The Legal Rights of the Individual Should be to Deprivation of Life, Liberty or Respect

Topics: Due Process

The legal rights of an individual must be respected by the government before the life, liberty, or respect of a citizen is taken. This is formally known as what is called the “Due Process.” When the term is dissected, the first part (due) is what is owed to the people. The second portion (process), includes the steps that an individual must take to earn their liberty back after an arrest. Race and class both play a great role in the due process because a jury that hears the case without prejudice, will be able to give a fair verdict.

These individual rights include, but are not limited to; a right to notice of charges, a right to cross-examine witnesses against you, a right to compel a witness to your defense, and finally, a right to fair counsel.

The 5th amendment, according to the U.S constitution, states that No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”, is deeply incorporated within the due process.

Get quality help now

Proficient in: Due Process

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

Theology of due process

Due process is more than just a civil concern even the holy scriptures require it. This now makes it a theological concern; It is mandated by divine law. Adjudication is known to be a legal process in which authorities put in place to resolve a criminal dispute. Theology is an abstract discipline when it comes to academics. While providing direction for our everyday lives, it also has a rule on our hearts. Robert Preus was the leader of a theological movement along with Ralph Boldman. During the first part of his speech, Rev. began to explain the case of two brothers Robert and Rold Preus, and how Robert was removed from the Board of Regents of Concordia Theological Seminary as President with accusations of having sinned eight times. To the board’s knowledge, if they were to remove him from the board and call it an honorable retirement, he would be able to be replaced. However, if the term was not utilized within the act of removal, by law, they would not have been allotted to remove Preus until he availed himself by putting a strong foot forward at his opportunity. To regain his innocence, Robert fought long and hard for two years while having been treated in an unfair manner which then violated his rights under the due process law. This fight included Preus adjudicating the issue through the courts of the church. Although Robert won his cases through adjudication, he did not regain his position in the office.

After having an opportunity to analyze this case, I realized that Robert’s accusation of sinning was false, and being that the BOR did not provide honorable retiroceedingsprement for Preus, he had been dishonored of the Eighth Commandment which states that ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor'(‘The Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Commandments of God’). I also learned that due process is a sacred duty that should be given to all people and being falsely accused of anything is unacceptable in a court of law. Whether state or federal, Due process is applied to the government as a whole. In a nutshell, due process gives the accused, a chance to face their accuser and give their side of the story.

Right to Counsel

When discussing both adversarial proceedings and critical stages, one must address the sixth amendment, according to the U.S Constitution, which states that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (US as it correlates with the terms.

The Adversarial system is “any action, hearing, investigation, inquest, or inquiry brought by one party against another in which the party seeking relief has given legal notice to and provided the other party with an opportunity to contest the claims that have been made against him or her”. In other words, any court trial or proceeding is an example of an adversarial proceeding. This legal system is used in common law countries and it is executed when two proponents represent their parties’ case before an unbiased person or group of people. Typically, the equitable person or group would be a judge or jury and they’re the individuals that determine the truth without any form of biased judgment. When each party builds their case, the judge then oversees that none of the parties are crossing the legal limits. In contrast, an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy is a separate lawsuit that is filed within the bankruptcy case. This lawsuit begins when the creditor, bankruptcy trustee, or individual files a complaint.

The adversary proceeding in bankruptcy is used when any creditor or bankruptcy trustee seeks to challenge the discharge ability of a specific debt. As for the critical stages, the Sixth amendment, in short, entails that upon criminal prosecutions the accused are entitled to a trial and the right to counsel. The right to counsel would normally occur during the “critical stages” of a defendant’s criminal journey. If he/she pleads guilty then some of their constitutional rights become forfeited. In this case, obtaining legal advice is the next best step. A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when the government initiates adversarial criminal proceedings.

The Strickland Standard

According to Oyez, after the Strickland v. Washington case in 1984, the decision made by the United States Supreme court established the standard for being able to determine when a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel’s inadequate performance (US 1984). In this case, David Washington pleads guilty to a murder in a court in the state of Florida. Unfortunately, at his sentencing, his attorney failed to seek out both a request for psychiatric evaluation as well a character witness. After being sentenced to death, Washington argued that his Sixth Amendment right was violated because he had no assistance for counsel. The supreme court held that not only should the counsel’s performance be deficient, but must also have prejudiced the defense to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

In addition, the sensibility of an attorney’s execution is to be assessed from a director’s viewpoint at the season of the claimed mistake and in light of the considerable number of conditions, and the standard of the survey is exceedingly respectful. Courts regularly find that a resistance attorney’s choice to forego a specific line of request or activity was key or strategic; regardless of whether the choice was at last unsuccessful, that disappointment does not build up lacking execution. The execution prong of the Strickland request is expressive. It quantifies barrier guidance conduct concerning the export standard. As the Court demanded in Strickland, ‘the reason for the viable help certification of the 6th Amendment isn’t to enhance the nature of lawful portrayal,’ yet rather to ask whether the litigant got the level of execution for the most part watched.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In United States law, ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant where the innocent defendant’s legal counsel performed so ineffectively that it deprived the defendant of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Having the benefit of counsel or assistance of counsel means that the criminal defendant has had a competent attorney representing them. Competence is defined as reasonable professional assistance and is defined in part by prevailing professional norms and standards. Forensic science is the application of science to criminal and civil laws, mainly on the criminal side during criminal investigation, as governed by the legal standards of admissible evidence and criminal procedure. Forensic scientists collect, preserve, and analyze scientific evidence during an investigation.

While some forensic scientists travel to the scene of the crime to collect the evidence themselves, others occupy a laboratory role, performing analysis on objects brought to them by other individuals. The Supreme Court has held that part of the right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel. Proving that their lawyer was ineffective at trial is a way for convicts to get their convictions overturned, and therefore ineffective assistance is a common habeas corpus claim. To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show (1) that their trial lawyer’s performance fell below an ‘objective standard of reasonableness and (2) a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

After watching the assigned video, Bryce Benject clarifies that criminal defense lawyers, examiners, and different individuals in the court system. He discussed the issues of incapable help. One issue that was discussed was that the examiners, guard lawyers, members of the jury, and judges don’t comprehend scientific proof. They don’t fathom what scientists are vouching for in court and end up rejecting it or enduring it in perspective of the status of the individual. The easiest way to deal with getting new evidence presented in court after a conviction is to exhibit a hardship of sacrosanct rights moreover, it was said that ineffectual help of directing cases doesn’t have a genuine solution for terrible science since they center around the vital choices of legal counselors that don’t have the foggiest idea about the science and also the judges, which are in charge of the mediation. The issue with this is the arbitration procedure would need certainty since it would need to be demonstrated that the result would have been extraordinary if measurable proof wasn’t an issue.

Cite this page

The Legal Rights of the Individual Should be to Deprivation of Life, Liberty or Respect. (2022, Jun 22). Retrieved from

Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7