The Principle of Fundamental Fairness
The American system of criminal justice has sought to balance the scales in the contest between government and citizen. In this regard, the principle of fundamental fairness and civilized decency by the government when dealing with its citizens comes into mind. The Meriam Webster online dictionary defines fundamental fairness as “the balance or impartiality (of a court proceeding) that is essential to due process.” Court proceedings ought to follow the due process (Meares, 2005). Fundamental fairness has it that all the criminal procedural guarantees of the Bill of Rights are fundamental to the American system of criminal justice, and the absence of one denies an individual the due process of law (Meares, 2005). The Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Eighth Amendment give the inherent right to due process to U.S. citizens. This helps ensure that an individual’s life, liberty, and property cannot be taken away from them without the due process.
The Elements of Due Process
The procedural due process and the substantive due process are the two components of due process. The former is based on the concept of fundamental fairness (Steillen, 2015). In this regard, an individual ought to be notified of their charges and proceedings. In addition, they ought to be given an adequate opportunity to respond through an indictment. Moreover, through the trial, the criminal justice system must protect the suspect’s or the defendant’s due process rights. The substantive due process extends beyond the context of criminal prosecutions to include other elements such as the right of privacy. The right of privacy stems from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In this regard, the criminal justice system may not prosecute a person for conduct that affects certain fundamental rights (Steillen, 2015). These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the freedom to exercise religion. The U.S. criminal justice system has set aside another standard for laws that infringe on non-fundamental rights. For example, the law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide and late-term abortion are frequently upheld.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
How the Court Balances Individual Rights Against Government Interest
Courts balance the individual’s right sought to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (Steillen, 2015). In most cases, the outcome of a suspect’s or a defendant’s case in a criminal justice system will turn on whether the liberty interest has been classified as a fundamental right. Simply put, some liberty interests are more important than others. It is because of this importance that federal, state, and local governments “may not infringe them without showing that the infringement is narrowly tailored to achieving a compelling state interest” (Hunter, 2018). The Court must look and see if the suspect or defendant’s rights are being violated. Secondly, the court proceedings must follow the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mackey v Montrym clearly illustrates how courts balance individual rights against government interest (Capretta, 2017). In this case, the Court considered where the government has the right to suspend the license of a motorist without a prior hearing. The motorist was involved in an accident and was forced to undergo a breathalyzer test (Capretta, 2017). However, the motorist refused to take the test. The Court held that the government could suspend licenses in such cases. The state government asserted its interest in removing drunk drivers from roads as well as provide them with a strong incentive to take the test. The Court recognized that the risk of erroneous deprivation was low. This is because motorists rarely refuse to take a breathalyzer test. The Court noted that the state’s argument about removing drunk motorists from the highway fast was undercut by the fact that the individual who failed the test would still be able to continue to drive until his trial date.
References
Capretta, T. (2017). Highway Robbery: Due Process, Equal Protection, and Punishing Poverty with Driver’s License Suspensions. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. , 26 , 1213.
Hunter, N. (2018). The Constitution and individual rights. [Online]. Retrieved May 7, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/due-process-clause
Meares, T. L. (2005). Everything Old Is New Again: Fundamental Fairness and the Legitimacy of Criminal Justice. Ohio St. J. Crim. L. , 3 , 105.
Steilen, M. J. (2015). Due Process as a Choice of Law: A Study in the History of a Judicial Doctrine. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. , 24 , 1047.
