Table of Contents
Due Process: A Closer Look at its Role in the Legal System
Introduction
As Americans, we take pride in our constitutional rights – our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These values are enshrined in the United States Constitution, a document that has served as the bedrock of our democracy for over two centuries.
One of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution is due process. Due process is both a legal concept and a philosophical principle, which seeks to ensure that all individuals are treated fairly under the law. It is a crucial safeguard against arbitrary government action, protecting citizens against the excesses of governmental power.
In this article, we will explore the concept of due process and its role in our legal system. We will examine the ways in which due process has been invoked in judicial decisions throughout American history, and provide examples of cases that have impacted the criminal justice system in particular.
What is Due Process?
The concept of due process can be traced back to ancient legal traditions in Europe, but it was greatly refined and developed in England during the Middle Ages. In 1215, the Magna Carta included provisions that reinforced the idea that no one, not even the king, was above the law. Among these provisions was the recognition of the right of “due process of law,” which became a cornerstone of the English legal system.
The concept of due process was eventually imported to the American colonies, where it evolved into a central tenet of American jurisprudence. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution both guarantee “due process of law.”
Due process has two main components: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process refers to the legal procedures that must be followed in order to protect individual rights. These procedures include the right to notice of legal proceedings, the right to a fair and impartial hearing, and the right to present evidence in one’s defense.
Substantive due process, on the other hand, refers to the basic fairness of laws themselves. It suggests that laws cannot be arbitrary or capricious, and cannot deprive individuals of their life, liberty, or property without a good reason.
Due Process in Action
Due process has been invoked in a number of landmark cases throughout American history, many of which have had a direct impact on the criminal justice system.
One such case was Miranda v. Arizona (1966), in which the Supreme Court established the famous Miranda warning that police officers must give to suspects before questioning them. The Court held that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the consequences of waiving these rights.
The Miranda warning was created to address the issue of coerced confessions, which had been a problem in the criminal justice system for years. The Court recognized that suspects have a constitutional right to due process, and that this right must be protected in order to ensure that confessions are not the product of police coercion.
Another important case where due process was invoked was Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), in which the Supreme Court established the right to counsel for people accused of crimes. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel for defendants in criminal cases, and that this right is fundamental to a fair trial.
The case involved a man named Clarence Earl Gideon, who had been charged with breaking and entering a pool hall in Florida. Gideon was too poor to afford an attorney, so he requested that the court appoint one for him. However, the court denied his request, arguing that the right to counsel only applied in capital cases.
Gideon decided to represent himself, but was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. He eventually appealed his case to the Supreme Court, which overturned his conviction and established the right to counsel for all defendants, regardless of whether the offense was a capital one or not.
Other cases that have invoked the concept of due process include Roe v. Wade (1973), in which the Supreme Court established the right to privacy as it relates to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, and Atkins v. Virginia (2002), in which the Court held that executing someone who is intellectually disabled violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Conclusion
Due process is a foundational principle of our legal system, and is essential for protecting individual rights and ensuring that our government operates within the bounds of the law. From the Miranda warning to the right to counsel, the concept of due process has been invoked in numerous cases throughout American history, many of which have had a direct impact on the criminal justice system.
While due process may sometimes slow down legal proceedings, or make it more difficult to prosecute criminals, it is an essential safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. By upholding due process, we can ensure that our legal system remains fair, just, and respectful of individual rights.
Due process is a right that is guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Amendment states that “no State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
With the Supreme Court case of Allgeyer v. Louisiana in 1897, the Court came to the conclusion that the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment extended to private contracts as well, allowing such liberties as “freedom of contract” to be enforced without the implementation of various social and economic regulations passed by Federal and State governments. In addition, due process requires that a judge remove him or herself from a case if a conflict of interest exists within it.
Background
Before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed with the Due Process Clause, the term “due process” and “law of the land” were spoken and written interchangeably. New York was the first state to include the term of due process within its statutory Bill of Rights in 1787. Eventually, New York requested that the provisions of due process be added to the United States Constitution, with the language, “[N]o Person ought to be taken imprisoned, or be exiled or deprived of his Privileges, Franchises, Life, Liberty or Property but by due process of law.” James Madison considered this proposal and redrafted it to leave out certain aspects of the language.
Various Applications and Interpretations of Due Process in the United States
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights granted due process to the actions of the Federal Government. It was not until the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment that the idea applied to the states themselves. Both clauses, however, are largely identified as the same.
With respect to the process of deciding if an action falls under the guidelines of due process, traditionally the process itself would be examined under the text of the Constitution to discover if there are any conflicts. These rights are explicitly mentioned within the Constitution and are considered to be enumerated due process rights. Unenumerated due process rights also exist in the text, through the eyes of the Supreme Court.
As mentioned above, there have been added components to the Clause which establishes boundaries by which laws operate. Due to the implicit nature of these interpretations, there has been a wide debate about the meaning of the Due Process Clause.
Notable U.S. Supreme Court Cases Pertaining to Due Process
Though the procedural due process has been clearly outlined under the U.S. Constitution, further substantive due process interpretations have been applied and formed by the Supreme Court. These interpretations are quite implicit in nature, though the Supreme Court has applied the Due Process Clause to several areas of dispute within the Court, such as the freedom of contract and other fundamental rights, including privacy.
Allgeyer v. Louisiana:
This was a landmark Supreme Court case occurring in 1897, which helped to strike down a state law in Louisiana because it was deemed a violation of a citizen’s “liberty to contract.” The Supreme Court extended the reach of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to include liberty as an economic right.
The case stemmed from a Louisiana statute that prohibited persons, corporations, and other entities from dealing with “marine insurance companies that have not complied with the law.” The purpose of this statute was to prevent fraud when dealing with out-of-state marine insurance companies and it required that such companies acquire an appointed agent within the State.
The State of Louisiana filed a complaint to a court, claiming that Allgeyer violated this law in three separate counts. Allgeyer and the defense team immediately challenged this law, claiming it violated the Fourteenth Amendment by stripping Allgeyer of property without due process.
The case went to trial and judgment went in favor of Allgeyer in Orleans Parish Court. After an appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the judgment was overturning the decision, deciding that Allgeyer was indeed guilty of one of those three counts. The defendant finally brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court unanimously agreed with Allgeyer on the grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment and the decision was reversed yet again.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish:
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish was a Supreme Court decision that upheld the importance of minimum wage and legislation enforcement in the State of Washington. This case also applied to substantive due process in that it addressed the struggle between “liberty of contract” and governmental regulation. The Supreme Court decided that the minimum wage regulation in Washington was valid because it was essential for the general health of the State’s citizens and their ability to support themselves and their families.
