Defendant Entitled to Dispute the Courts Characterization

¶ … defendant entitled to dispute the courts characterization of him or her being a danger to society?

A defendant is certainly entitled to dispute the courts characterization of him or her as being dangerous to society. This is so because everyone has the right to a fair trial. This is one of the essentials of the American Constitution.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), in fact, insists that all are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that extensive care should be taken to ensure that the court has arrived at the correct decision. In that case, it only makes sense that the defendant -- who is, after all the focus of the case - should dispute the court's characterization of her if she thinks it necessary to do so.

Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11 all tell her to do so, but the key injunction lies in Article 10 which states that:

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." (United Nations. "Universal declaration of Human Rights." )

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is another canon that insists on the right of a convicted person to have the court reviews his or her conviction. The defendant can certainly plead his case:

All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (Doebbler, 2006).

Many other conventions reiterate this claim. In all cases, therefore, the defendant is certainly entitled to dispute the courts characterization of him or her as being dangerous to society.

2. Active narcotics addicts may be untrustworthy and high-risk cases if released before trail on bond. Is this really fair to defendants? Why or why not, explain your answer.

Active narcotics should not be released before trial on bond. This is so not only due to the fact that they may be further harming themselves, but they may also be harming others. Until definite conclusions are reached regarding their intervention and treatment, addicts may be in a far safer place protected by the government than they may be were they to be arbitrarily released.

Contemporary scientific knowledge shows that use of narcotics often produces a psychological and physiological reaction known as an acute brain syndrome, which is a "basic mental condition characteristic of diffuse impairment of brain tissue function." The characteristic symptoms of the syndrome are impairment of orientation; impairment of memory; impairment of all intellectual functions including comprehension, calculation, knowledge and learning; impairment of judgment; and liability and shallowness of affect (Hansford vs. USA; No. 19436., 1996)

Whilst the narcotic addict is on trial, he may be on withdrawal form narcotics. Were he to be released before trial, however, he may well resume his addiction potentially harming not only himself but also members of society through impairment of some of his faculties such as judgment and orientation. Drunk drivers, for instance, are responsible for huge statistics of deaths. Much of this can be prevented by untrustworthy and high-risk cases being retained on bond.

Even were the addict to promise withdrawal whilst on release, withdrawal symptoms have their own dangers which include "physical reactions such as perspiration, waves of gooseflesh, muscle twitch, body aches, hot and cold flashes, restlessness, sleeplessness, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The subject may try to withdraw within himself, or may exhibit highly individualized patterns of anxious and irrational behavior, such as becoming quite antagonistic, threatening suicide, assuming bizarre postures, or exaggerating his distress in dramatic ways, often as a purposive attempt to obtain drugs (Hansford vs. USA; No. 19436., 1996)