Overview
Every saint has a past and every sinner a future. Criminal law takes cognizance of this universal truth and every accused is provided with ample rights while deciding whether he/she has committed any offence. Prosecution guidelines provide for certain procedural niceties to be extended to a person accused of crime. After all, the law intends to punish the crime, not the criminal. Adversarial system views crime as a wrongdoing against the state and not against a particular person. The interests of the state are represented by the prosecuting attorney. As such, law views the offender sympathetically and treats him/her as innocent until proved guilty and passes the burden of proving the case to the prosecution. The defendant has a right to be presumed innocent unless and until the State has proven each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, for instance, if a culpable mental state is required to prove a crime, the prosecution must prove that it existed at the time of commission of the offence.
Constitutional Rights
The United States Constitution guarantees a wide array of rights to the criminal defendant from the time of arrest through the trial proceedings. These include: the right to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure, to remain silent, to be tried before a judge or a jury, to summon witnesses and compel their attendance to testify on behalf of the defendant, and to confront and cross-examine any witness the State may call. The defendant in a criminal case has a right to a speedy trial and to be represented by an attorney and is entitled to have an attorney appointed by the court, if the defendant is unable to afford one. The defendant also has a right to consult an attorney or family members before pleading guilty or not guilty before the court.
The criminal proceedings begin by the initiation of a complaint by the purportedly injured person, the complainant. The police investigate about the complaint. A formal charging document called a complaint or an indictment brought by a grand jury is filed with a court in the proper jurisdiction.
The Right to Speedy Trial
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a speedy and public trial, in both state and federal courts, which means that the proceedings are to be completed within a reasonable time after the person being arrested. The defendant has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Sixth Amendment also guarantees a criminal defendant the right to be tried before an “impartial jury,” which will consider the evidence against the defendant and decide whether to find him/her guilty. In almost all states, the concurrence of twelve jurors is necessary in order to find a defendant “guilty or not guilty.”
Right to be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the defendant the right to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure. The quintessence of the Amendment is that “every man’s house is his castle” and the rights to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause.”
Privilege against Self-incrimination
The defendant is entitled to a right under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to remain silent during the trial. In other words, the accused person can refuse to answer any questions or make any statements, if such answers or statements establish that the person committed a crime or is in any way connected to some criminal activity. As already mentioned above, the burden of proof of a crime is on the prosecution. However, no one including the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s lawyer can force the defendant to be a witness against himself/ herself if the person declines to do so. Furthermore, when a defendant exercises his or her right not to testify, the jury is not permitted to take such denial into consideration when deciding the question of liability. Thus, this is a prominent privilege to the criminal defendant. Nevertheless, the defendant cannot selectively answer questions that go against him/her. Once a defendant decides to testify at trial, he/she cannot ordinarily choose to answer some questions but not others. It is to be noted that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply when a defendant is fingerprinted, or made to provide a DNA sample in connection with a criminal accusation. Like a criminal defendant, witnesses are also entitled to refuse to answer certain questions by asserting their Fifth Amendment rights. However, this right is not extensive as that of the criminal defendants.
Conclusion
A criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent and accorded all humane considerations during the trial. Justice is not a one sided notion favoring the victim, but it looks at the accused person from a reformative angle. The punishments accorded to the criminal defendant are meant to reform the person and not a retributive measure. As such, in the pursuit of justice, law takes in to consideration, the rights of the accused.
Mr. Smith is a renowned Florida criminal defense attorney . The knowledge, experience, and killer instincts J. Layne Smith has honed over years of civil and administrative trials in insurance related cases makes him force when defending white collar crimes. Simply put, prosecutors do not have the background and depth of understanding Mr. Smith has, and he uses that advantage to the fullest extent, for your benefit.
Overview
Every saint has a past and every sinner a future. Criminal law takes cognizance of this universal truth and every accused is provided with ample rights while deciding whether he/she has committed any offence. Prosecution guidelines provide for certain procedural niceties to be extended to a person accused of crime. After all, the law intends to punish the crime, not the criminal. Adversarial system views crime as a wrongdoing against the state and not against a particular person. The interests of the state are represented by the prosecuting attorney. As such, law views the offender sympathetically and treats him/her as innocent until proved guilty and passes the burden of proving the case to the prosecution. The defendant has a right to be presumed innocent unless and until the State has proven each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, for instance, if a culpable mental state is required to prove a crime, the prosecution must prove that it existed at the time of commission of the offence.
