Amendments and Procedures

Introduction

Criminal measures are protections one against the haphazard application of criminal rules and the malevolent treatment of alleged offenders. In fact, they are intended to implement the constitutional human rights of lawless suspects and perpetrators, starting with preliminary police interaction and continuing with capture, inquiry, court trial, criminal sentencing, and appeals application (Stair, 2003). The essay explains how the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments cooperate with the 14th Amendment, which indicates that all citizen natives or adopted in the United States, including past slaves lately unbound, have equal rights as citizens of America. In addition, the essay expounds on how the laws prohibit states from repudiating any individual life, freedom or possessions without due process or repudiating any individual within their power the equal protection of the laws. Thus, by directly stating the role of the states, the 14th Amendment significantly improved the defense of civil human rights to all citizens and is cited in more trials than any other amendment.

The Fourth Amendment

The amendment is a portion of the rights that prohibits irrational searches and confiscations of persons and possessions. The Fourth Amendment was introduced in 1789 that concerned the core problem of the early United States knowledge. The amendment had the principle that every citizen’s household is their castle and that any inhabitant may fall into the group of the lawless individuals and ought to be provided with defenses accordingly (Bodenhamer & James, 2008). In United States Constitutional Act, the Fourth Amendment is the key basis of criminal law jury’s caution, enunciating both the rights of people and the accountabilities of law enforcement officers. Apparently, there was substantial civic, governmental, and legal debate over the equilibrium between these two forces. The two amendment clauses were meant to be self-sufficiently in their functioning, but the Fourteenth Amendment had to be initiated as support.

The right of the persons to be protected in their societies, households, identifications, and properties against arbitrary pursuits and captures shall not be violated. Apparently, warrants for arrest should be issued with a credible reason but not one’s vow or assertion, and it is crucial to predominantly explaining the place that the police have to conduct a search of and the individuals or properties to be detained. A warrant for arrest is a document that indicates the authorization of court to pursue or seize (Bodenhamer & James, 2008). The Supreme Court has directed that the Fourth Amendment should entail a warrant for all arrests, but it forbids arbitrary hunts. Consequently, all warrantless arrests are perverse unless they are performed according to one of the numerous exclusions stated by the court of law.

While the 4th Amendment protects individuals from unlawful and warrantless arrests, the 14th Amendment bars a public prosecutor from using any proof seized at the scene of the crime in unlawful or warrantless arrests. The judicial panel always analyzes evidence; however, there is exception. For example, if the police smell gas coming from a household and simultaneously hear someone shouting for aid, they are allowed by the law entry without a warrant simply because they feared for the well-being of those in the house (Schwartz, 1992). If there is any proof that offense had been committed while in the house, the officers can use it in the court. In this situation, the public prosecutor would claim the forces were at the scene of the crime because they feared for someone’s well-being and the period it would take to get a warrant could be immensely long that would cause a person to depart this life (Stair, 2003).

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment covers numerous widely known means of defense against government incursion, including the article against double jeopardy (trying to accuse an offender more than once of the similar crime), the right to due court of law containing a just trial and the right to fair return when the government takes personal property for public expenditure (Schwartz, 1992). The article concerning self-incrimination was established to protect anyone from being required to attest forcefully against themselves, leaving the problem of evidencing that the individual has committed an offense to the government. Thus, the Fifth Amendment offers numerous ways to prove one’s innocence until the court confirmed their guilt.

The Miranda Decision

It is been claimed that James Madison who would ultimately serve as the fourth president of the United States had the knowledge of Lilburne and other law enforcement practices from England comprising cruelty and forced revelations (Schwartz, 1992). When he wrote the original section of the Fifth Amendment which stated that in any unlawful case there should be no person forced to be a witness against themselves or be deprived of life, freedom, or possessions, without due procedure of law; nor shall personal property be taken for civic use without fair compensation.

Madison included the right to evade self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment because some of the states did not embrace it in their original state legal structures. In fact, this right was given to U.S. people in an improved method in the Supreme Court. In that breakthrough governing, the court discovered that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Miranda had been violated after he was detained and accused of rape and abduction (Smith, 2007). While the Fifth Amendment protects a detained individual from being involuntary a witnessed against him (self-incrimination), the subsequent Sixth Amendment assures that an individual will have access to lawful guidance on their protection.

Limitations on the Fifth Amendment

Though the Fifth Amendment gives ways to defend oneself, there are bounds to its use. An important exception was added in the year 1984, when the U.S. Supreme Court discovered that if public protection is at direct risk, suspect’s reports are permissible in court even if their protection rights have not been enlightened (Smith, 2007). It also stated that in a child abuse case, a parent with restricted protection rights is allowed to tell the court the child’s situation. These means of protection against self-incrimination are not applied because of the direct risk to the safety of the child in the case.

The Sixth Amendment

It states that in all court prosecutions, the suspect shall enjoy the freedom of a quick and public hearing. It should be done by an unbiased national jury or the area where the crime has been committed, and the region should be formerly determined by rule and one should also know the nature and reason of the claim. The suspect should also be challenged with the eyewitnesses against them in the court and have obligatory procedure for procuring witnesses testifying for them and have the backing of guidance on their defense (Bodenhamer & James, 2008).

The law also guarantees adequate notice which is valid to the states over the Fourteenth Amendment clause in due process which guarantees the offender’s respondent an important right to be informed of the origin and the nature of charges against them. In order to conclude whether a respondent has received satisfactory notification constitutionally, the court scrutinizes first the evidence. The major role of the information is to offer the respondent an account of the charges against them in adequate and detailed information to enable him to organize his defense. The notification establishment of the Sixth Amendment is combined within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is wholly pertinent to the states (Stair, 2003). In fact, this due process clause does not act as a guiltless bystander. It acts as a referee and arbitrator simultaneously and pleas “foul” when procedures of fair play are ruined. Rephrasing the pertinent manifestation of justice, due process needs the government to turn four-sided corners. People are gratified to impeach those who break its guidelines, but they may not break their rules in the trial process.

The United States constitution controls the distribution of labor among magistrate and the judicial panel. The amendment is utilized in all criminal trials since the accused should enjoy the right to a prompt and open trial by unprejudiced judges (Smith, 2007). The United States Supreme Court lately confirmed the constitution offers a criminal defendant the right to have the judges conclude the case beyond a reasonable hesitation and his culpability of every component of the crime with which he is charged. While the judge is the arbitrator of the evidence, the jury is the arbitrator of the law; thus, in the trial, the judge must be permitted to order the jury the law and to maintain that the jury follows their orders (Smith, 2007). However, the Sixth Amendment gives the jury constitutional accountability not just to decide the evidence but insure that the law is used to those evidence and draw the final decision of whether the offender is guilty or innocent.

Conclusion

All the three amendments were specifically meant to stop any injustice done to the criminals in courts in the United States, and they also give freedom of expression to both the prosecutor and defendant. The four principles which were affirmed in the text of the 14th Amendment made the implementation of the three amendments easier. The principles included state and federal nationality for all individuals irrespective of race both born and adopted, the idea that no national would be permitted to violate the rights and protection of citizens, no individual was permitted to be deprived of life, freedom, or belongings without due process of law, and every individual had equal protection of the law.