[ 楊金強(qiáng)譯 ]——(2008-5-15) / 已閱27110次
The main points prevalent in the Burger Court affecting the Warren Courts previous decisions were the Good Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule. The Burger Court lasted from 1969 to 1986. The Good Faith Exceptions modified the ideas of the 4th Amendment upon the Courts basis that, “If a Law Enforcement Officer has acted in objective good faith, or their transgressions have been minor; the magnitude of the benefit conferred on such guilty defendants offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system.” These ideas sprang from the case of U.S. vs. Leon in 1984 where from surveillance of Leon talking to a confidant, police found probable cause to issue a warrant, and found a multitude of drugs in his three residences. The evidence was later suppressed in a court due to insufficient cause for a search warrant. The Exceptions came into play here eventually allowing the evidence based on the previous court statement. The Burger court also ruled on another case that year called Massachusetts vs. Sheppard (1987), which found officers not having sufficient details for a search warrant. This changed the original Warren court outlines with the Mapp vs. Ohio case of 1961, thereby modifying probable cause.
The main points prevalent in the Rehnquist Court affecting the Warren Courts were the exceptions to the Miranda and Escebedo decisions. The Rehnquist Court is still in power today since its beginning in 1986. The “inevitable discovery doctrine” modified Warren Courts case, and was created during the case of Brewer vs. Williams in 1977, where a defendant was violated of his right to counsel. The “public safety exception” was created in concurrence with the case of New York vs. Quarles (1984), where the publics safety was violated by Quarles possession of a weapon. The article attached to our handout emphasized the reforms to the 5th and 6th Amendments, discussing the case of U.S. vs. Dickerson. Because Dickerson had failed to have been read his Miranda rights, even though he did confess to the crime. The Miranda case was re-examined but only reaffirmed, not changed. This was a huge landmark in the Rehnquist court that caused much turmoil in the politics of the American criminal justice system.
Beyond these landmarks in the Burger and Rehnquist Courts, other Warren decisions were modified, including the 8th Amendment, guarding prisoners against cruel and unusual punishment. The return of the “Hands-Off Doctrine” allowed for certain acts in the correctional system based on a case of Wilson vs. Seiter in 1991. In this case a prisoner accused an Arkansas prison of abusing its inmates. The Doctrine required a “deliberate indifference by the prison officials” to be considered cruel and unusual treatment, due to the fact that not everything was containable in the prison system. The case of Sandin vs. Conner (1995), ended with criminal system of the U.S. being revised to allow greater flexibility toward Redistributive justice, where the prisoner pays for his crimes along with his rehabilitation.
The 14th Amendment was also modified after the Warren Court. The Revolution aftermath swayed the Supreme Court toward a strict Constructionist interpretation of laws and cases. The Warren Courts of ideals of judicial activism and the states ideals of judicial review were beginning to crumble under the new revisions of the Burger and Rehnquist courts. The Supreme Court today still follows this revised idea of constitutionalism, a perfect example being the current choice of the Supreme Court to choose Bush for president, not by a constitutional decision but based on the will and whim of the judges of the Supreme Court. Is this the way Due Process will continue, or will the future hold more change?
The Future of Due Process is unpredictable just as everything is, however many of the things that have reoccurred in history surely provide a key to how the future will be. Several cases that modify old ideas for modern times act as a key for what will happen in the future of Due Process. The ideals of Crime Control, the need to enforce the law, and Due Process, the need to protect the innocent, are a constant clash throughout history. The idea of crime control is rapidly rising and surely will in the future with higher-tech weapons and methods are developed, however the ideal of Due Process will not crumble, because they are necessary for the court system and society in general. The fight between political climate and supreme court is also and important factor in the future of due process. Politics rule the United States today, but do they rule the Supreme Court? In a way yes, the presidents choose who will be added to the Supreme Court, and different presidential parties would make different decisions, making the court different based on who is in office. This fact made big headlines with the recent presidential election being made by the Supreme Court and who Bush would choose to elect to the court. Was the courts election decision made based on who Bush vs. Gore would choose to put into the Supreme Court?
As mentioned before the advancement of technology is playing a huge part in world relations and will surely affect the future of due process. What amendments affect genetically created organisms? How can the court help police and the FBI control identity theft within the restraints of Due Process? Also with the increasing religious conflicts throughout the world will changes need to be made in the Constitution to affect the interactions on a global level?
I see Due Process changing in the future especially with the First amendment. This is due to the effect of the Internet on everything today. How can such ideas as “clear and present danger” from the Schenck vs. U. S. (1919) preside over the Internet, a battle ground that exists only as data and information? This is further complicated by Gitlow vs. New York (1925) that gives police the right to punish that which corrupts public morals, incites crime, or disturbs the peace. How can Internet and technological information transfer possibly be controlled due to its complexity and distribution?
Due Process will be upheld because it is specifically needed in the area of violence due to specific issues such as racism, drugs, and illiteracy. This was discussed in the “FBI expert predicts violent future” we received. If his ideas on violence are correct through 2005 Due Processes ideas on protecting the innocent vs. Crime Controls idea of enforcing law will be very important to spare those indirectly involved in crimes such as bombings, hijacking, terrorism, and organized crime. This is prevalent in the Race Riots currently occurring in Cinncinnati, where white police officers are killing an alarming rate of blacks during riots and outbreaks. Are they truly enforcing law and at the same time protecting the innocent or has their bigotry corrupted even the people on a level of justice we are supposed to live by?
Due Process has had a long history from its conception from the Magna Charta in the 13th century to its present day effects. I think in the future that those who deal with Due Process will continue to sway more and more towards the conservative side of politics. A good example of this is the recent case of Atwater vs. U.S where mother was arrested on the highway for having her three kids in the car without seatbelts. Is this treatment needed ? It is debatable, but I see officers gaining more and more power to do such things to enforce the public safety of the innocent and get away with it. In the this case I feel it would have been more appropriate to give the woman a ticket and make her buckle in her children as opposed to exposing them to an arrest of their parents at such a young age. This is the way the American Criminal Justice system seems to be shifting, however, we are constantly improving the wrong and continuing to uphold the right, so the ideals of Due Process continue their long tradition of providing for American citizens, and surely will for many years to come.
總共2頁(yè) [1] 2
上一頁(yè)
