The Fourth Fifth and Sixth Amendments Constitutional Safeguards

The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Constitutional Safeguards

The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Constitutional Safeguards

Throughout the United States of America, there are many criminal activities that take place every second of the hour. It is therefore vital that the process of criminal justice be adhered to as stipulated by the United States Constitution. There are many amendments that have been put in place to protect the rights of the defendants. Some of the major once are contained in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments made to the United States constitution. These amendments apply to both adult and juvenile court proceedings and they are crucial determinants of the outcomes of all criminal cases. The agents of criminal justice system should observe these constitutional safeguards with a critical eye so as to avoid injustices. These agents include the law enforcement officers and the judges of various courts.

Criminal procedure is the process that ensures the administration of justice during the progression of criminal cases. The government is mandated by the constitution to follow this criminal procedure in the event of a criminal case. Accordingly, this process encompasses the initial stages of investigations, arrests, arraignment in court, negotiation for pleas, hearings preceding the main trial, motions that carry on after the trial, interviews before sentencing, appeals, probations and all parole proceedings (Maddex, 2002). Consequently, constitutional safeguards an important part of criminal procedures since they help in maintaining the administration of justice for both adults and juveniles.

Constitutional safeguards have been put in place to protect the guilty and innocent from any form of discrimination which might occur when subjected to substantive criminal laws (Russell, 2001). Other reasons why the safeguards have been put place is to deter the law enforcement agencies, the courts or any other justice system from treating any of these parties arbitrarily. The constitutional safeguards are found in three areas at the federal level. These include the Title 18 of the United States Code sections 3001 et seq.., the Federal Law of Criminal Procedures and the Fourth, Fifth and the Sixth amendments to the US constitution. This paper only evaluates the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments and how they affect the day-day operation of adult and juvenile cases.

The Fourth Amendment: Exclusionary Rule

This amendment covers the right to be free from any form of arrests or searches. All Americans citizens should feel secure in their homes therefore searches that make them to feel insecure are unlawful according to the United States Constitution. For an arrest or search to be carried out, it must be issued only at a time when there is proof of a valid reason (Cammack, 2010). It is also necessary to back it up with an affirmation or an oath that also reflects the place where the arrest if to be carried out. Due to the fact that the fourth amendment forbids arbitrary searches, a warrant of search is necessary. According to the Supreme Court of America, it is held that this amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, though it does not provide for the requirement of a warrant for every search.

The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by the Supreme Court is that all evidence which is obtained from unreasonable searches (e.g. without a warrant) cannot be used in the trial. Nonetheless, this law is not absolute. There are some instances where it can be overlooked. One of the exceptions to this exclusionary rule is when the law enforcement officers are acting in good faith in following the criminal procedures. This constitutes the fluid area of this case law and it has undergone many changes over the past years. For many years now, the Supreme Court has made a number of interpretations to allow police searches without warrants in the following areas: persons arrested; things that the arrested persons were in “immediate control” and properties in which there is a strong conviction that there might be individuals who are in immediate danger. Evidence from these situations can be included in the court during trial.

The Fifth Amendment: Miranda Warnings

This constitutional safeguard deals with apprehensions that touch on following the right procedures regarding multiple trial (Double Jeopardy), death penalty as well as self-discrimination. It stipulates that all American citizens should not be deprived of their liberty or property without following the right procedure provided by the law (Berry, 2003). It also says that nobody should be made to answer for any capital offense except when the jury hears the presentment. It finalizes by instructing that an individual who has been subjected to an offence that has jeopardized their life once should not be tried for the same offence again.

