The Importance Of Due Process In The Court System

The Supreme Court stated, in Mathews v. Eldridge, that the right to be heard in a meaningful way “before being condemned to suffer a grievous loss” is a basic principle of our society. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319; 333 (1976) (citing Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 (1951)). However, they proceeded to counter this by saying that due process was flexible and its procedures should be tailored to the particular situation. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319; 333 (1976).

Brynne DeRosier Washington v. Glucksberg The Supreme Court case between the state of Washington and Dr. Harold Glucksberg, considering the decision to prohibit physician-assisted suicide, took place in 1997. Dr. Harold Glucksberg and four other physicians decided to challenge the state of Washington 's ban on physician-assisted suicide. The state of Washington had labeled it a crime to promote suicide attempts by those who "knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide." Glucksberg claimed that Washington 's ban was unconstitutional.

Petitioner, Triniti T. (“Student” or “Petitioner”) filed her initial request for due process hearing (“Beaumont I”) on February 24, 2014. In the request, Petitioner alleged that the District denied Student a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”). A hearing was held on June 24-26, 2014 and a Decision following due process hearing (“Decision”) was issues on August 28, 2014. The Decision found that Petitioner had met her burden in proving that the District failed to provide Student with a FAPE in specific areas and the Petitioner was entitled various relief including, but not limited to specific prospective placement, services, assessments, training, devices/equipment for the remainder of the 2014-2015 school year; program development for the 2015-2016 school year, and reimbursement

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects any person within their jurisdiction of their due process and equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment requires the states to apply their laws equally to any person within their jurisdiction. The equal protection clause aims to provide equal application of the law. It is also crucial to the protection of civil rights. There should be no discrimination in its application.

Due Process errs more on the vague side, so the Supreme Court has been able to decipher exactly what elements are needed to establish due process, or the lack thereof. For instance, the lack of the search warrant and the forced removal of the defendant’s stomach proved to completely obstruct justice due to the ignorance of the Due Process Clause. The evidence was obtained illegally, and the officers had held the defendant, handcuffed, in the hospital, and the forced extraction of the stomach contents was seen as torture in the eyes of the California Appeals Court and the Supreme Court. In addition, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the use of coerced confessions. There is no distinction between a coerced verbal confession and a coerced physical confession.

Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).

The same principle was included in 1776 into the Virginia Declaration of Rights and then incorporated by the Framers into the Bill of Rights (Legal Information Institute, n. d.). Nowadays, the Right to a Speedy Trial is among the basic rights ensured by the Constitution, since embodies one of the fundamental liberties granted to the American citizens. The term “speedy”, although quite relative, indicates that the defendant should be brought to trial within a reasonable time after being arrested. Otherwise, the charges should be dismissed.

The Constitution states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” ( US Constitution) As you can see, the Bill of Rights 6th Amendment allows the accused to understand the charges against them: the accused is told what he/ she is being accused of, who is accusing them, and is allowed to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Moreover, it allows for the movement of rightful convictions.

The US Constitution is a document based on the US Federal government’s law and it presents legal checks and balance for the branches of government. The reasoning behind this system was to give an in depth set of values and guidelines for the American people. It is separated into three parts: The Articles, the Bill of Rights, and the changes and additions. The initial three articles are written to establish the responsibilities, powers, and balance each branch the federal government has.

To put it in another way, an individual accused of a crime having the rights to have their guilt or innocence determined by a jury. Self-Incrimination The Fifth Amendment states that no person “shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The accused must have a legitimate concern that their testimony will contribute to their crime. Individual accused of crimes or are witnesses in legal proceedings can invoke this right by pleading the fifth or claiming their Fifth Amendment rights, see Miranda v. Arizona.

The dual court system of the United States gives state and federal courts different roles and responsibilities. A difference between the two is that state courts seem to exhibit less independence than federal courts. Tarr (2019) highlights that since state courts do not have “Article III guarantees of judicial independence[,]… judges on legislative courts cannot be assigned the same duties and jurisdiction as judges on constitutional courts.” By the nature of the dual court system, state courts are not responsible for determining matters of constitutionality. Rather, their duty is to deal with sentencing for conflicts among citizens, not violation of amendments nationally.

Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.

The 14th Amendment was one of the most significant changes to the Constitution. The amendment contains the equal protection of the laws clause. It was added to the Constitution after the Civil War. The rules that the amendment states have been the result of several Supreme Court cases. The amendment has deeply influenced American History and the perception of equality.

The due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary of life, liberty or property by the government outside the sanction of law. One of the pros of the Due process is that accused gets to enjoy all Constitutional protections of law and the entire process is fair and well balanced. However the con is that it takes the time, hardship on the victims and their families in having to be at every hearing.