Constitutional Rights
The United States Constitution guarantees a wide array of rights to the criminal defendant from the time of arrest through the trial proceedings. These include: the right to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure, to remain silent, to be tried before a judge or a jury, to summon witnesses and compel their attendance to testify on behalf of the defendant, and to confront and cross-examine any witness the State may call. The defendant in a criminal case has a right to a speedy trial and to be represented by an attorney and is entitled to have an attorney appointed by the court, if the defendant is unable to afford one. The defendant also has a right to consult an attorney or family members before pleading guilty or not guilty before the court.
The criminal proceedings begin by the initiation of a complaint by the purportedly injured person, the complainant. The police investigate about the complaint. A formal charging document called a complaint or an indictment brought by a grand jury is filed with a court in the proper jurisdiction.
The Right to Speedy Trial
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a speedy and public trial, in both state and federal courts, which means that the proceedings are to be completed within a reasonable time after the person being arrested. The defendant has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Sixth Amendment also guarantees a criminal defendant the right to be tried before an “impartial jury,” which will consider the evidence against the defendant and decide whether to find him/her guilty. In almost all states, the concurrence of twelve jurors is necessary in order to find a defendant “guilty or not guilty.”
Right to be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the defendant the right to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure. The quintessence of the Amendment is that “every man’s house is his castle” and the rights to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause.”
Privilege against Self-incrimination
The defendant is entitled to a right under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to remain silent during the trial. In other words, the accused person can refuse to answer any questions or make any statements, if such answers or statements establish that the person committed a crime or is in any way connected to some criminal activity. As already mentioned above, the burden of proof of a crime is on the prosecution. However, no one including the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s lawyer can force the defendant to be a witness against himself/ herself if the person declines to do so. Furthermore, when a defendant exercises his or her right not to testify, the jury is not permitted to take such denial into consideration when deciding the question of liability. Thus, this is a prominent privilege to the criminal defendant. Nevertheless, the defendant cannot selectively answer questions that go against him/her. Once a defendant decides to testify at trial, he/she cannot ordinarily choose to answer some questions but not others. It is to be noted that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply when a defendant is fingerprinted, or made to provide a DNA sample in connection with a criminal accusation. Like a criminal defendant, witnesses are also entitled to refuse to answer certain questions by asserting their Fifth Amendment rights. However, this right is not extensive as that of the criminal defendants.
Conclusion
A criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent and accorded all humane considerations during the trial. Justice is not a one sided notion favoring the victim, but it looks at the accused person from a reformative angle. The punishments accorded to the criminal defendant are meant to reform the person and not a retributive measure. As such, in the pursuit of justice, law takes in to consideration, the rights of the accused.
By: Layne Smith
Posts Tagged ‘Constitutional Rights’
Criminal Law : Your Constitutional Rights
December 15th, 2009Jailed Father on Hunger Strike to Protest Denial of His Parental and Other Constitutional Rights
December 15th, 2009ir Sanjari, was divorce after a 17 year marriage. He’s a UK Citizen who was originally invited to the United States to Stony Brook University, New York for a research position.
Now he’s destitute and on a hungar strike in jail to protest the unconstitutional denial of father’ rights and more.
Initially, Sanjari and his ex-wife shared equal custody of their children and had similar incomes. Nevertheless he was ordered to pay $1,000 a month in child support. Such a payment is the first sign that something is seriously amiss.
But when he lost his job and applied for a reduction in ‘child support’, it was denied. This denial is also not unusual – wrong, but not unusual. His ability in the recession to get a job to cover the outrageous child support payment faded. It brought on hardships for him. Eventually his ex-wife won sole custody of the children, he says, by lying about him while he was out of the country on vacation.
