced by changes in society and the norms and practices that the people
adopt and believe with time. For example, during the 1930s, substantive due
process was used by the court to eliminate federal legislation. The particular
law was associated with the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The
proposition of Roosevelt in 1937 to appoint additional justices in favor of his
programs was a court-packing scheme. One that was never adopted nor implemented
but changed the position of the court as it started upholding New Deal
legislation. As a result, the freedom of contract version is abandoned by a
majority in the court in favor of the substantive due process. The support is
particularly attributed to the underlying goals of criminal law embedded in
substantive due process. Among them is the need to enforce social control
making it difficult for powerful individuals in the society such as the
president and political leaders to change the law in their favor. Criminal
behavior is prevented and wrong doing punished which leads to a restoration and
maintenance of social order. In the United States, the application of substantive
due process is imminent in court where the actions of judges are scrutinized to
ensure they comply with the law. Also, if evidence is collected using illegal
means, it is not admissible in court.
In conclusion, due process ensures that statues are
precise. For example, if an activity is being restricted by the government,
clarity is required regarding which activity is to be limited and why.
According to the American constitution, a vague statute is eliminable under due
process.
EmoticonEmoticon