Courts in Criminal Justice
The fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution was adopted in the year 1868 to counter previous ruling such as the Dred Scott v. Sandford which denied citizenship and equality for all. The 14th amendment was adopted to provide citizenship clause in the Supreme Court. The amendment stated that people of all races including African descent were entitled to be United States citizens simply by birth. It also focused on the due process clause which adds that life, liberty and property should be treated equally and with high levels of fairness. To make the 14th amendment more effective in providing citizenship to all persons in the United States and encouraging equality, sections of the civil law and bill of rights were included. The main clauses included were: 1). State and federal citizenship for all persons born and naturalized in United States irrespective of their race. 2) Bridging privileges and immunities to citizens by any state is not allowed. 3) Persons depriving another life, liberty, property without “due process of law” is not allowed. 4) No person can be denied equal protection by the law. These four clauses ensured that the 14th amendment fully achieved its purpose of maintaining equality for especially in criminal justice through the bill rights (Harold, S & Edward, 1991).
Protections available to criminal offenders through the Bill of Rights do not currently apply to the states
When upholding the criminal process through the Supreme Court that operates under the bill of rights it is essential to note that not all protections provided by bill of rights apply to all states. For instance, not all search and seizure are protected by the state and federal court. The fourth amendment only protects against seizures and searches which are in pursuant of government direction. The bill of right also provides protection on privacy though the fourth amendment but it does not apply to all states where a reasonable level of privacy is not established. Before any search can be carried out by the government, the state must portray reasonable level of search awareness. The second amendment also shows differences between the applications of bill of rights. According to the second amendment, criminal cases should be decided though a grand jury and it is made possible through selective incorporation. This does not apply to states because the selective process provides an opportunity to the individuals of a state to make cases conclusions using the constitutions alone. Most states do not have grand jury at all while some only use grand juries for felony cases, but either way they ensure 14th and 2nd amendments rules of criminal law on equality are maintained by following constitutions laws and not just jury decisions (William, 1988).
Difference between procedural and substantive protections for criminal offenders in the Bill of Rights
Procedural and substantive protections are the two aspects that are provided by the constitution to monitor due process of the law (Bernard, 1992). The two aspects are outlined in the 14th and 5th amendment that ensures that the legal system is fair and consistent through the existing constitutional and legal standards. The fourteenth amendments was designed to protect and maintain equality on life, liberty and property different legal approaches such as jury trial, confront witness and protection against involuntary. However to enjoy these approaches different process must be maintained: substantive and procedural process. Substantive due process is the criminal process that handles liberty related interest. In other words it focuses on the right of people to live without unnecessary interference by the government. The procedural due process is simply a requirement that the law should be applied to any person fairly by providing a hearing to cases. The difference between these two approaches in providing due law process is on the type of cases that they are meant to settle. For procedure protections the main focus is right for a fair trial and ability to remain innocent until proven guilty. Procedure protection focuses on evidence and witnesses to ensure that criminal and civil cases provide equality in life, liberty and property. Substantive protections on the other hand provide laws that ensure that the government does not unnecessary interfere with people. Substantive protections pay reference to substance laws such as required working hours and abortion. For instance, substantive protections may not require witnesses like the procedure protections instead substantive laws are utilized such as people should not work in a bakery store for more than 60 hours a week
Protections available to criminal offenders in the Bill of Rights are procedural while others are substantive
Procedural protection focus on the process that guarantees fairness while substantive focus on what goes on during the process. In criminal offenders cases substantive protections monitor the cases process by upholding the bill of rights. For instance the offender is entitled to enjoy right such as right to a hearing, right to have a hearing officer and right to make a testimony. Procedure protection on the other hand focuses on ways to ensure fairness or justice such as right to jurors.
Bodenhamer, D. & Ely, J. (2008). The Bill of Rights in modern America: Indiana University Press.
National Constitution Center: Virginia. Constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved 16th March 2013
Bradford, B. (2008). Procedural Due Process in Plain English: National Trust for Historic Preservation
Bernard, S. (1992). The great rights of mankind: a history of the American Bill of Rights. Rowman & Littlefield.
Harold, S & Edward, S. (1991). Harper Collins College Outline: The Constitution of the United States: New York: HarperCollins.
Labunski, R. (2006). James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford University Press US.
Melvin, U. & Paul, F. (2002). A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press
William, N. (1988) The Fourteenth Amendment: from political principle to judicial doctrine: Harvard University Press.