Sanjari, a competent man, was not idle though. He learned the law to fight for his children and his rights to see them and care for them on his own. He fought in the Indiana family court, its district court, and eventually in federal courts. He had to go on the run to stay out of jail for not paying what he couldn’t pay – a common circumstance for fathers under such ‘child extortion’ orders. He spent time helping other parents with their family court cases while he was on the run.
Unfortunately, though well-versed in constitutional and federal legal processes, it became apparent that he’d get no due process to protect rights clearly denied to him. For the child support he couldn’t pay, he’s been sent to jail.
Amir is now on a hunger strike to try to expose his plight and that of other fathers under this tyrannical anti-father system that separates fathers from their children and turn them into criminals.
Sanjari hasn’t had any solid food since March 26, the day he was arrested. Once trim at 150 lbs, he’s now down to 115. He drinks some nutritional supplements with potassium and sodium to keep his brain functioning normally.
I stress that the constitutional denials Sanjari has had to face that set him up for his tribulations are not unusual for fit fathers under family court actions. Yet Amir’s personal sacrifice to garner some public notice is honorable.
The denials he faces are unjustified. He knows it, and many other decent fathers know it. And his efforts will in large part be suppressed by both the courts and all those who profit by the present day denial of fathers rights.
Fathers Rights means basic constitutional rights for a fit father to maintain physical and legal custody of his children to the same extent of a ‘fit’ mother – and then, of course, all other fundamental rights due a free person.
The denial of a fit father’s rights begin in a state’s county family court where his children are essentially kidnapped from him without the required constitutional due process to prove unfitness nor assigning him equal physical and legal custody of his children. The family court simply usurps all his rights by declaring that it will assign custody to one parent and make the other parent pay whatever it assigns as ‘child support’.
And why? Because the court claims it can deny fundamental rights based on it ‘alleged’ right to determine what’s in the ‘best interests of children’ who have fit parents. It’s an absurd claim when both parents are fit and willing to parent fully or at least equally to the other. It’s absurd because it’s unconstitutional.
But since, collectively, a multibillion dollar industry has grown up around the denial of a father’s rights because of the enormous benefits that can then accrue to them. Benefits include child support, collection fees, lawyers’ fees, GAL fees, course fees, extracted directly from fathers.
And then there are additional benefits from enormous government money transfer to family courts systems, state revenue agencies, domestic violence agencies and organizations, and federal revenue collections too.
Who supports this extortion industry?
Just follow the money. And with all that money comes plenty of propaganda to justify what happens based on extraneous reasons and vilifying men or fathers – but always steering clear of the clear constitutional rights violations that this system depends upon.
Unfortunately even the federal courts are afraid to over-rule the unconstitutional family court procedures and orders as is their duty when states’ procedures violate the U.S. Constitution. There’s just too much money and political push to make waves against the ‘divorce and domestic violence industry’.
That’s what Amir Sanjari found out – as other have too. What will you do when it’s your turn to go to court?
By: Shane Flait
The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates – Was it Constitutional?
January 11th, 2010Bill of Rights Lessons from the Nation’s “Teachable Moment”
Public commentary on the Henry Louis Gates incident has revealed widespread popular confusion about the extent of our constitutional rights. If ever there were a perfect moment for Americans and their police to learn more about their Bill of Rights, this is it.
Let’s start with the amazing Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a landmark in the history of personal freedoms. It was inspired in part by lingering American revulsion over the British Customs Act, which had allowed British forces to barge into American homes. The American response was a little disorderly conduct now known as the Boston Tea Party.
The Fourth Amendment is bold in its clarity: “The right of the people to be secure in their …houses…shall not be violated.” Absent “exigent circumstances,” an American’s home is a legal sanctuary beyond the reach of any police officer not armed with a warrant. » Read more: The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates – Was it Constitutional?
No comments »
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags: American Response Boston Tea Party British Customs Constitutional Rights Disorderly Conduct Exigent Circumstances Fourth Amendment Rights Henry Louis Gates John Paul Stevens Justice John Paul Justice John Paul Stevens Murder Weapon Perfect Moment Personal Freedoms Private Residence Public Commentary Revulsion Teachable Moment U S Constitution Violent Felon