It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.
If evidence is withheld, it violates the defendant’s rights and justice will not be achieved. Prosecutors have to follow the Brady Rule, which was established in 1963 after the Brady v. Maryland ruling (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). This rule requires prosecutors to expose any material they have, and any material the government may have, to the defense team. The material exposed is known as “Brady material” (Legal Information Institute, n.d.).This evidence may be favorable to the defendant’s case and may help prove the innocence of the accused and may also shorten any prison sentence he or she may receive. If, at any time, the evidence is not given to the defense, any evidence that has been exposed to that point will be determined unvalid (Legal Information Institutue, n.d.).
The accused are innocent until proven guilty and cannot be found guilty unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit the crime or crimes that he or she is being accused of. The accused have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney and if they cannot afford it one will be provided for them, they have the right to a trial by jury and the right to confront witnesses against them, and the right to bail bond unless they are charged with murder or the court determines them a flight risk. The accused also have the right against self-incrimination meaning that a person cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. Rule seven of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the accused must have a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the facts constituting the offense they are being charged with. The accused have the right to counsel which means that under the sixth amendment the accused has the right to representation by an attorney.
Drug companies that test trial medications in foreign nations are not acting ethically. Testing of experimental medications should be done in the host nation where the medications are being fabricated. A major moral difficulty that is being looked at with this is that the foreign countries that these clinical trials are occurring in are not completely taught on the dangers or completely comprehend what they are getting themselves into. For all the reasons mentioned above, I believe the drug companies are not acting ethically and go against the principles of act utilitarianism. Is American industry at too much risk of lawsuits to remain competitive?
The authors attempt to educate the reader on victims pertaining to diasporas and refugee seekers, although does not give to much background information on the topic and the problems these individuals face. This review seeks to summarize and critique the quality of the author’s article. The main issue these immigrants face is many forms of discrimination. Due to these individuals being from outside the citizen’s respective community and having different characteristics, they are often alienated from the rest of society. Alienation is an emotional factor that could have extreme negative effects, on top of alienation the government does not protect them with the same human rights given to citizens of the nation.
First of all, if the NSA were to pursue major invasions of privacy to American’s, they would be obstructing rights set forth by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits non-reasonable search and seizure. If there is no probable cause for the government to search for evidence on an individual, then their legal rights should not be violated. I personally have nothing to hide, but being spied on would make me questions the true ethics of this country. On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own.
The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from prosecuting individuals more than one time for a single offense and from imposing more than one punishment for a single act. The Constitution states “No person shall…be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb.” Most state constitutions guarantee this right to defendants appearing in state court. States that do not specifically assure the right of double jeopardy in their laws, must still ensure the right to criminal defendants. States must uphold this right due to the guarantee in the Fifth Amendment by means of the doctrine of incorporation. Benton v. Maryland, 39 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969), supports the the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause is relevant to both state and federal proceedings.
It is difficult for someone to defend themselves if they cannot confront the evidence against them. Without this Constitutional right, it is possible that the truth may not be found out if the defendant is not allowed to confront the evidence and witnesses against them. Without allowing the defendant to be present at their own trial a door could be opened to the violation of other Constitutional rights; this could be for both the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as well as ordinary citizens. If any person, anywhere, for any reason is denied any of their Constitutional rights, the entire Constitution would be
An attorney can reveal information only regarding the crime the defendant is being accused of not any other information about other crimes that they have not been accused of. The attorney is actually obligated to NOT reveal other information that does not pertain to the crime of accusation. If the attorney believes reasonably that their client is intending to commit a crime they are legally obligated to reveal that
The victims aren’t a recognizable party in the sense of a court proceeding. We know of the main players, the defense attorney, the prosecutor, the judge, etc., but we don’t have the victims in that list. The law states now that the victims should be welcomed into the court and have a voice. Vengeance crimes are a touchy subject. I really don’t think that there is a circumstance that I could