Compare and contrast two (2) of the sources of rights and fundamental principles found in the United States’ legal system as outlined by the text.
Robert Alexy came up with the theory of established rights as rule that are subject to perspectives and not principles. The main concern was whether the impressions were authentic and legitimate as much as possible. In his hypothesis, he assumes that human rights should be examined under protected rights that he refers. He captions human rights to have the potential of becoming a rule, that is, for appropriateness of various stages. Therefore, his perspective was that the rule is a more general one compared to the fact that a solitary measure might be assumed to be a guideline in case it is fit for appropriateness on different stages, and accomplished to violate another rule. His theory became a highly debated one both positively and negatively. Some scholars presently consider Alexy’s theory in their efforts to explain the legitimacy of differences in the centre of rights and principles in the “Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union” (Hazell & Melton, 2015) . Even though the “Fundamental Rights” and the “Directive Principles of State Policy” are highlighted in the Constitution as evident fundamentals, largely they both had a usual beginning.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the beginning, the creators of the “Independent Movement” had not qualified anything concerning the positive and the negative obligations of the State. Both had been formed as a standard interest, a consequence of social and national as well as social affronts, of their moving on vague unions and character of the Indian governmental matters itself. The motivation for certain substantial individual rights can be traced from 1895 when the Indian “National Congress” was created. The Indians demanded similar rights and privileges as indicated by “British in India.” The major express motivation for the foundational rights was made in the “Constitution of India Bill, 1985.” The intention of guaranteeing specific undisputable rights or permanent rights against abuse and exploitation was the priority of “Madras Congress in 1927 (Harbo, 2017).” A beginning of many findings that has been included under “Directive Principles” in the “Constitution of 1949” found its position in the “Nehru Report,” under the caption of “Fundamental Rights.”
Critically analyse and discuss two (2) steps of the criminal justice process from arrest to imprisonment.
The investigation focuses on Barney and Bobby to ascertain equity for the murder casualty. The investigation gives the police the opportunity to get sufficient evidence and attempt to recount the crime as it occurred (Rossum, 2018) . If “Barney and Bobby” are lucky, the actual culprit will be captured at the scene. If otherwise, they need to get a capture warrant from a judge to authorize them to a misgiving and capturing of a person’s property. The capture warrant may also be used for the chase and seizure of a person’s property. Fortunately, for “Barney and Bobby” the offender “Marty the slayer” was caught on the scene when they arrived. This helped them to make the capture, in such a way that the police took the wrongdoer into authority digging up their chances. “Barney and Bobby” make this seizure with the intention of unravelling criminal sanctions on the offender.
Before the police begins to scrutinize “Marty the slayer,” he is told about his Miranda rights to warrant the appropriateness of their observations during meetings with the police officer against them in criminal process. The failure of Barney and Bobby of not doing this, will cause they not be able to use anything that “Marty the slayer” says in the middle of the meeting, irrespective of the fact that he admits the crime. Even though there are a few alternatives of the “Miranda rights,” they all have the fundamental characteristics of the privilege to be silent and the privilege to have a lawyer (Blackburn, 2015). For this case, “Marty the slayer” claimed the fifth and refused to give possibly self-implicating information. Since “Marty the slayer” was not willing to cooperate with the police, “Barney and Bobby held him as they had sufficient proof to do so. He was taken to prison where he would expect to challenge his case before the judge.
The process of booking entails taking pictures of the criminal, taking fingerprints and reporting personal information. It also document the points of interests of the charges (Rossum, 2018) . These will be used in the subsequent time to compile a formal arrest record. Ultimately, the guilty party is requested to sign a set out record from their Miranda rights.
Identify and discuss the particular amendment related to arrest, search and seizures.
The Fourth Amendment is a section of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the US. This correction protects citizens from unlawful inquiry and capture of a person or property when there is no warrant or sensible grounds. It means that it is intrusion when the legislature enter a person’s home or search his assets and seize any possessions without the lawful process being considered. Citizens are titled to be secured in their everyday lives. Citizens expect privacy and general protection.
