The Due Process of Law in Court Process
Turning to the consideration of the due process of law, it should be noted that this is not one but a whole set of doctrines. They together act as key guarantees of judicial protection of individual rights, implemented through the mechanism of constitutional review. The doctrine of the due process of law includes both procedural and substantive rights, extending to both federal and state governments. This paper describes the due process of law and due process rights that were covered in the case of Brown v. Mississippi and Powell v. Alabama.
In Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936), murder suspects were apprehended and severely beaten until everyone agreed with the police’s version of the facts. The defendants were brought to justice, charged, and sentenced to death. However, during the short trial, the jury was not presented with any evidence other than forced confessions. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, duress confessions cannot be considered evidence. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936) was the first time the Supreme Court overturned a state’s first-instance conviction because confessions were obtained under duress. A murder conviction based solely on confessions obtained by government officials by torturing an accused is invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Another due process right that was covered in the case of Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) was the right to have counsel. The accused has the opportunity to choose a lawyer for the defense. The court may not accept the refusal of a lawyer if it is obvious that the defendant is not able to defend himself or herself and does not understand the consequences of the refusal. Initially, the Sixth Amendment Due Process Clause was not interpreted in such a way that the state was obliged to provide a lawyer if a person could not pay for the services. However, beginning in 1932, the US Supreme Court began to expand the application of this amendment. Thus, in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), it was decided that in cases the defendant cannot adequately defend himself or herself the court is obliged to appoint a lawyer for the accused.
Thus, procedural irregularities in several court cases involving particularly serious charges forced the Supreme Court to point out the inadmissibility of sentencing without the participation of the defendant’s lawyer in the case (Powell v. Alabama, 1932). The consequence of this decision was the possibility for the defendants to receive free legal assistance. However, in the conditions of bourgeois justice, the success of litigation is largely determined by the services of an expensive qualified lawyer, still inaccessible to the poor.
The due process of law is the basic constitutional guarantee for judicial protection of the rights of all US citizens. It is this constitutional doctrine that is used in the United States for the judicial protection of basic constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the United States Constitution. Rights and freedoms constitute the highest value and foundation of the constitutional order, and therefore, as a general rule, any law that violates these rights does not comply with the due rights. Thus, the due process of law is an essential condition for public administrations to exercise the function of considering and resolving disputes when their solution could potentially restrict civil liberties.
References
Brown v. Mississippi—297 U.S. 278, 56 S. Ct. 461 (1936). Web.
Powell v. Alabama—287 U.S. 45, 69, 53, S. Ct. 55, 64, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932). Web.