The Writ Of Habeas Corpus is a long time controversial document. Habeas Corpus, which means produce the body, is an order to a guard or warden to bring the prisoner to court to show reason for them being held in prison, the officer then must go against them, saying why they can not be released. Its commonly used by people who know they are innocent, or those who didn’t get due process of law. In other words, if someone was to be arrested for murder, but no body was found, there is no valid point of them being held. Similar to how if not pressed with charges, you can’t be held.
As I said The Habeas Corpus is controversial. It’s been suspended five times for different reasons, but mostly during war times. First by president Abraham Lincoln, at the beginning of the civil war due to dangers of war. It was later restored at the end of the war. The next three were all by congress. The second, South Carolina 1871, to deal with the Ku Klux Klan. Then again in the Philippines 1905, in connection with the local revolt. Thirdly in Hawaii during world war two, due to the war itself. Lastly by president George W Bush during 2006, the military commissions act. Which suspended the Habeas Corpus for “terrorist” or anyone from another country. So also, due to
…show more content…
Some believe the Habeas Corpus shouldn’t be suspended because “…these great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the Habeas Corpus, by a military order…”(source C) these laws being ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’. They also are entitled to a speedy trial. Someone famous for going against the suspension of the Habeas Corpus is Chief Justice Roger Taney. He believed the peoples rights were being taken away with the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. 3,800 people were thrown in jail until trial when Lincoln suspended the Habeas
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
One of President Lincoln’s most notable infringements was his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Within months of taking the presidential oath, Lincoln ordered the suspension of habeas corpus, citing “supra-constitutional reasons for taking unilateral executive action.” Attorney General Edward Bates’ defense of Lincoln’s actions regarding habeas corpus in which he refers to it as a privilege rather than a guaranteed civil liberty serves as basis for proving the illegitimacy of this act. If the writ of habeas corpus, which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment, is viewed in the manner that Bates (and Lincoln for that matter) refers to it, one of the most basic constitutional liberties of a right to trial can easily be deprived and can very well devolve into despotism later
...be added. They felt that if the rights of the people were not listed they would be infringed.Page 66R An example of a right they thought would be infringed upon was stated in Document 5 by Mercy Otis Warren, “There is no security in the system [under the proposed new U.S Constitution] either for the rights of [people with different ideas] or the liberty of the press”. This fear was directly addressed in the first amendment in which the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are protected.Page 46R All these freedoms are used to express one’s self and express different ideas which means the first amendment prevents the government from suppressing ideas they do not agree with. The bill of right protects many basic rights and includes the 9th amendment in which it is stated that rights not listed in the Constitution are still retained by the people.
Miranda rights are the entitlements every suspect has. An officer of the law is required to make these rights apparent to the suspect. These are the rights that you hear on every criminal investigation and policing show in the country, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you, you have the right to consult an attorney, if you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.” After the suspect agrees that he or she understands his/her rights, the arrest and subsequent questioning and investigation may continue. These are the liberties that were afforded to suspected criminals in the Miranda Vs Arizona.
The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without being taken to court for a fair trial, but that means nothing if the people are not willing to uphold it (Fifth Amendment).
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
The most blatant abuse of Lincoln's power was his suspension of habeas corpus. The suspension of this constitutional guarantee, by which a person could not be imprisoned indefinitely without being charges with some specific crime, around much opposition throughout the country. Although Lincoln himself made no concentrated efforts to suppress political oppositions, the repeal of habeas corpus enabled overzealous civil and military authorities to imprison thousands of people who were vocal in their opposition to the war against the South. During the war, in the case Ex parte Merryman, Chief Justice Taney ordered Lincoln to grant a writ of habeas corpus to a Southern agitator who had been arbitrarily jailed by military authorities in Maryland. Lincoln ignored the order. After the war, in the case Ex parte Milligan, the Supreme Court ruled that president could not suspend habeas corpus without the consent of Congress.
Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
The Judicial Branch seems to hold most of the weight on the Miranda Rights Law. The judicial court is the branch that interprets the laws. Yet the Supreme Court has the final say so. The year 1966 had a case of the Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was arrested and interrogated till he wrote a written confession that he raped and kidnapped a female. The debate was if his rights were being crossed against the 5th amendment. The Miranda rights actually are not a law but must be read to each arrested person due to the interception of the constitution. The 5th and 6th amendment stating that they have the right to have consul and the right to be silent.
The court system has jumped back and forth throughout the years and this may seem very confusing to the average person but they’ve never changed their mind on the big cases that were said in the previous paragraph. But the court seems to be sporadic in its decisions outside of these big cases. It all starts in 1962 when they held that prayer in the public schools was a violation of the first amendment.
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
This protects people from government tyranny because it allows us to be tried by a jury of our peers and it will ensure that the government has a real case against the accused which would allow a just punishment with good cause.
During an election year such as the current one, cases such as these must be taken into consideration before electing or maintaining a leader that might choose to find ways to bend the rules on human rights. The detainees of Guantánamo Bay have their rights as prisoners of war denied and the U.S. does not define them as such. Much evidence to suggest otherwise includes the type of enemies included in the detainees and the international laws suggested in the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. has done nothing illegal based upon the international laws that it has adopted. However, one rends to question whether the laws adopted or not adopted by the U.S. rightfully define the prisoners based upon what has been laid out by the founding fathers of America. We can hardly assume that they do.
... a fair trial. Detention without trial became quite prevalent after the September 11 attacks when the war on terrorism began. It hopes that potential criminals will confess to acts of terrorism or other crimes; however, this has rarely proved an effective method. (Detention without charge) It is an inhumane method of interrogation and often not worth the trouble. The poster child for atrocious detention without trial is Guantanamo Bay run by the United States. Its horrific torture methods including isolation, humiliation and even sexual abuse are known to the world, putting out an offside message to the rest of the world and countries struggling with their freedom, such as Serbia (everybody in Guantanamo has been tortured). It is this sort of abuse that cannot and should not be tolerated, especially by superpower countries with influence on smaller nations.