Advantages Of Constitutional Protection
Supporters of Constitutional protections for criminal suspects claim that it is better if some guilty people go free than if some innocent people are convicted. I agree with this statement. The United States Constitution Preamble reads, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Therefore, the Constitution was created in order to protect a country’s rights for liberty, their unjust laws, and freedom from a tyrannical government. Hence the phrase, “secure the
…show more content…
The reason for trials is not to prove whether a person actually committed the crime. Rather, it is to show if there is enough evidence proven to convict a guilty person. As a result, if there is not enough evidence to prove a person is guilty of a crime, even if they did commit the crime, then we should allow them to go free. It is better for this to occur than to convict an innocent person. No innocent person should suffer in jail for a crime they did not commit. In addition, under the Sixth Amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to… have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” While the suspect has a lawyer, it is up to the state to prove the guilt; not for the defense to prove innocence. If the state cannot do its job to prove a person is guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then the person should not be convicted. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution has several provisions that protect the “rights of the accused.” When putting an innocent person in prison or jail, this depraves him or her of their freedom given to them. Thus, this goes against the Constitution, which prohibits
The reason for trials is not to prove whether a person actually committed the crime. Rather, it is to show if there is enough evidence proven to convict a guilty person. As a result, if there is not enough evidence to prove a person is guilty of a crime, even if they did commit the crime, then we should allow them to go free. It is better for this to occur than to convict an innocent person. No innocent person should suffer in jail for a crime they did not commit. In addition, under the Sixth Amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to… have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” While the suspect has a lawyer, it is up to the state to prove the guilt; not for the defense to prove innocence. If the state cannot do its job to prove a person is guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then the person should not be convicted. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution has several provisions that protect the “rights of the accused.” When putting an innocent person in prison or jail, this depraves him or her of their freedom given to them. Thus, this goes against the Constitution, which prohibits