Rights of the Accused the Due Process

Rights of the Accused

The Due Process Clause is considered as one of the most important legal principles and controversial provisions in the U.S. Constitution. While the emergence of due process can be traced from the English common law tradition, the long and twisting history of due process usually leaves scholars puzzled and students confused. The controversy surrounding due process is mainly attributed to the Supreme Court's use of the clause in the Fourth Amendment for many of the Bill of Rights provisions to states through the incorporation process. During the colonial years and period towards the adoption of the Constitution, the meaning of due process was basically stated on the basis of notification and fair hearing. As a result, the due process clauses in the state organic laws were understood to relate to process instead of matters of substance. Currently, despite of these controversies, due process is mainly used to protect the accused against abuses by the federal government.

Generally, due process can be described as an established procedure for judicial proceedings and other governmental activities that is geared towards protecting the legal rights of the individual. In this case, due process is regarded as an essential constitutional guarantee with which all legal proceedings will be fair and provide the accused with an opportunity to be heard before the federal government can take away the individual's freedom, property, or life. Therefore, due process is best described as fairness since its main aim is to provide the basis for fair treatment of citizens or individuals by the local, state, and federal governments ("Due Process," n.d.).

The origin of the due process is attributed to the English Common Law tradition when it was contained in Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta. In the English tradition, the objective of the due process of the law was based on individuals' right to be informed of any charges against them and their right to a fair hearing. As previously mentioned, the meaning of the due process during this period was spread on the basis of fair hearing and notification in which the due process clauses in the state natural law were associated with process rather than matters of substance (Carey, 2011). The rule that people should not be deprived of liberty, property, or life without being given notification and an opportunity to be heard was largely accepted in England and predates written constitutions. Traditionally, the use of due process was mainly divided into two categories of procedural due process and substantive due process. However, since the end of the 19th Century, the initial understanding of the due process clause including the meaning of freedom has changed significantly to an extent that today's conservatives are divided regarding its proper use.

In relation to the rights of the accused, the basic outlines of the due process are clearly stipulated in the Constitution while their specifics have been modified in courtrooms at the local, state, and federal levels. While there is no absolute agreement about the meaning of the due process of law, courts have in the past two centuries found that the phrase include both the procedural and substantive rights. Consequently, the due process of law is what the Constitution has established to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system as complemented by legislation and interpreted by the courts ("Chapter 8 -- Rights of the Accused," n.d.).