[ 楊金強譯 ]——(2008-5-15) / 已閱29459次
正當程序革命
楊金強、余飛* 譯(譯者均系西南政法大學研究生部2006級訴訟法研究生)
美國從一個英國殖民地發展成為今天由50個州組成的國家，其中一個重要的原因就是自由的信念。直到現在，這種信念仍然吸引著眾多人涌入美國。它產生于幾百年前，經過發展、變革并持續到今天。自由信念的核心就是正當程序的理念——除非經由一個公正的第三方作出裁判，否則不得隨意剝奪任何人的權利和自由。正當程序原則自從確立以來，已經發展成為刑事司法中最重要的理念。它使得許多處于弱勢地位的當事人勝訴并由此產生諸多正義的判決，這些判決在今天仍然影響著司法實踐。同時，正當程序理念也把美國公眾分為強調公共秩序和強調個人權利的兩派。
正當程序原則的發展過程主要涵蓋在四個重要文件之中，即“大憲章”、“獨立宣言”、“權利法案”和美國憲法。“大憲章”是英國的憲法性文件，旨在賦予公民基本權利并保障其權利不受統治者——國王的侵犯。美國依據“大憲章”制定了自己的“權利法案”，并且成為憲法的組成部分。1765年起草的“殖民地權利與不滿宣言”，是殖民地人民發泄對王室怨氣的宣言書。正當程序原則和其他相關法律反對英國統治下的不公正審判，并以此消除人們對現行體制的不滿。這在一定程度上導致了1775年獨立戰爭的爆發。從以上提及的資料我們可以得出正當程序的理念——除非經由一個公正的第三方作出裁判，否則每個人的權利和自由都不得被隨意剝奪。同時，正當程序原則也限制政府的立法權并確保制定法的公正性和適當性。“獨立宣言”以及1776年的美國憲法使得正當程序原則和美國刑事司法體系得到進一步發展。被視為最高權威的憲法補充了前十項修正案，即“權利法案”，其內容涉及公民的自由以及保障自由的程序。憲法第四修正案特別針對正當程序原則，宣稱“公民的人身、住宅、文件和財產不受無理由的搜查和扣押，沒有合理的事實依據，不得簽發搜查令和逮捕令；在有‘合理懷疑’的情況下，搜查令必須描述清楚搜查的地點、搜查和查封的具體文件和物品，逮捕令必須具體地描述清楚需要逮捕的人。”這些保障了公民在警察突擊搜查時享有的權利，但同時也使得對“合理懷疑”的界定在當時成為一個爭論激烈的話題，并經過了多次修正和發展。憲法第五修正案通過賦予公民反對自我歸罪的特權——任何人不得被強迫提供對自己不利的證據——來實現法律基于正當程序原則對公民自身生命、財產以及自由的剝奪。在此修正案之前，無論被指控犯罪的人實際上有罪還是無罪，他都會被推定為有罪。接下來，憲法第六修正案賦予了公民取得律師幫助的權利，這使得任何被指控犯罪的人都可以更好的行使為自己辯護的權利，不至于因為不熟悉法律而不能為自己辯護。正如我們在課堂上看過的電影“吉迪恩的號角”所描述的，主人公被定罪的原因完全是由于他在法庭上沒有能力為自己辯護，這也表明了律師辯護權重要性。憲法第八修正案是影響正當程序原則的另一個里程碑。它宣稱，“不得要求過多的保釋金，不得處以過重的罰金，不得施加殘酷和非常的刑罰”。這樣，即使在犯罪的情況下，也能合理地保障公民的人身、財產和自由。我們在課堂上看過的多部關于獄中生活、酷刑和非常刑罰的影片此刻又呈現在我們面前。在奴隸制經濟繁榮的那段時期，正當程序原則的發展有所減慢；過后，隨著北方在內戰中取得勝利，該原則又開始繼續發展。隨著1857年規定“隔離但平等”的“斯科特案”被推翻，1865年憲法第十三修正案廢除奴隸制，基于出生地和居住年限賦予所有公民同等的憲法權利。不久之后的1868年，憲法第十四修正案通過賦予公民選舉權以便在更廣泛的程度上保障公民的生命、財產和自由。公民的選票將被平等地對待，并且允許任何具有一定條件的人在政府中擔任職務。同時，第十四修正案增加了正當程序原則的第二個條款——除非各州依據法律規定的正當程序，否則不能剝奪任何公民的生命、財產和自由。
作為正當程序原則發展過程中的重要力量，沃倫法院通過司法審查而非創造新的法律和程序來繼續支持正當程序原則。司法審查權使得聯邦最高法院有權聽審低級別法院的案件，并因此基于聯邦法律而不是州法律作出決定。關于司法審查的一個經典案例是1803年的“馬伯里訴麥迪遜”（Marbury vs. Madison）案，馬歇爾法官就是依據比州法律效力更高的聯邦憲法作出的判決。司法審查權在1816年的“馬丁訴亨特萊西”（Martin vs. Hunter’s Lessee）案中再次被動用。沃倫法官主持最高法院時堅持司法審查的傳統，對一些有可能終結正當程序發展的重要案件作出了決定性改變，使美國進入了被稱為“正當程序革命”的時代。
