This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Uncategorized

Sources of rights and fundamental principles

This essay is written by:

Louis PHD Verified writer

Finished papers: 5822

4.75

Proficient in:

Psychology, English, Economics, Sociology, Management, and Nursing

You can get writing help to write an essay on these topics
100% plagiarism-free

Hire This Writer

Sources of rights and fundamental principles

Robert Alexy made the theory of established rights; theory states that rights are different from principles since they are improvement requirements that are lawfully possible. According to Robert, human rights are under-protected rights, and they have the potential of becoming a rule. This theory has received both positive and negative criticism; a few people embrace his philosophy in clarifying the legitimacy of differences in rights and standards in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy show crucial elements in the constitution, and they have a unique beginning (Brooks & Steenken, 2019). Initially, the authors of the Independent Movement did not differentiate the good and bad obligations of the state. The interest of some minor rights of individuals traces back to the 19th century when the Indian Congress was set up. The Indians needed rights and benefits similar to those included in the British in India. The vital express interest for fundamental rights was made in the constitution of India Bill of 1985. This is the origin of a series of procurements that have been incorporated in the constitution under the title Fundamental Rights.

Steps of the Criminal Justice Process

When a criminal offence happens, police officers are called to the scene. The police officers on duty commence the case with an investigation; an investigation enables enforcement officers to seek evidence and retrace the happening of the crime. As the investigation continues, the officer may catch the suspect on the scene, or they have to acquire a warrant of arrest from a judge. The authorisation of arrest gives the police the legitimate authority to detain a suspect. However, the order of arrest also allows for the confiscation of the suspect’s property if it aids the investigation. If the wrongdoer is captured on the scene, then he/she is taken to the authorities. The police inform the wrongdoer of his/her ‘Miranda’ rights of accepting that any remarks during an interaction with police will be used against them in legal procedures; the rights give the wrongdoer a chance to consult a lawyer and to remain silent. It is vital to inform a suspect of these rights before questioning him/her because if the officers fail to do this, then they will not have the authority to use anything said by the wrongdoer even if it is a confession of the crime. If the police have sufficient proof to hold the wrongdoer, he/she is set up for prison while waiting to face a judge (Pina-Sánchez, Brunton-Smith & Li, 2018). The booking process is undertaken whereby photos of the suspect are taken, fingerprints gathered, and the person’s data is recorded. Additionally, the points of interest of the charges; is used to make a record of arrest. Finally, the wrongdoer signs a document composed from the Miranda rights.

Amendment regarding arrest, search, and seizure

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and thus the constitution of the United States. The amendment protects citizens from search and seizure of a person and or his/her property without a warrant justified reason; such a search or arrest is termed illegal (Donohue, 2016). Law enforcers are, therefore, barred from entering one’s residence, searching the property and confiscating any asset without the necessary precaution. Citizens are entitled to the right to privacy, and only a warrant of arrest legitimately allows officers a person or place for confirmation. Warrants of arrest are issued after reasonable justification; otherwise, people are free from any form of search and seizure.

Probable cause and Reasonable Suspicion

Probable cause is the existence of reasonable ground to believe that a person has been involved in wrongdoing. Probable cause gives an officer the right to arrest, search or obtain a warrant. When there are sufficient reasons, an officer can act on the information. Reasonable doubt, on the other hand, occurs when some factors or circumstances indicate that a crime has been or will be committed.  Reasonable suspicion helps officers to prevent crime from happening; therefore, law enforcers can detain a person if necessary, especially in case of suspected crime. The significant difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion is that for probable cause, any reasonable person can suspect wrongdoing (Kim, 2018). On the other hand, reasonable suspicion occurs when a police officer suspects.

Exclusionary Rule exceptions

  1. Great faith exception. This is a unique case whereby evidence by enforcement officers that is considered substantial is conceded at the trial.
  2. Constriction doctrine. This particular case argues that confirmation that is acquired badly is conceded at trial if the relation between the proof and the illegal manner of acquisition is very remote.

Contemporary Issue

Recently, there has been an increase in police brutality or excessive use of force. For example, in April 2018, the Supreme Court decided a case in which an Arizona police officer shot a woman outside her compound.  The police officer shot the lady after allegedly ignored advice to drop a knife that she held. The lady was shot four times, but she survived and sued the officer for the use of excessive force. The case was ruled in favour of the officer; however, some judges dissented the judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for example, argued that the decision was wrong since it gives officers an alarming signal; to shoot first and think later.

 

 

 

 

References

Brooks, T. M., & Steenken, B. (2019). Sources of American Law: An Introduction to Legal Research.

Donohue, L. K. (2016). The Original Fourth Amendment. The University of Chicago Law Review, 1181-1328.

Kim, M. (2018). Conviction beyond a Reasonable Suspicion: The Need for Strengthening the Factual Basis Requirement in Guilty Pleas. Concordia L. Rev., 3, 102.

Pina-Sánchez, J., Brunton-Smith, I., & Li, G. (2018). Mind the step: A more insightful and robust analysis of the sentencing process in England and Wales under the new sentencing guidelines. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 1748895818811891.

 

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask