Question

The Bill of Rights affords all accused persons of due process and the right to property. Many cases throught US history have been thrown-out of court because due process was not followed or because evidence was not properly acquired. In many cases, guilty persons have gone free because the police screwed-up the investigation. Do you think its right for a guilty person to go free because of a technicality? Or is upholding the Constitutional right to due process more important?

Answer 1

SOLUTION :

A fundamental premise of our criminal law is that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. And the burden of proof is on the state to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the defendant to prove his or her innocence.The basic procedural or "due process" rights of an accused in a criminal trial are provided for in the Bill of Rights.The right to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury is provided for in the Sixth Amendment, which also guarantees the defendant's right to know the charges against him, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have defense witnesses summoned, and to have counsel. And the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail or fines and cruel and unusual punishment.More controversial has been the Court's attempt to modify the actions of law enforcement officers in their search, arrest, and interrogation of defendants by excluding illegally seized evidence from trial.The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms,says Jesse Choper, a UC Berkeley Law professor emeritus and the former Berkeley Law dean. But really, that’s the beginning point of the conversation. As is true with most of the Bill of Rights, the intent is not totally clear, and in fact, the language in the Second Amendment is particularly confusing.