There are some exceptions to the Miranda warnings. One of the exceptions includes the cases that that involve the armed forces (i.e. land and navy), any militia group or those who were serving during war. This amendment also avails to the defendant the right to desist from testifying against themselves. Arrested individuals have the right to remain silent and the right to a counsel. This safeguards individual from involuntary confessions resulting from increased pressure from the police. It is mandatory these days for the police to read out the Miranda rights to those they arrest. Failure to adhere to the Miranda rights is enough to render a case inadmissible. However, the arrested individual is still obliged under the law to make a lineup for any victim to identify them. The Supreme Court has also interpreted this amendment to attest that the Self-Incrimination Clause does not hold in such a situation since the arrested individuals do not have the any privacy interests.

The Fifth Amendment again offers other rights to the arrested individual in the course of the criminal procedure. The arrested individuals have the right to a grand jury which must indict him before he can stand in federal court for trial. Cicchini (2012) notes that most of the American states have not adhered to this clause and that they only rely of the prosecutor’s prosecution information which might be biased sometimes. A grand jury should comprise of between16 to 23 individuals. They must be from the district that the suspect committed the crime. A majority vote by the grand jury is enough to revert an indictment that is made against a defendant either in an adult or juvenile court.

The Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel and Speedy Trial

For all criminal procedures, the accused individual owns the right to a trial that is speedy. This should be conducted by a jury of the district and state where the crime occurred. The amendment also provides that the accused should be given a chance to have the Assistance of Counsel in his or her defense during the trial (Feld & Schaefer 2010). Other provisions of this amendment include: the accused individual has the right to a fair and public trial; the jury from the state that the crime occurred should be impartial; the accused persons should be made to be aware of the reason why they are being arrested and as well as the nature of the case; and the accused should also be made to confront those who witness against them not forgetting to give them a chance for obtaining witnesses for their defense.

When an individual gets arrested, the rights under the Sixth Amendment come into play. An individual’s right to a speedy trial starts from the time he or she gets arrested, through the indictment up to sentencing. Before an individual is sentenced in a court of law, the government is not under any compulsion either by any statutory or the constitution to investigate, accuse or prosecute the suspects under duration of any specific amount of time. There has been a tendency by the Supreme Court to avoid giving clarification on the time that is considered to be a delay or that which is permissible for a trial of suspect. It has instead turned to gauging the reason for a delay in trial against injustices that the suspect suffers from. For instance, a trial that takes a whole year is considered a violation of the Right to Speedy Trial whereas any suspect who lengthens his or her pretrial time because of own actions risks lowering the ability to claim this right. Failure to proclaim this right at the early stages of the trial also hurts the chances of claiming it.

Conclusion

In juvenile courts, the juveniles are provided with some constitutional protections based on the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments. The Fourth Amendment demands that any juvenile who is arrested unreasonably must be entitled to a probable cause hearing. Suspects facing Federal adjudications are safeguarded by the Exclusionary Rule. Any evidence that is obtained illegally is deemed not to hold in a court of law. In the course of a juvenile hearing, the Fifth Amendment becomes crucial since the liberty of the juveniles is compromised. It protects them against self-incrimination. Concerning the Sixth Amendment, the adults and juveniles have a right to a counsel and a speedy trial. When it comes to the underage suspects, the police are compelled to inform the juveniles of all Miranda warnings before they can undertake a custodial investigation. During arrest, Miranda rights should be read to both adults and juveniles. The above three amendments have been pivotal in protecting the rights of the innocent and the guilty.

References

Berry, W. E. (2003). Miranda Rights and Cyberspace Realities: Risks to “the Right to Remain Silent”. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 18(3-4), 230-249.

Cammack, M. E. (2010). The Rise and Fall of the Constitutional Exclusionary Rule in the United States. American Journal of Comparative Law, 58(0), 631-658.

Cicchini, M. D. (2012). Tried and Convicted: How Police, Prosecutors, and Judges Destroy our Constitutional Rights. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Feld, B. C., & Schaefer, S. (2010). The Right to Counsel in Juvenile Court. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(2), 327-356.

Maddex, R. L. (2002). The U.S. Constitution A to Z. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Russell, M. (2001). Responsibilities of Second Chambers: Constitutional and Human Rights Safeguards. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 7(1), 61-76.