自從沃倫法院在實踐中將憲法第十四修正案適用于各州開始，正當程序革命拉開了序幕。形勢在幾個關鍵的案件被推翻之后開始了翻天覆地的變化。在關于“是恢復性正義還是重分配正義”的爭論聲中，憲法第四、第五、第六、第八和第十四修正案在正當程序革命中起了關鍵作用。
正當程序革命通過1954年的“布朗訴拖皮卡教育管理委員會”（Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka）案推翻1896年的“普萊西訴福格森”（Plessy vs. Ferguson）案而被正式提出。沃倫法院通過司法審查認為，種族隔離是不平等的，所有人都必須在諸如座位、公共設施等各個方面受到平等對待。這一判決的理念促使了1964年民權法案的產生，該法案宣稱：“為了貫徹實施憲法規定的選舉權，為了授權美國巡回法院旨在救濟公共設施歧視案件的管轄權，為了授權總檢察長保障公民享有的公共設施和公共教育方面的憲法權利，為了擴大民權委員會的職能，為了在聯邦的協助下消除歧視，為了建立一個致力于就業機會平等的委員會，或者為了其他目的，而制定本法案。”
“西爾維斯特•藍博公司訴合眾國”（Silverthorne Lumber Company vs. United States）一案標志著這場革命進入下一個階段。此案將正當程序的理念引入“毒樹之果”的領域，意味著警察必須合法地收集證據，否則證據就不能在法庭上使用。本案中，警方非法闖入藍博公司并獲取了該公司的稅務記錄，企圖指控該公司逃稅。最終，由于竊取的稅務記錄沒有被法庭采納而導致了控方證據不足。同時，第四修正案在推翻“沃爾夫訴科羅拉多”（Wolf vs. Colorado）案判決的“馬普訴俄亥俄”（Mapp vs. Ohio）一案中扮演了重要角色，該案宣稱1914年“威克斯訴美國”（Weeks vs. US）案確立的涉及第四修正案的證據排除規則也適用于各州法院。這被視為是對憲法第四修正案正當程序條款的合理推定。
憲法第五修正案也是正當程序革命的一個重要基礎。禁止雙重危險的條款規定任何人不因同一犯罪行為受到兩次追訴。該原則在1969年的“本頓訴馬里蘭州”（Benton vs. Maryland）案中得到適用。此案例推翻了1937年的“帕科訴康涅狄格州”（Palko vs. Connecticut）案，該案中，被告帕科遭到重復審判，第一次他被判處監禁刑，第二次他因同一罪被判處死刑。1964年的“埃斯貝托訴伊里諾伊州”（Escebedo vs. Illinois）案闡釋了第五修正案，一旦某人涉及到被指控的調查中，必須有律師在場作合適的辯護和解釋。這一時期的“米蘭達訴亞利桑那州”（Miranda vs. Arizona）案也為第五修正案增加了新的含義，即被逮捕時必須被告知“米蘭達權利”。
憲法第六修正案在1963年“吉迪恩訴溫賴特”（ Gideon vs. Wainright）案和一些青少年犯罪法庭的審判程序中發揮了重要作用。它通過賦予公民取得律師幫助的權利而完善了法庭審判和正當程序原則，使得任何被指控犯罪的人都可以很好地行使為自己辯護的權利，不至于因為不熟悉法律而不能為自己辯護。我們在課堂上看過的電影“吉迪恩的號角”描述了辯護權的革命，吉迪恩由于沒有能力為自己辯護而被定罪。于是，吉迪恩寫信給最高法院要求為自己指定辯護律師。其他幾個重要案件使得第六修正案在青少年犯罪審判中適用，包括1966年的“肯特訴合眾國”（ Kent vs. US）案，1967年的 “高爾特”（ re Gault）案，1970年的溫西普案（re Winship），1975年的“布雷德訴瓊斯”（ Breed vs, Jones）案和1996年的“伊里諾伊州訴蒙特內茲”（ Illinois vs. Montenez）案，以上案件都要求青少年罪犯必須有監護人陪同出庭。
1962年的“羅賓遜訴加州”（Robinson vs. California）案發展了憲法第八修正案所規定的禁止殘酷和非常刑罰的權利。1968年的“艾弗利訴約翰森”（Avery vs. Johnson）案也影響了第八修正案，該案認為，關于監所律師的立法，占用了其他的司法資源。1974年的“沃爾夫訴麥克道爾”（Wolff vs. McDonnell）案推翻了1871年的“拉芬訴聯邦”（Ruffin vs. Commonwealt）案，后者把囚犯看作國家的奴隸，前者則為囚犯提供了新的憲法架構內的保護，特別是禁止殘酷和非常的刑罰。在第八修正案是支持“恢復性正義還是重分配正義”上存在著巨大的爭論，這兩種形式的正義針對犯罪的不同方面。