section 1
I suppose that the technical term here is “without due process of law”. By “should not be deprived of..due process of law” a person should undergo the processes that would make a, for example, arrest, prosecution and conviction, just. For example, his case should be heard in court; he must have a lawyer. Or if searched, there must be a warrant; if arrested, he should be told of his rights (e.g, “you have the right to remain silent..”)
I suppose that the technical term here is “without due process of law”. By “should not be deprived of..due process of law” a person should undergo the processes that would make a, for example, arrest, prosecution and conviction, just. For example, his case should be heard in court; he must have a lawyer. Or if searched, there must be a warrant; if arrested, he should be told of his rights (e.g, “you have the right to remain silent..”)
section 2
section is concerned with search warrants. obviously, law enforcements (eg. the police) cannot just go about your things and properties. they must have a warrant do so – and that is issued by the judge, which in his good judgment is to determine the “probable cause”, that it is indeed necessary to search you because you might be hiding something, or something is with you (the evidence) that would probably link you to a, say, crime. What they do in malls and airports I think has certain permits issued. Of course, national security is at issue there, so there is no need to be very “constitutional” about that. But the point is that, they cannot just search, snoop, and touch about things whenever they feel to. They must have a warrant or certificate issued by a judge of a court.
section is concerned with search warrants. obviously, law enforcements (eg. the police) cannot just go about your things and properties. they must have a warrant do so – and that is issued by the judge, which in his good judgment is to determine the “probable cause”, that it is indeed necessary to search you because you might be hiding something, or something is with you (the evidence) that would probably link you to a, say, crime. What they do in malls and airports I think has certain permits issued. Of course, national security is at issue there, so there is no need to be very “constitutional” about that. But the point is that, they cannot just search, snoop, and touch about things whenever they feel to. They must have a warrant or certificate issued by a judge of a court.
section 3
this section is very related to section 2. What this provision means is that, again, we have the right to any means of communication, and the consequences of that, say, the actual conversation of two or more people (which might get recorded); or the exchanged letters of two lovers; all of them are to be private, and are inadmissible as evidence to a court hearing when acquired without any certificate (again) from the court. So wiretapping and such tricks are unlawful – except when courts would permit it. Now why would they permit it? Because, again, there is “probable cause” that this, say, exchange of letters, or telephone conversation, has something to do with acts of terrorism, or say, sedition, which, if not known beforehand, would have terrible consequences.
this section is very related to section 2. What this provision means is that, again, we have the right to any means of communication, and the consequences of that, say, the actual conversation of two or more people (which might get recorded); or the exchanged letters of two lovers; all of them are to be private, and are inadmissible as evidence to a court hearing when acquired without any certificate (again) from the court. So wiretapping and such tricks are unlawful – except when courts would permit it. Now why would they permit it? Because, again, there is “probable cause” that this, say, exchange of letters, or telephone conversation, has something to do with acts of terrorism, or say, sedition, which, if not known beforehand, would have terrible consequences.
Section 2 and 3 has this principle, in my opinion:
Surely, in some instances, the good of the public (the majority) is worth more than the privacy and possessions of persons. It is the judge of the court to determine which is more valuable in a certain instance. If he thinks that there is no probable cause of an unlawful act, then he won’t issue a warrant; otherwise, you’d be certain that their will be a thorough search. These three sections, and the bill of rights for that matter is concerned with ensuring the liberty of the individual while keeping the public safe and in order – forget one of the other, then anarchy or despotism would follow.
Surely, in some instances, the good of the public (the majority) is worth more than the privacy and possessions of persons. It is the judge of the court to determine which is more valuable in a certain instance. If he thinks that there is no probable cause of an unlawful act, then he won’t issue a warrant; otherwise, you’d be certain that their will be a thorough search. These three sections, and the bill of rights for that matter is concerned with ensuring the liberty of the individual while keeping the public safe and in order – forget one of the other, then anarchy or despotism would follow.
Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a law student, nor a political science student. Whatever I’m saying, though, might be perverted and totally wrong; since it was quite sometime now when I took the course. Believe them at your own risk.
bill of rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state and not between individuals. if a search is made at the initiative of a private person for his own and private purpose, without the intervention of the police authorities, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure cannot be invoked because only the act of the private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved.
The right against self-incrimination applies to criminal cases as well as in civil, administrative, and legislative proceedings where the facts asked for, is a criminal one. It protects one whether he is a witness or party to the case. The purpose of this constitutional prohibition is to inhibit the use of force in order to extract unwilling confessions from the prisoners, implication them in the commission of a crime. The prohibition is simply against legal process to extricate from the defendant’s own lips against his will an admission of his guilt. It is to be noted that the refusal to produce a “specimen” of his handwriting is within this constitutional privilege. The privilege not to give self-incriminating evidence while absolute when claimed, may be waived by one entitled to invoke it.
22
No comments:
Post a Comment