Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Due Process Presentation
Transcript of Due Process Presentation
The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law. The Fifth Amendment also gives rights against Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, and Removal of Private Property for Public Use without compensation, as well as the right to a Grand Jury Due Process
Today! Due Process is very important to our society today.
Due process is an umbrella term for any legal right given by the constitution and by the government. Thus, violations of Due Process come in many shapes and forms, from illegal detention of prisoners to abortion. Supreme Court Cases Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) The Supreme Court overturned the Federal Government's decision (8 to 1) and set Mr. Hamdi free Important components of Due Process, such as Habeas Corpus, have been ignored and people arrested illegally. This brings us to the land mark case... Also, abortion was a hot topic. States were passing their own laws on abortion, arbitrarily deciding when, how and what kind of abortions were illegal. In the case... Roe v. Wade (1973) Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen, was arrested by the Federal Government for being an enemy combatant
He was to be held indefinitley without
any charges against him or a trial by jury His father appealed the decision and
brought it all the way to the Supreme Court A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. Roe claimed that her right to privacy had been violated, as it was her choice to terminate her pregnancy The Court sided with her ( 7 for, 2 against), stating
"State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”
A fancy way of saying State abortion laws violate the woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. Due Process is guaranteed by the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment. That gaurantee was extended to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. With the War on Terror being waged, Many “prisoners” have seen their right to Due Process be curtailed in the name of Justice. Back in the 1970s, Peter Schmidt was born Thats not him No matter how much you want it to be This Was Brought to you by Disco was WILD Also WILD Pretty f***ing Awesome, Right? " I wouldn't allow every person captured to go through a Habeas proceeding, there is a differnt legal status of a U.S. citizen from an enemy ailen captured on a battlefield" Frank W. Dunham JR "At the heart of the controversy in these cases are
those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger
whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are,
nevertheless, unwanted. ... I find nothing in the language
or history of the Constitution to support the court's
judgment. The court simply fashions and announces
a new constitutional right for pregnant women." Judge Byron White Justice Harry A. Blackmun "We acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy; of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians. ... The right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." Exceptions Certain portions of the population are denied their Fifth Amendment rights, although under special circumstances The Military Burns vs. Wilson Military personnel do not claim the same free speech protections that civilians claim because of the nature of the military. Certain forms of disrespectful or contemptuous speech would be harmful to the military's mission. In this case, the defendant claimed that his free speech rights were being violated by the military and the military court had convicted him. He appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that the military court had not protected his constitutional right to free speech. The Court agreed that military personnel have certain constitutional rights just like civilians, but also said that they may be applied in different ways in the military setting Korematsu v United States Fred Korematsu was a U.S.-born Japanese American man who decided to stay in San Leandro, California and knowingly violate Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army. Fred Korematsu argued that the Executive Order 9066 (The internment of Japanese civilians) was unconstitutional and that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment (which guarantees freedom from discrimination) and the Fifth Amendment (which guarantees the due process of law) to the United States Constitution.
The Court defended the Executive Order by claiming "He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities...felt constrained to take proper security measures ... and because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders determined that they should have the power to do just this." During the Civil War On April 27, 1861, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union. The Dissenting Opinon of The Dissenting Opinon Of The
Majority Opinion of We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. The Majority Opinion of
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Quotes by Old People 'n Stuff Malloy v. Hogan (1964) Extended the Due Process right against self-incrimination to the States Malloy, a petitioner, was sentenced to a year in jail for unlawful gambling. After 3 months he was released from jail and put on probation for two years. While he was on probation, he was asked to testify to a state inquiry into gambling and other criminal activities. He refused to answer questions relating to his previous conviction. The court put him back in jail until he testified. Benton v. Maryland (1969) John Benton was tried on charges of larceny and burglary. He was acquitted of larceny but convicted of burglary and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Shortly after Benton's conviction, the Maryland Court of Appeals had ruled that the portion of the Maryland Constitution which had required all jurors to swear their belief in the existence of God was itself unconstitutional. Since the jurors in Benton's case had been selected under the unconstitutional provision, he was given the option of demanding a new trial. Benton undergo a new trial, but at the second trial, the state again charged Benton with larceny even though he had been acquitted of larceny in the first trial. The second trial concluded with Benton being found guilty of both burglary and larceny.
Benton appealed this decision and the Supreme Court sided with him and declared this Double Jeopardy Extended the Due Process Right against Double Jeopardy to the States Mohammed Saleheen
And Some Other Dudes Carmen Lee Eric Hom Lily Yeung Thanks For Watching State and Federal Prosecutions The main exception is that a defendant may be tried and punished twice if he or she is prosecuted separately at the state and federal level.
This means that both the state government and federal government can each charge a person with the same crime; the same person will be charged with the same crime twice. An example of such a situation is drug possession, in such a case, both the state and federal government can charge the same person at the same or differing times. The reason for this is, under the Constitution, state and federal governments are separate, sovereign entities, free to prosecute any crime that violates their respective laws.
Mistrials Another exception is when a defendant asks for a mistrial and is granted one; when this occurs, the defendant has waived the right against double jeopardy. The same is true for an appeal: If a defendant appeals a guilty verdict, he or she has waived the right against double jeopardy. Thus, if the case gets overturned on appeal, the defendant may be tried again for the same crime.