Introduction
The American Constitution is rich in the protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual. In light of the Justice System in relation to the administration of justice to adults and juveniles, the relevant amendments include the fourth, the fifth and the sixth amendments. This paper shall examine the constitutional safeguards occasioned by these amendments, examine their impacts and their application in juvenile and adult courts. The paper takes the position that the amendments are essential for the protection of the rights of individuals especially in the justice system.
Fourth Amendment and its impact
The Fourth Amendment relates to the search and seizures within the province of collection of evidence. This amendment provides that government through its police force or law enforcement officers can only perform search and seizures under the regulation and with the satisfaction of due law. In that connection, it is imperative for the enforcement officers to ensure that any search is carried only with the official warrant and must be judicially sanctioned. In that aspect, it is incumbent on law enforcement officers to ensure that in the collection and gathering of evidence, they rely on the law and that the searches and or seizures are accompanied with the force of law which in other words entails the obtaining of judicial approval in the character of warrants.
It is, however, appreciated that the law is not cast on stone. An exception lies in the Exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule extents some powers to officers to disregard the fourth amendment necessities such a warrant. It is instructive to appreciate that this suffices for special conditions that the officers must satisfy. In addition, the stop and frisk rule can be seen in the context of contradicting the Fourth Amendment provisions. According to the law under the stop and frisk, an officer who reasonably suspects that a person could be having suspect equipment or substances, can stop and frisk the person.
Over and above that, the implementation of the Fourth Amendment in the justice system has always been to the advantage of the victim. For instance, in Katz Case, the court held that a search must be reasonable. The Fourth Amendment has had the consequence of protecting the rights of individuals against arbitrary searches. In addition, the Fourth Amendment has been held by the courts to have an effect on the state governments as well as the federal governments. The amendment does not prevent private organizations in the exercise of their own private duties that fall outside the province of government. In state governments, the amendment was held by court to apply by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment on Due Process.
Fifth Amendment and its impact
The Fifth Amendment essentially provides protection to the individuals against abuse by government in a legal procedure. In this context, the amendment provides that no individual should be found accountable or liable for a capital or infamous crime unless through the direct indictment of the grand jury. In addition, the amendment imposed due process on the deprivation of life, property and liberty of persons. Indeed, the Fifth Amendment should be appreciated for the protection of rights of persons in trail processes. It is this amendment that is relied upon to provide clear mechanisms for the defence of the accused in the trail process. By insisting on the Due Process, the amendment breadths life to the Bill of Rights. It requires the judicial system to be guided by the rule of law and natural justice. In that vein, the Due Process should be appreciated as the cornerstone of the protection of liberties, right to life and property. Incidentally, that list of three inform the most essential foundations of the American society. American citizens often purpose to that the law protect their rights through a tripartite approach that enables right to life, property and liberties.
The Fifth Amendment has influenced the American adult and juvenile courts in a number of ways. It has often been relied on to protect persons against abuse by the courts. It has also been applied in the safeguard of the rule of law and natural justice. In addition, it this Amendment that provides for that imposes the burden of proof on the prosecution. It works on the premise that the onus is upon the prosecution to allege and consequently prove the allegation. The impact can be seen in the character of adult and juvenile cases. It has occasioned a situation where the law enforcement officers in their prosecution have to work within the confines of the Due Process. In that line, it is incumbent on the prosecution in its pursuit of the case to ensure that the constitutional rights of the accused are not infringed upon and that the spirit and letter of the law is adhered to. In other words, the Fifth Amendment provides fairness and equity to the accused from the prosecution who may have the upper hand in the courts given the nature of the criminal justice system.
Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment provides for the rights of the accused in the judicial process. By the letter and spirit of the Sixth Amendment, it provides that an accused is entitled to the following rights, a public trail that is expeditious and speedy, an impartial jury emanating from the jurisdiction of the area of crime commission, a right to information on the character and nature of the accusation, an access to the witness against him in the court and a right to assistance from a counsel. The Sixth Amendment in a sense suffices for the protection of the rights of the accused and in some way seeks to reinforce the Due Process clause as entertained in the Fourteenth Amendment. By and large, the Sixth Amendment limits the manner in which law enforcement officer and prosecutors need to behave and conduct themselves in relation to the handling of accused persons. An expansive analysis of the Sixth Amendment led to the court development of the Miranda rights. Under the Miranda rights, it is incumbent on the courts to inform the accused of his rights as granted and safeguarded by the Sixth Amendment. It is this question that often determines the whether the evidence adduced in the duration of arrest and detention would be admissible in court during the trail or not. Instructively, the law officers need to make the accused aware of his Sixth Amendment rights and display a deliberate attempt to ensure the accused is granted the Due Process rights.
One may question the spirit of the Sixth Amendment and its impact on the administration of justice in the adult and juvenile courts. It is imperative to appreciate the role discharged by the Sixth Amendment. It is worthwhile to note that the justice system is imposed with the responsibility of treating the accused as innocent until proven guilty. On that front, the onus is on the prosecution to discharge the burden of proof. In addition, the practise generally seen in the character of the Miranda rights, the Exclusionary Rule, among other principles has often approached prosecution in favour of the accused. The accused has been yielded by the law and the onus imposed on the prosecutor to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The spirit of the Sixth Amendment lies in the nature of criminal law. The fear of the framers of the Amendment is predicated on the need to protect one innocent life and let go hundred guilty ones rather than facilitate a miscarriage of justice to the detriment of one innocent life. In addition, the duty of the law enforcement officers is to ensure administration of justice. This has a dual character and it is of essence for the justice system to exercise caution so as to satisfy the contrasting yet essential dual roles.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it needs to be appreciated that the Fourth, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments all work in complimentary form. In other words, the implementation of the one amendment enables the realization of the others. Additionally, the Amendments are premised on the need to ensure that accused persons are provided with protection in the law so as not to occasion a miscarriage of justice. The long and short of it is that the law needs to protect the constitutional rights all citizens in the United States of America.
References
Cruikshank, C. (2007). Dismantling The Exclusionary Rule: United States v. Leon and the Courts of Washington-Should Good Faith Excuse Bad Acts? University of Puget Sound Law Review, 415-439.
Government Archives. (n.d.). The Constitution of the United States of America. Washington D.C.: Government Archives .
Hudson, D. L. (2010). Juvenile Justice. New York: Infobase.
Kozuskanich, N. (2008). Originalism, History and the Second Amendment: What Did Bearing Arms Really Mean to the Founders? Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(6), 414-443.
Rourke, J. T. (2011). You Decide! 2012: Current Debates in American Politics. New York: Prentice Hall.
Ruddel, R., & Mays, G. L. (2004). Risky behavior, guns, firearms legislation and unintentional firearms fatalities. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,. American Journal of Epidiemology , 100, 499-505.
