The Accused
Introduction
Courts are constantly confronted wit the challenge of convicting the guilty while protecting the rights of the accused. In this text, I will look at some of the key rights that have to be honored and how the court system strikes the balance.
The key rights
The rights of the accused apply to individual’s accused of committing a crime. Here, the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is the maxim that applies and it is anchored in due process. It is good to note that at times, the accused rights conflict with the rights of the victim. Below, I discuss some of the key rights of the accused.
One, the accused has the right to due process. Here, the government is expected to respect the law and all the rights contained therein with regard to the accused. According to Bastiat (2006), due process may also be taken to mean the provision for judges rather than legislators to interpret an individual’s fundamental rights. In this sense legal proceedings and laws are limited so as top let judges define justice and fairness.
Two, the accused is given protection against illegal searches as well as seizures. In a situation where a crime has been committed, authorities through their forces are allowed to gain access to a person’s property and if any form of evidence is found with regard to the crime, it should be confiscated. In most jurisdictions, the right to privacy means that no member of the public can be subjected to any form of unreasonable search and seizure. The authorities may hence in most cases have to obtain search warrants with regard to any search as well as seizure.
Third, the accused has the right to protection with regard to double jeopardy. Holmes (2010) defines this as a procedural defense that seeks to protect the defendant from two different trials for a single crime whilst relying on a similar set of facts. For example, if an individual is suspected of robbing another individual, he cannot be convicted of robbery twice for the single robbery incidence. Similarly, a person suspected to have killed another individual cannot be accused of murder as well as manslaughter. However, if the individual in this case robbed and killed the victim at the same time, he can be convicted of both robbery as well as murder.
Fourth, the accused is given the right to a jury trial. Here, the jury is expected to come up with a decision or come up with fact findings which can then be utilized by the judge. This is in contrast to a bench trial, a situation where all decisions are made by the judge. The accused in this case has a right to be either tried by jury or the judge(s). This right however exists in a situation where common law systems are in place.
Next, the accused has the right to confront his or her accuser. This right facilitates cross examination. This right has been held through time. In the case of Crawford, it was held that the court may not accept testimonial evidence in a situation where the witness is absent. However, such a testimony can be admitted in a situation whereby the cross examination had taken place earlier.
Next, the accused has the right to counsel. In this case, the defendant is allowed to be given assistance by counsel. In a situation where the defendant does not have sufficient resources to enable him hire a lawyer, the state is supposed to appoint a lawyer for the defendant and settle all the legal bills accruing thereof. It is important to note that this right varies with regard to the various jurisdictions.
Lastly, the accused has the right to protection with regard to self incrimination. This includes a situation where the defendant accuses him or herself of a crime which can end up being used against him or her in a criminal proceeding. Holmes (2010) notes that this can be a direct or indirect self-incrimination. Direct self incrimination comes about as a result of interrogation whereby self incriminatory information is uncovered. An indirect self incrimination is as a result of pressure from another party.
Maintaining the balance
To maintain the balance when it comes to convicting the guilty while protecting the rights of the accused, the courts use the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. In a criminal case, this presumption seeks to ensure that the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant indeed committed the crime. This presumption also seeks to uphold the assumption that most people are not criminals and hence it seeks to reinforce the rights of the accused.
Similarly once it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime, then this concept seeks to enhance the conviction of those found to be guilty. It hence facilitates conviction of the guilty and hence acts as a balance between the protection of the accused rights while convicting the guilty.
Conclusion
It is important to note that with regard to proving beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime indeed happened, the jury or the judge is not supposed to deduce any inference whatsoever based on the fact that the defendant is in court. The case must be dealt with in regard to the evidence presented only.
References
Bastiat, F. (2006). The Law. Filiquarian Publishing, LLC
Holmes, O.W. (2010). The common law. American Bar Association
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
