Due Process in the American

¶ … Due Process in the American Legal System

The United States is the country of laws. The country was established in opposition to what was perceived as the lawlessness of the British colonial rule in America. The framers of the Constitution of the United States -- as well as those who added important Amendments later -- worked hard to make sure that the rights of all citizens are protected. It was enshrined in the Constitution that no person, agency, or institution, including the government can violate inalienable rights of any citizens. Even criminal proceedings should follow due process of law. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment states that "No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Lewis 8). The Constitution, however, is subject to interpretation and many of its provisions have been historically applied in different manners. One judicial institution in the United States that deals with the interpretation of the Constitution in pertaining to the rights of persons is the Supreme Court. In the last century, the Supreme Court made important rulings regarding due process that protects suspected criminals from unfair trials. In several important rulings, the Court highlighted the importance of legal representation for persons accused of crimes and the importance of due process the police must follow in prosecuting and detaining crime suspects.

The Supreme Court normally deals with issues related to federal law. However, there are circumstances when a ruling made by a state court may be brought to the Supreme Court and overruled. For instance, if a person believes that he/she was tried in a court without "due process of law," then the person may bring the case to the Supreme Court (Lewis 15). This was the case of Clarence Earl Gideon who appealed to the Supreme Court in 1962 after the state court of Florida had denied his request to have an attorney appointed by the Court. Gideon asserted that it was his Constitutional right to have an attorney appointed by the Court. The Florida Court claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment did not grant Gideon the right to a counsel, citing 1942 Betts v. Brady Supreme Court ruling, which said that only defenders accused of serious crimes were entitled to a free counsel and that each case should be reviewed by the court in a case-by-case scenario.

The Supreme Court overruled Betts v. Brady in 1963 by declaring that Gideon had the right to a counsel in line with the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The Court granted Gideon the right to have a counsel because the court accepted and agreed with Gideon's suggestion that "a citizen of the state of Florida cannot get a just and fair trial without the aid of counsel," and that a counsel is required to avoid "such things as hearsay, perjury or Bill of attainer against him" (Lewis 40). There is no guarantee that a legal representation can ensure fair trial, but at least an attorney defending a person accused of a crime may try to do so and it is much fairer than the absence of a counsel. The Court ruling in Gideon v Cochran case was a landmark event in legal history of the United States as it reaffirmed the citizens' right to a fair representation in courts.

In addition to rulings related to due process in trials, the Supreme Court made several rulings highlighting the importance of due process in police detentions in the 20th century. In 1936, the Court ruled that confessions extracted through coercion would not be acceptable as evidences. Initially, the court condemned "police brutality" and later extended it to "psychological as well as physical coercion of prisoners" (Lewis 97). In 1961, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on illegal seizure of property was applicable to state laws, affirming that "No illegally seized evidence could be admitted at state criminal trials" (Lewis 98). These rulings were essential in codifying due process in reference to criminal proceedings.

Sometimes, war-related events pressure government officials to review or suspend some of the provisions of the Constitution in relation to persons' rights. The question of due process of detention became a controversial issue after September 11 attacks on the United States. The Administration of George W. Bush suspended the writ of habeas corps for terror suspects locked up in Guantanamo Bay, various prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and other secret CIA prisons. The lawyer Alberto Gonzales claimed that some of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on the rights of war prisoners were "quaint" and "obsolete." Due process in dealing with both non-American and American citizens was disrupted in the name of "national security." These decisions by the Bush Administration, however, were bitterly criticized by civil rights lawyers. For example, Ronald Dworkin says that when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared all prisoners at Guantanamo "killers," he violated the fundamental principle of justice which stipulates that any person is innocent until proven guilty in the due trial processes (Dworkin).