American Federal Government - Module 1 Discussion Chapter 4 Question 7
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Daytona State College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
POS2041
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by SuperFlower12550
Module 1 Discussion Chapter 4 Question 7
Describe some of the rights of the accused found in the Bill of Rights. Specifically, discuss the
exclusionary rule, Miranda rights, and double jeopardy. In your answer, be sure to define each
term, identify its support in the Constitution and in Supreme Court cases, and discuss why the
rights of the accused are so essential to due process of law.
The exclusionary rule excludes evidence that was obtained during an illegal search from
being introduced in a trial. The Fourth Amendment protects our freedoms against warrantless
search and seizure and supports the exclusionary rule. In 1961, in Mapp vs. Ohio, the Supreme
Court overturned the conviction of Dollree Mapp for possession of obscene materials because
the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Miranda rights must be read to inform persons under arrest to make them aware of their
constitutional right to remain silent and to have the benefit of legal counsel prior to police
interrogation. The Fifth Amendment allows the accused to remain silent to protect themselves
against self-incrimination. In 1966 the Supreme Court heard the case Miranda vs. Arizona. It
overturned Ernesto Miranda’s conviction on the basis that his confession had not been truly
voluntary and that he had not been informed of his right to remain silent or his right to consult
an attorney. This led to the establishment of Miranda Rights that the police must follow before
questioning an arrested criminal suspect.
Double jeopardy is the fifth amendment right providing that a person cannot be tried twice
for the same crime. The constitutional protection states “Nor shall any person be subject for the
same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” In the case of Benton vs. Maryland of
1969, the state of Maryland wanted to try John Benton for Larceny, even though a jury had
acquitted him. Since Maryland didn’t have bans on double jeopardy, Benton was tried and
convicted. The ruling from the Supreme Court overturned Benton’s conviction. It also declared
that the state of Maryland had violated John Benton’s rights under the U.S. Constitution with
the second trial and that double jeopardy did in fact apply to states as well.
The due process law is the right of every individual against arbitrary action by national or
state governments. This is essential to one of America’s most strongly held judicial values: “it is
far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free” (In re Winship, 397 U.S.
358, 1970).
Donata Hunter
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help