Abstract In this article, the writer discusses dueprocess of the law, which is a term that has been used for many years. The writer notes that the general principle of this term is that everyone is entitled to a day in court when he or she has been accused or charged with a violation of the law. In addition, the dueprocess of law mandates the belief that each person's case should be fully explored and heard before any judgment is rendered with regard to that case. The writer explains that the dueprocess of law protects people from being deprived of their life, liberty or property as well as any rights that have been given to them by legislation or statute. The writer concludes that with illegal immigration being a hot topic throughout the nation it is important to understand how dueprocess and equal protection of the law impacts those immigrants.
Outline:
Equal Protection of the Law
Conclusion
From the Paper "This is interesting because for many years after the development of the constitution, African Americans were not treated equally. When they finally one the right to vote, their vote only counted as two thirds of a whole vote and they were allowed to be forced to sit at the back of the buses, and sent to Black only schools and other places that were designed specifically for that race. When it came to the law they were also discriminated against as they were treated differently in courts and jails and not afforded the same right to jury trials as their white counterparts were."
"Eventually this was challenged enough times that law makers made it clear all people meant all people, not just whites, or men or a certain economic group. It meant each and every person is to be afforded the same protection by the same laws."
Abstract Summarizes and analyzes the DueProcess Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Historical evolution of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Interpretations by the U.S. Supreme Court. How the dueprocess clause was used to expand American civil liberties. Substantive dueprocess and the protection of private property. Modern concepts. Table of Authorities.
From the Paper "HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
This research paper outlines, summarizes and analyzes the historical evolution of the Due Process Clause(s) of the U.S. Constitution. The interpretations given by the American Supreme Court to these clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have served significantly to adapt the Constitution to changing conditions. During the first 100 years of the Republic, the Due Process Clause was interpreted narrowly as a procedural safeguard and contributed little to the resolution of the principal jurisprudential problem, the adjustment of the relations between the national and state governments. During the period 1890 to 1937, substantive due process largely in the service of private property and commercial interests and later as a tool for delineating the contours of the welfare state helped define the ..."
Abstract In this article, the writer looks at dueprocess, which is one of the most important founding principles underlying the U.S. criminal justice system. The writer explains that dueprocess derives from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which applies to federal government action and has traditionally been applied identically to state actions by the identical provision contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. The writer discusses that dueprocess also requires grand jury indictment, and prohibits double jeopardy and compelled self-incrimination, and therefore, is one of the most influential concepts defining criminal procedure in the enforcement of penal laws in the U.S.
Outline:
Introduction
Striking a Balance between Two Important Principles
Conclusion
From the Paper "Law enforcement always requires the balancing of two competing social concerns: on one hand, is the government's interest in protecting its citizens and prosecuting criminal conduct; on the other hand, is the right of innocent citizens to be free from unrestricted searches and seizures and compelled confessions. Under British rule before the Revolution that established a sovereign United States, citizens were subject to unwarranted searches of their property and seizure of their persons for suspicion of criminal conduct without the need for justification on the part of government agents. This experience under British rule was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution and its subsequent amendments, including the Bill of Rights, precisely to provide the protection of citizens against unrestricted governmental police powers.
"Unrestricted police powers might, in principle, allow for the highest level of crime prevention and prosecution, but at a very steep cost, because virtually any police action would be permissible, including searches and apprehension, detention, and imprisonment without any justification, based solely on the suspicions, or even the whims, of government agents. Excessive protections of individual rights would prohibit the investigatory, arrest, and prosecutorial functions necessary to enforce the laws of society.
"The goal of modern constitutional criminal procedure is to define principles of law enforcement that protect citizens from government intrusions that are unreasonable in their effect on personal liberties, while simultaneously facilitating the reasonable enforcement of law and protection of society by prosecuting and punishing criminal conduct."
Abstract The paper explains that a strict crime control focus in penal regulation could virtually ensure the complete elimination of crime in society as well as certain punishment for all violators. The paper explains further that to balance this, the dueprocess perspective prohibits deprivation of the individual's property or liberty without established procedures or processes governing the proper exercise of police authority.
Outline:
Introduction
Balancing the Interests of Crime Control and DueProcess
From the Paper "In principle, crime control and due process are two opposite philosophical perspectives about crime prevention and punishment in society. However, in practical application, each point of view contributes valuable elements to any system of justice. Without fundamental aspects of crime control, effective policing and prosecution of penal violations would be all but impossible; but without due process protections, everyone in society - both criminals and non-criminals - would be subjected to intrusive state actions with little regard for personal privacy or even the sanctity of one's home.'
Abstract This paper shows how the rights to dueprocess is an inalienable human right. Various landmark cases are presented to reinforce the statement that "dueprocess" is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. Includes cases that date back to Barron vs. Baltimore of 1833 all the way to present day court cases.
From the Paper "Due process is a major fabric in the quilt of the United States Constitution. It is an important right, which without it the United States would be similar to other countries that lack the Constitutional protections that we offer. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a major fabric that is of utmost importance because it places limitations on the government from taking our life, liberty and property without a trial or investigation. Protection of liberty is what the 14th and the 5th amendment is trying to protect based on the natural law traditions. Natural law is the tradition that humans have inalienable rights that cannot be taken by the government or any other entity, public or private. The historical traditions that go back to the days of the Hamurrabi codes have shown that there must be some type of timely manner and notification before the government can take any of your inalienable rights."
Abstract The paper explains that the dueprocess law, as stated in the 14th and 5th Amendments, requires a thorough evidentiary hearing before a person can be deprived of benefits. The paper describes the dueprocess law as ensuring that when the government, whether federal or state, decides to terminates a person's entitlements, he/she will be given an opportunity to use his/her legal rights in the most suitable manner to defend his/her position. The paper examines evidentiary hearing and what the court's opinion has been on the deprivation of benefits. The paper also looks at the landmark Goldberg vs. Kelly case.
From the Paper "While the Fourteenth Amendment expressively mentions states, the Fifth Amendment deals with due process law in federal context. Now that we know that a person cannot be deprived of benefits without due process of law, it is also important to mention here that an essential component of due process is evidentiary hearing. This was decided by the Court in the landmark case Goldberg v Kelly (1970). This allowed evidentiary hearing to become an important part of the rights granted to a citizen under due process law. The two important questions that are answered in evidentiary hearing are concerned with jurisdiction and presence of probable cause. Jurisdiction question can be settled easily while probable cause requires further explanation."
Abstract This paper discusses the War on Terror and the number of issues that have been raised vis-a-vis how Americans should treat suspected terrorists. The paper provides an explanation of three different approaches to providing dueprocess to these terrorists and suggests that a compromise approach should be followed. The paper describes each approach and describes the suggested compromise.
From the Paper "As suggested above, a careful regard for the procedural rights of suspected terrorists - their "Due Process" rights - is vital inasmuch as it sends a message to critics both within and without America that the world's great superpower is committed to doing the "right thing" and not merely the expedient thing. Needless to say, projecting this image goes a long way towards solidifying international support for U.S. military operations abroad and it also goes a very long way towards ensuring that other nations will be more cooperative in "rooting out" terrorist elements within their own states - both developments which will necessarily bolster U.S. security. But more than that, America is in a position where it can protect the procedural rights of terrorist operatives without bequeathing to those individuals the sorts of privileges and prerogatives normally available to an American citizen accused of a criminal offense in the United States."
Abstract This paper discusses the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The author discusses the legal theory of selective incorporation-applying the Bill of Rights to the 14th Amendment's DueProcess Clause. The paper examines such landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases as "Palko v. Connecticut", "Mapp v. Ohio", and "Adamson v. California".
From the Paper "The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 of July 9, states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "Due Process" is mentioned in the 14th amendment as well as the 5th amendment. What exactly does "Due Process" means? Due Process means to be treated equally and fairly."
A report on the methods and findings of a study conducted on American Signatures Furniture to determine why the store was experiencing high costs due to damaged furniture returns.
2,925 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 8 sources, 2006, $ 115.95
Abstract This paper constitutes a study of process management as related through a case study for a furniture company attempting to cut damaged product returns and costs. Through extrapolating realistic scenarios and data, a case is built for how such a study would proceed and what the results might be. The "findings" show that route schedules and tracking processes are likely at fault for the returns due to damaged goods.
From the Paper "This report constitutes the report of methods and findings for a study of American Signatures Furniture Store #021, conducted between January and March, 2006. The report was commissioned by American Signatures management to determine why Store #021 was experiencing higher costs due to damaged furniture returns. The Problem Management asked the consultant to determine whether store personnel, off-load/on-load processes, shipping and storage, and/or clientele characteristics were responsible for the higher damage claim costs. Scope of Study The study focused exclusively on Store #021, although comparative analysis was allowed if necessary to clarify an issue."
Abstract This paper explains that the question arose in the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case "Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe", was how should the law, even in the case of sexual offenses to children, balance the issue of public safety and protection with the rights of the individual who committed the crime. The author describes Connecticut's "Megan's Law", which requires convicted sex offenses to register and have their names posted upon their release into the community, and the process of the legal challenge to this law. The paper concludes that the U.S. Supreme Court made a relatively technical ruling in the Connecticut case based upon the defendant's invocation of the DueProcess Clause; however, the question of the individual's right to privacy and the need of the state to provide public safety still remains.
From the Paper "The U.S. Supreme Court, in 2003 lead by Chief Justice Rehnquist, disagreed with the Second Circuit Court. It decided that the Connecticut Second Circuit's judgment should be reversed because the court required that the defendant have a hearing to be subject to the public list, which the Supreme Court did not feel to be necessary. The court unanimously decided that due process does not require a convicted defendant have an opportunity to prove a fact and an injury to an individual's reputation in a hearing."
