Arguments Against The Grand Jury Amendment

Words: 477
Pages: 2

One of the enduring cornerstones of the American judicial system is the Bill of rights. The prudent framers of our government wanted to ensure that certain rights were granted to the people. Although people incriminate themselves, legal rights of the accused are a hallmark of our democracy, given that due process of law ensures fair treatment of the accused. Furthermore, ensuring the accused are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Some of the enumerated rights concerning the accused are; Article IV, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and protection against the issuing of warrants without probable cause. Article V, commonly called the grand jury amendment. Article VI, the right to a speedy and public trial, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have the required process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Additionally, Article VIII calls for no excessive bail, no excessive fines, nor cruel and
…show more content…
Conversely, I would argue that legal rights for the accused are a necessity to level the playing field, both for the defense and prosecution in any legal proceedings. Firstly, legal rights grant fair treatment of the ill-informed accused throughout the unpredictable legal process. In addition, the simple knowledge of your functional legal rights can prevent unnecessary self-incrimination; essentially working against yourself. Finally, suitable legal rights allow the uninformed accused to be considered innocent until proven guilty. For example, in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the supreme court ruled that the prosecution could not introduce the confession of Ernesto Miranda, because the police failed to inform him of his right to counsel and against