The topic of expected protection cannot be mishandled when the very thing a citizen supposes to be made private is uncovered. This is different from when a police captures a man who has displayed a pack of bhang and a gun behind his car. Since confirmation is uncovered to the public eyes, the case is seen as incriminating on face esteem and needs no warrant to be obtained. It is the same case of a “stop and search.” The police is permitted in this case to do a light search of the sensibly suspects someone. When a reasonable justification is obtained, a warrant is given. A search warrant gives the police officers or agents permission to investigate a specific area for verification. Without it, the police is not permitted to search someone’s property (Hazell & Melton, 2015) . The “Fourth Amendment” to the “United States Constitution” states that people have the licence to be protected from unusual undertakings and seizures.
Compare and contrast the concepts of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. In your words., explain how they are similar or different
Probable cause with an intent of hunting down proof or to appropriate proof needs an officer to take charge and seek for sufficient truths and situations. These truths and situations would guide a sensible individual to agree or disregard the recognition of that criminal action. In the same manner as with a capture, if an officer is unable to define the convictions outlining the evidence of probable cause, the investigation and seizure will not delay in court.
On the other hand, reasonable suspicion is a principle established by the “Supreme Court in a 1968” case. The case determined that police officers had to be allowed to seize and quickly detain a man if, because of the officer’s groundwork and competence, there is clue to prove that the person is involved in criminal movement (Rossum, 2018) . The police officer is provided the opportunity to validate the suspicion by involving into a rigorous research about the case. It is not about a reasonable justification that has been reached to by a reasonable distinct stand, but rather a reasonable suspicion is founded on the principle of a reasonable police officer.
Examine and discuss the two examples in which the exclusionary rule may not apply’
There are several exemptions to the exclusionary guideline. These majorly are significant to promote the secured privileges of the accused, however, not to the point that impartiality cannot be served. There are a number of special cases to the exclusionary guideline. Great Faith Exception is one of these cases (Harbo, 2017). This special instance allows proof to be obtained by law requirement. In another case, police officers that rely on a court order should agree to be significant to be approved at trial. Autonomous source doctrine is another special situation in which a proof gotten improperly has to be approved at trial, and if the evidence was later acquired by a free person through legal processes is accepted.
The legitimate instruction referred to as the toxic tree shows that proof acquired from an illegitimate investigation, seizure, capture, or cross inquiry is not permissible in a court of law. This is done in the view that the certainty that the system utilized to attain the evidence was illegitimate and dishonest, and it corrupts the evidence (Hazell & Melton, 2015). For instance, police places a wiretap on a suspect’s phone, who is believed to be selling drugs. Through the wiretap, he listens and record discussions of this drug dealer, yet he does not have a warrant of doing that. The suspect reveals that he buried the drugs under a dumpster, where the purchaser is to go and take them up. The police officer then goes there before the purchaser and grabs the drugs. The telephone calls will be considered illegitimately recorded and would not be approved (the toxic tree), neither will the drugs found with the help of that wiretap act as an evidence.
Identify and discuss one (1) contemporary issue or case law related to the use of force
Customarily, the use of force by belligerents was viewed to be guided essentially only by the performance of threats. Force was used against opposing soldiers who could be apparently acknowledged from the non-military personnel general population. The use of force with a bid to maintain or reinstate open security, legality was viewed as a local practice fulfilled by the police. Presently, in many contemporary equipped class scenarios, furnished strengths are increasingly forecasted that would guide not just battle actions against the adversary. This is in addition to law authorization processes that take note of the end of goal of maintain and restoring of open security and legality. Various grounds can be made reference to clarify this case. Contemporary prepared clashes are generally non-global outfitted battles. In this scenario, hawkish States are maximizing power against soldiers that are regularly in the interim criminals under household law. In light of a universal helpful law (IHL), challengers are truthful and prioritize goodness, as well as can be concentrated on by behaviour of dangers worldview. That being the case, the law requirement worldview could also be significant as force is used against soldiers with the focus being open security and legitimacy (Hazell & Melton, 2015) . Furthermore, the fight against the enemies is still considered whenever the soldiers are not leading dangers, and if the law implementation perspective is deemed proper. Again, the major focus is to alleviate obstructions among the general population of the Bellicose State.
References
Blackburn, R. (2015). Magna Carta and the development of the British constitution. Historian , (125), 26.
Harbo, T. I. (2017). Introducing procedural proportionality review in European law. Leiden Journal of International Law , 30 (1), 25-47.
Hazell, R., & Melton, J. (Eds.). (2015). Magna Carta and its modern legacy . Cambridge University Press.
Rossum, R. A. (2018). American Constitutional Law, Volume II: The Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments . Routledge.