Tags: list immunities, dueprocess clause, ex post facto, alaska
Abstract The paper shows that among the various arguments that are in support of Capital Punishment, the statement that it offers a permanent method of removing a violent criminal from society is one that can be clearly demonstrated. The paper disusses how in some situations, the criminal mind has been seen to be so devious that the criminal manages to either escape or to elude capture long enough to become a serial murderer, thus becoming a threat to society in general. The Bill of Rights, or Amendments to the United States Constitution establishes the penalty guidelines for serious crime, and permits the ultimate penalty under the DueProcess clause. The paper shows that when the criminal mind of a murderer becomes so aberrant that death becomes a way of life, society must use its ultimate, legal method of protecting itself from the person who has proven himself to be a walking threat. The paper focuses on the case of serial killer, Theodore Bundy.
From the Paper "Perhaps one of the most extreme and notorious examples of a criminal mind that committed horrendous crimes against the citizens of the United States was the elusive serial murderer, Theodore Bundy. Described by those who knew him as bright if not brilliant, self-confident and charming, Bundy was an example of how a clever but deranged individual can move easily within a society, carefully selecting their unsuspecting victims at will. Due to the degree of antisocial depravity that was the driving force behind Bundy, the savagery of his crimes against young women was particularly violent."
The history and evolution of the 5th and14th Amendment clauses on the dueprocess from the 19th century through to Roe v. Wade in 1973. Includes Supreme Court decisions, personal liberties, economic issues, and states' rights.
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 5 sources, 1994, $ 111.95
From the Paper "The Evolution of Substantive Due Process through Roe v. Wade
This paper will discuss the history of substantive due process from its beginnings in the late Nineteenth Century through Roe v. Wade. in the early 1970s. The first part of the paper will review the history of substantive due process prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court's initial rejection of substantive due process protection. The second part of the paper will examine how the Supreme Court then accepted it for the protection of economic rights. The third part of the paper will look at the Court's withdrawal from strong substantive due process protection during the late 1930s through the 1950s. The last part of the paper will discuss the reemergence of substantive due process in the realm of personal liberties and argue that the Court has gone too far in its..."
Abstract This paper looks at the primary role of the U.S. Supreme Court. It discusses the underlying premises of family, property and contract laws, plea bargaining and jury selection. This paper questions whether our dueprocess right will be substantially affected by the current campaign to fight terrorism. It looks at arraignment, whether plea bargaining is fair and finally it compares and contrasts French and German administrative courts.
From the Paper "However, before the agreement is reached the conformity and consent of the private offended party is obtained, there can be no agreement if he or she does not consent to it. With respect to de officio offenses, where there are no private offended parties or if the state itself is the offended party, the concurrence of the public prosecutor and the accused is sufficient. An example is the offense of illegal drug distribution where the accused may enter a plea of mere possession and use of the drugs found in his possession."
Abstract The criminal justice system here in the United States has traditionally operated under the premises of two fundamentally opposing goals. One goal is the crime control goal. This goal operates under the idea that criminals should be aggressively pursued and crimes aggressively punished. The other goal is the dueprocess goal. This goal operates under the premise that the rights of the accused need to be carefully protected in any criminal justice investigation. This paper examines both of these positions, determining which one is the better goal for the United States to pursue, and why.
From the Paper "Liberals have been the traditional defenders of the due process model (Perron). They are certainly operating under noble guidelines. The United States Constitution itself carefully lays out the rights of the accused in a series of amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers were obviously very concerned about protecting the rights of the accused, or these protections would not have been included in the Constitution. Should we as a nation follow any less stringent standards in dealing with our accused today? "
Tags: constitution, trial, jury, bill, of, rights, free, liberties, aggressive, criminal, police, profiling, raids, war, on, crime
This paper discusses the arguments in favor and against the death penalty, especially from the standpoint of the U.S. Constitution, including specific cases.
Abstract This paper explains that opposition to the death penalty has focused (1)on the issue of the constitutionality by citing the Eighth Amendment's prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment to prove their claims, (2) the death penalty is ineffective in reducing incidents of violent crime and (3) it is prohibitively expensive. The author points out that the death penalty proponents believe (1) the death penalty is constitutional because it is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights stating that the only constitutional prohibition against the death penalty is that it no person be deprived of life without dueprocess of law (U.S. Const. Amend. V) and (2) the death penalty accomplishes legitimate goals, such as punishment and retribution, which cannot be accomplished by alternative sentences. The paper relates that the one thing that both sides agree upon is the fact that "death is different" (Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 at 305 (1976)): There is no appeal from the death penalty.
From the Paper "Death penalty proponents argue that those deficiencies have been remedied by recent Supreme Court decisions. In "Atkins v. Virginia", 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional. However, opponents of the death penalty can point out the fact that many states have failed to comply with the Atkins decision. Even though there is evidence that many people currently on death row are mentally retarded, some states have failed to institute any way of determining whether or not inmates currently on death row are mentally retarded. The fact is that mild mental retardation may not be apparent to the casual observer, including trial judges."
