The Court’s Protection Of Criminal Rights

The basis of American society is rooted within the people’s possession and the government’s protection of civil rights and liberties. These principles, granted and guaranteed in the constitution, form the democratic foundation of the country. Among the most important rights to the United States’ democratic society are the rights to a reasonable expectation of privacy, granted in the Fourth Amendment, and equal representation under the law, as seen in the Fifth Amendment. Although the necessity of such provisions to the growth and prosperity of a democratic society is hardly disputable, the extent to which their protections extend is a topic of great controversy.

During the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the constitutional protection of criminal defendants was greatly augmented by the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren through a series of rulings. (Schwarz, 2003, 72) As the social and political events changed over time, so did the Court’s stand on the protection of these freedoms. In concordance with the changing times and ideals, the public’s view as to how far such rights should extend still fuels the argument as to how far the courts should

The Fifth and Sixth amendments are in place to guarantee that all citizens receive a fair and equal opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. These amendments are also a safeguard against the coercion of erroneous facts leading to one incriminating one’s self. The original purpose of these rights was to safeguard against torture and beaten confessions as was a problem in English law. The result of the Miranda v. Arizona case led to the requirement of suspects to be informed of their right to a lawyer and that answering the police’s questions was optional. Ideally, the result of the Miranda trial has saved many innocent citizens from confessing to a crime that they did not commit (Berman & Murphy, 2003, p. 478). However, it has also made it much easier for criminals to escape judicial punishment due to loopholes and mistakes of the police. Under the Sixth Amendment, the right to a speedy trial by an impartial public jury further augments defendant’s rights. This further protects the defendant against a biased jury and from a hasty and incorrect conviction by an ill-intentioned government official. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright also attempts to ensure that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights apply to everyone, regardless of economic standing and legal representation. Through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court decided that the right to an attorney was inalienable in both federal and state courts. (Mauro, 2000, 66).

extend the constitution’s protection of criminal rights.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution attempt to protect the defendant from the tyranny of the government and its executive powers. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to protection from self-incrimination and also denies the government the right to infringe upon the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as guaranteed in the First Amendment. The Sixth Amendment ensures, in the case of criminal proceedings, the righ

Some topics in this essay:
Safer Streets, Sixth Amendments, Berman Murphy, Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, United Leon, Fifth Sixth, Earl Warren, Amendments Constitution, Amendment Constitution, murphy 2003, berman murphy, fifth sixth, reasonable expectation, fourth amendment, supreme court, reasonable expectation privacy, berman murphy 2003, expectation privacy, criminal rights, fifth sixth amendments, sixth amendments, admissible court, amendments constitution 2003, equal protection law,