Courts and the limits of defendant rights protection

Defendants' Rights

The Importance of the Rights of Defendants

When the United States' Patriot Act was passed following the attacks of September 11, 2001, focus was once again brought to the perilous balance of order and civil liberties. While order is necessary for society to flourish, democracies are also characterized by a value of civil liberties and justice. While some states have order because of an authoritarian police force that possess the power to arrest, judge, and sentence all in a matter of minutes, the United States has order based on a tenant of equality, in addition to justice. Thus, while the police certainly have the right and responsibility to enforce order, they cannot act brazenly of their own volition. Instead, they must follow rules and regulations to insure that their tasks are carried out fairly, and that innocent people are not subjected to nuisances, discrimination, or arrest. The American Civil Liberties Union, and other organizations, suggest that the United States Patriot Act thwarts this careful balance by giving more powers to the police force while ignoring civil liberties. Among other actions, it holds that the United States Patriot Act makes it easier for the government to wiretap United States' Citizens, allowing the government to access individuals' credit reports without permission, allowing secret arrests without warrants, and searching citizens on the behalf of other governments (Edger 2003).

Of course, the implementation of the Patriot Act is not the only event to bring up such issues. Instead, discussions regarding the precarious balance of civil liberties and order, including police liberties, are widely help. For instance, the Inquirer recently reported that a police officer stole property from someone he pulled over. The victim stated that the police officer most likely did this because of the victim's appearance, and because he is poor (Farrell 2008). On the other hand, many suggest that guilty persons often "get off" because of constitutional rules or state and local rules and regulations. The popular television shows CSI and NCIS reinforce this suggestion, as some of the episodes often portray obviously guilty criminals with the shot of freedom because of mishandled evidence. Of course, this sort of activity does not just happen on TV. In fact, in 2006, a man with 10 pounds of marijuana in his trunk faced dropped charges because the police search that found the marijuana was illegal (Cima 2006). Thus, the debate suggests that while some rules and regulations regarding police officers' duties while maintaining order may be harmful to the innocent, other rules and regulations may tie officers' hands to maintain order. Although both sides of the debate have well founded arguments, an examination of the rules and requirements imposed on police officers will reveal that they are necessary and unobtrusive in that they guarantee civil liberties and can be managed through proper police action.

Because they are guarantors of civil rights, the courts actions to protect the defendant have not gone to far. The United States Constitution suggests that its purpose reflects several goals, in them -- "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility...promote general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" ("United States Constitution," Preamble). Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence notes that each American is "created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." (Jefferson 1776). Based on these two documents in which the founding fathers recorded the intent of the United States, liberty, justice, and the ability to pursue happiness are not only the rights of every equal person, but also are the building blocks to a more perfect union and general welfare. Thus, citizens of the United States must have a right to protect their liberty, liberty, which, in other countries, is often taken by the police.

A persecuted people, the founding fathers drafted this constitution so that the people would know their rights in regards to the police force, and would understand that defendants' rights are important guarantors of civil liberties.

As the Constitution of the United States was amended, it continued to uphold this view. For instance, the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments, included in the Bill of Rights, all deal directly with a defendant's rights. Furthermore, these amendments directly deal with important civil liberties -- the right to reasonable search and seizure ("United States Constitution," Amendment 4), the right to due process ("United States Constitution," Amendment 5), the right to confront one's witnesses ("United States Constitution," Amendment 6, and the right to avoid "cruel and unusual" punishment ("United States Constitution Amendment 8"). No matter how dire these amendments make the task of policing the people, they are necessary in a state that does not desire to be a police state. In other words, they are the guarantors of civil liberties that the United States was formed to continue.

In addition to these fundamental rights, defendant's rights have been continued through Supreme Court precedent. Monumental cases in this area include Gideon vs. Wainwright, which established an arrested individual's right to a lawyer ("Gideon V. Wainwright" 2008) and Miranda vs. Arizona, in which the court ruled that those arrested had a right to be informed of their rights ("Miranda v. Arizona" 2007). In addition to the constitutional amendments, these Supreme Court cases further the necessary rights for defendants. If defendants are not given a lawyer nor informed of their rights they cannot be expected to defend themselves, and could be subjected to false imprisonment based on judge and courtroom bias or a host of other factors. Thus, the rights given to defendants do not tie the hands of police officers and officers of the court. Rather, they help these agencies maintain order by providing a climate of civil rights and liberties. In this climate, most are satisfied, and crime is less likely to occur. Furthermore, defendants' rights lower incidents of police crime by protecting both groups, and, in general, protecting society.

While defendants' rights protect society in this way, however, many police officers may find them a hindrance to their jobs. Some may even become frustrated, thinking these rights are preventing guilty defendants from paying for their crimes. The police officers who arrested the man with a trunk full of marijuana must have had similar thoughts. This man committed a crime, and now he is not paying the price. In this case and most others, however, police officers can avoid allowing guilty persons to go free by managing the rights through proper police action. For instance, the officers who confronted the man with the trunk full of marijuana could have taken the time to obtain a warrant and perform a legal search instead of performing an illegal one. While taking the time to maneuver around defendant's rights can be rather lengthy, it insures that both the police officers and the defendants are fairly treated.