The Evolution in the Rights of the Accused

Evolution over the Years
To a majority of individuals, arrest and detention within a law enforcement facility may be counted among the worst of life’s experiences; being coerced into confessing, at times under torture, is much more terrifying. However, citizens’ rights in the US ensure sound constitutional rules limit criminal law enforcement. Amazingly, a large number of these safeguards provided to citizens have only been put in place during the last few decades. The rest are entrenched in the nation’s colonial history.
From the start of the 60’s era, the US Supreme Court commenced efforts in the area of extensive expansion of defendant rights, way beyond the Constitutional Bill of Rights (BOR) developers’ grasp. For instance, though several portions of the BOR deal with law enforcement behavior, regulations pertaining to improper detention, warrants and searches (that English common law was unfamiliar with) were implemented during this period. The protection against self-implication was expanded, in addition to due process’s meaning. These are some of the many US Supreme Court measures aimed at creating safeguards for defendants, against prosecutorial and law enforcement excesses (Rights of the Accused, 1999).
The year 1961 witnessed the US Supreme Court slamming improper law enforcement policies in the Mapp. v. Ohio case. This ruling’s desired impact was ensuring evidence collected through unlawful searches and confessions acquired by breaching court rules becomes inadmissible at court. Five years later, in the Miranda v. Arizona case, the court further asserted that even improperly-garnered evidence that proves valuable in establishing that the suspect did, indeed, perpetrate the offense, is inadmissible at court. The tenure of Earl Warren, the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice at the time, marked the golden age of defendant rights expansion. Core defendant rights have now been incorporated into the US constitution, including these rights’ extension from federal to local and state courts (Rights of the Accused, 1999).
The following questions may help express the concern: What consequences do these rights have? Are they linked to any disadvantages? Is there any justification for the widespread criticism of Earl Warren’s rulings expanding defendant rights? Have crime rates dropped owing to these constitutional limitations? This paper will improve insights into the issue by addressing the abovementioned questions.
The Effects of the evolution of the rights:
Searches and Seizures
Amendment IV denies federal officials the power to carry out general property seizures and searches. The meaning of the phrase ‘unreasonable’ seizures and searches has remained a key concern over time. But these rules are somewhat complex and amended frequently (ushistory.org, 2018).
The Fifth Amendment
According to Amendment V, an individual may not be charged with a serious offense before conducting a grand jury trial. Furthermore, it prohibits double jeopardy or prosecuting an individual for the very same offense for the second time. Lastly, it accords suspects protection against self-incrimination (ushistory.org, 2018).
The 6th Amendment and Right to Counsel
Amendment VI assures suspects of the right of counsel for defense (Amar, 1995). But there was no rule for an individual unable to afford a personal lawyer until the Gideon v. Wainwright decision of 1963 that mandated state provision of this privilege (ushistory.org, 2018).
The 8th Amendment and Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment VIII forbids ‘unusual’ and ‘cruel’ punishments, which is entrenched within the English common law. It is against the law to impose excessive bails and fines, and inflict unusual brutal punishments (ushistory.org, 2018).
Plea Bargaining
Prosecutors might propose a plea bargain (i.e., a deal that lessens the suspect’s sentence or provides certain concessions in return for the suspect pleading guilty). This helps avoid court system overcrowding due to court trials being held for all cases filed (Cummings, 2018).
High Crime Rate
Taking into account the US’s high crime rate, a few experts recommend curtailing defendant rights. Numerous state and federal level efforts have been underway for implementing "victims' rights" rules, limiting convict appeals, and enforcing stricter criminal penalties. With regard to balancing order and freedom, such measures clearly focus on improving order. But the Constitution has unquestionably tipped the scales and favored defendants. The US crime justice system assumes that to err is human; but rather than making the mistake of punishing innocents, it is more prone to letting convicts run free (Mott, 2018).










References
Amar, A. R. (1995). Sixth Amendment First Principles. Geo. LJ, 84, 641.
Cummings L. (2018). Pros & Cons of the Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from https://legalbeagle.com/6587752-pros-cons-criminal-justice-system.html
Mott J. (2018). Rights of the Accused. Retrieved from http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/billofrights-accused.html
Rights of the Accused. (1999). In American Journey. Civil Rights in America. Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Media. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ2163000455/UHIC?u=oldt1017&xid=f297f5e2
ushistory.org (2018). Crime and Due Process. American Government Online Textbook. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10c.asp