An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
Blocks Attorney client privilege excludes reliable evidence. Had attorney client privileges not been in place the client would never have told the outright truth to his attorney anyway because they would know that whatever they tell their lawyer could be used to incriminate them in the court of law. It is better that the defendant is allowed to communicate with his attorney in private as to be properly represented and thus make the trial just and fair. Truth seeking is vital to prevent convicting the innocent In the case where the defendant is in fact, innocent the trials in both resolutions would have the same result, and thus reach the same conclusion. The only difference is when the defendant is guilty, meaning that this point
Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense. Last, the prosecutions must be given by the same government entity. The federal and state government are separate sovereign entities, each entity have the power to prosecute for violations of their laws. This leads into the first question, “..why under certain circumstances a state trial and a federal trial may be held for the murder of the same person without violating the double jeopardy clause..” This answer is found within the dual sovereign doctrine. It states that the Constitution forbids being placed twice for the same crime, you cannot be placed in double jeopardy by the same sovereign, by the same government.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
Conversely, Philip L. Bryden argues against Martin, concluding that the charter is indeed democratic and Canadian. This essay agrees with Bryden’s argument that the Charter is not un-Canadian or antidemocratic, citing problems with Martin’s argument and making reasons as to why the Charter is such a fundamental part of Canadian Constitution. Robert Martin bases one part of his argument on the idea that the Charter is antidemocratic. He clarifies himself in his introduction, not faulting the Charter in and of its own for being antidemocratic, but instead claiming that the application of the Charter by humans is what is antidemocratic. Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises.
People have said the system can be too harsh and there are those who have said the system can be too lenient, and that could be the reason why there are so many mixed feelings over the due process and crime control models. In the due process model the main point is to protect all individuals and allow them their constitutional rights and freedoms they are given in the United States, no matter if you’re in this country legally or not. “For the Due Process Model, the “aim of the process is at least as much to protect the factually innocent as it is to convict the factually guilty.”’(Herbert Packer, Criminal Procedure, Ch. 1) The due process model protects people’s rights so it can making officers of the law build a case against the person accused by collecting evidence through warrants, and the person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In due process a criminal case cannot be built against someone unless the proper steps have been met to the courts standards.
The Executive Branch is given the power to carry out the laws and one of its primary powers is the ability of the president to veto such proposed laws. The presidential veto is a vital component of the system of checks and balances established by the American Constitution. By giving the President a veto power, he is given the means with which to defend himself and his office from being reduced to a pawn of the legislature, and through the ordinary course of human nature, i.e. wanting to preserve his own independence and importance, he can fairly safely be relied on to exercise this power. The Judicial Branch is given
The courts must not only place the constitution higher than the laws passed by congress, they must also place the intentions of the people ahead of the intentions of their representatives. This is not a matter of which branch is superior; it is simply to acknowledge that the people are superior to both. It is futile to argue that the court’s decisions, in some instances, might interfere with the will of the legislature. People argue that it is the function of congress, not the courts, to pass laws and formulate policy. This is true, but to interpret the laws and judge their constitution are the two special functions of the court.
But in contrast there are very different at the same time. The crime control model is used in the criminal justice system for the prevention of crime. The crime control does not exclude that is possible to make a mistake, but based on the circumstances of the laws, the person is considered guilty until her or she is proven innocent. This model is based on old fashion laws which allow rapid and speedy convictions despite the mitigating factors of the case and the victim. The results, of the crime control model are wrongful convictions, being over-turned and this is a major downfall in the criminal justice system.
Due process promises people the right to a speedy trial. The equal opportunity clause promises that the law will not discriminate against any person because of his or her differences. This amendment protects people against state and federal laws. Due Process and Crime Control Models Due Process The Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, requires due process, which is a requirement that the justice system officials respect the rights of those who have been accused of a crime. The three requirements for police officers are: 1) search and seizure, 2) arrests, and 3) interrogation (Criminal Justice Today, p. 127-128).