The Due Process is a system of legal proceedings that ensure the protection and enforcement of the rights of the citizens. It was established by the US constitution under the fifth and the 14th Amendments. The section 5 is applicable to the federal courts while the 14th Amendment is for the states. The two amendments and it clarify, that no government actions can deprive the accused person his/her right to life, liberty or property without the due process. They demand that government actions follow the same rules for all individuals accused of any crimes in US. This ensures fair trials and judgments for all the accused persons.
The due process traces its origin to chapter 39 of Magna Carta. In this chapter, King John stated that no free man shall be taken, imprisoned, diseased, exiled or in any way destroyed by the law enforcers. He added that the government will not go up or send upon such a person, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. In essence, due process was a consequence of the struggle between the king of England and his barons. That struggle brought the quest for just and procedural court trials. America borrowed this concept from her colonial masters. The drafters of the American constitution incorporated the due process of the law for both federal and state laws. To date, the due process is applicable in the federal courts and it has protected the rights of many accused persons in the US. ( Holmes and Ramen, 2011)
This orderly process guarantees the accused the right to freedom from coercion or threat from the government. In some cases, the accused may be intimidated by the police or some influential government officers to make statements to conceal the truth. Owing to the power of offices they hold, the accused may have no option other than to comply and miss his/her justice in the case. However, the due process comes to the rescue of the accused at this stage. It allows all accused persons to sue anybody who is acting in some legal capacity to deprive them their constitutional rights. This is also applicable to those intending to withhold some of their constitutional benefits. In doing so, the accused is always sure of no interference in his/her case and have higher expectations of getting justice.
The due process assumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. In fact the Supreme Court gives an accused person the privilege to plead not guilty immediately the police start interrogating him/her. Every party involved in a case should have the freedom to present evidence and also to know and meet the opposing parties. In addition, the accused shall also enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the district in which he/she committed the crime. Furthermore, the process compels the jury to give the accused full information of the nature and caused of the accusation. In this regard, the accused has the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him/her in that case. It therefore requires a fair trial that meets all the standards of impartiality. ( Holmes and Ramen, 2011)
The accused also have the right to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his/her favor, and to the assistance of the Counsel for his/her defense. However, defending the accused at times becomes a matter of public controversy. For instance, the case in which John Adams represented the British officer and soldiers who were whom the America accused of firing at and killing 5 innocent protestors in the “Boston Massacre”. As the first American lawyer-president, his defense became one of the outstanding cases of loyalty to the rule of law and defense of the rights of the accused. This may also apply in cases where advocates may defend unpopular clients hence generating public controversy. (Government, 2013)
The accused is also protected against arbitrarily search by the law enforcing officers. Police officers must have a warrant of search to conduct any form of search to the accused person or property. If the police or their seniors improperly gather evidence against the accused, he/she can punish them for it. The accused has two options through which he/she can counter that evidence. The first option is to wait until then police table that evidence before the court and then punish them. Secondly, the accused can compel the police to exclude that evidence from the case. The second option makes the evidence null and void even if it has the powers to incriminate the accused. (Wilson, 2009)
In conclusion, the due process constitutionally protects the rights of the accused during their detention and trial. It has ensured that the federal courts administer justice to accused persons without any favor. This procedure assures the accused his safety, liberty and transparency in the case. Again, due process has eliminated interference of the cases by rogue and selfish advocates, attorneys and government officers. Proper adherence to the procedures of the due process gives every accused a satisfactory judgment. It is hence a guarantee of justice and fairness of to all accused.
References
Holmes N. J. and Ramen C. . (2011). Understanding the Rights of the Accused. New York:
The Rosen Publishing Group.
Government, U. (n.d.). Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights. Retrieved February 4, 2013,
http://infousa.state.gov/government/overview/accused.html
Wilson, J. Q. (2009). American Government. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