“恢復性正義”強調犯罪行為和處罰對社會及個人的影響，而“重分配正義”強調罪犯自身對罪行的悔過。緩刑和假釋的觀點在第八修正案的發展過程中被質疑。1972年的“莫里斯訴布萊爾”（Morrisey vs. Brewer）案是界定假釋制度的里程碑，1973年的“加貢訴斯卡貝里”（Gagnon vs. Scarpelli）案則提出了緩刑的標準。對第八修正案最后的調整是關于囚犯待遇的，包括以下案件：對我們的良心提出挑戰的“霍爾特訴薩維”（Holt vs. Sarver）案；1974年關于囚犯基本法律權利的“貝爾訴普羅柯尼爾”案（Pell vs. Procunier）案；1972年涉及死刑問題的“福曼訴佐治亞州”（Furman vs. Georgia）案和1976年“格雷格訴佐治亞州”（Gregg vs. Georgia）案。
憲法第十四修正案拉開了正當程序革命的序幕，同時也為革命的終結埋下了伏筆。它提供了沃倫之后的伯格法院和倫奎斯特法院推翻先例的根據。他們越來越保守的解釋引發了如下爭議：該修正案是不是違背立法的本意來保障公民的權利。
正當程序的理念在沃倫法院時期得以發展、實施，而在伯格法院和倫奎斯特法院時期卻被終結，后兩者都不大認同先前沃倫法院的工作。沃倫與其支持者們的許多努力得不到認同，甚至還受到伯格和倫奎斯特的輕視，他們一直力圖修改甚至推翻沃倫時期的許多判決。
伯格法院對沃倫法院判決的修正中，最主要的就是規定了排除規則的“善意例外”。伯格法院從1969年一直持續到1986年，“善意例外”使第四修正案的理念發生了變化，“如果執法人員的行為具有客觀的善意，或者他們所造成的侵犯是微小的，則過分強調被指控一方的權利就與刑事司法體系的基本理念相違背。”這個原則隨著1984年的“合眾國訴萊昂”（U.S. vs. Leon）案而普遍化。此案中，根據一位秘密監察員的報告，警方認為存在合理根據而取得了搜查令狀，在里昂的三個住處查出了大量毒品。由于申請令狀的根據不充分，該證據起初被排除在法庭之外。最終，通過排除規則的例外使該證據的資格得以認定。在1987年的“馬塞諸塞州訴舍帕德”（Massachusetts vs. Sheppard）一案中，警察申請令狀時的理由也不充分。伯格法院做出了相同判決。這從根本上改變了以前沃倫法院在1961年的“馬普訴俄亥俄”（Mapp vs. Ohio）案所強調的原則，從而修正了對“合理根據”的理解。
倫奎斯特法院對沃倫法院判決的修正主要體現在對米蘭達案（Miranda vs. Arizona）和埃斯科貝托（escobedo vs. Illinois）案判決的例外規定。從1986年起至今，倫奎斯特法院一直發揮重要作用。1977年“布瑞爾訴威聯姆斯”（Brewer vs. Williams）案確立的“必然發現”原則修正了沃倫法院的判決，該案中的被告被剝奪了訊問時的律師在場權。通過支持1984年的“紐約訴跨雷斯”（New York vs. Quarles）案確立了“公共安全的例外”原則，該案中，被告私藏武器侵害了公共安全。“合眾國訴迪格森”（U.S. vs. Dickerson）案的判決書中強調了憲法第五、第六修正案的改革，因為被告雖然承認了犯罪，但沒有被告知米蘭達權利。對米蘭達規則的修正僅僅是一種重申，而不是改變。這是倫奎斯特法院時期一個巨大的里程碑，它對美國的刑事司法政策產生了巨大的影響。
不僅僅是以上這些里程碑式的案件，伯格法院和倫奎斯特法院還在其他方面修改了沃倫法院的判決，如規定囚犯不受殘酷和非常刑罰的憲法第八修正案。“Hands-Off Doctrine（法官放手）”原則的回歸，在基于1991年的“威爾遜訴塞特”（Wilson vs. Seiter）案的懲教制度上允許懲戒體系內部的管理人員擁有更大的權力。本案中，阿肯色州監獄的一個犯人控告監獄濫用囚犯。這條原則要求在衡量是否屬于殘酷和非常刑罰時，要考慮監獄管理人員是否存在“蓄意的疏忽”。1995年，“桑丁訴克納”（Sandin vs. Conner）案導致了全美刑事司法體系的調整，允許司法正義的分配有更大的靈活性，強調囚犯通過服刑的過程為自己的罪行負責。
沃倫法院之后，憲法第十四修正案也被修改。正當程序革命的終結使得聯邦最高法院朝著對制定法和判例進行嚴格解釋的方向發展。沃倫法院的司法能動主義和美國的司法審查理念都在伯格法院和倫奎斯特法院新的修正下開始慢慢被瓦解。聯邦最高法院今天仍然繼續對這些理念進行修正。一個明顯的例子，最高法院對布什總統的選擇和決定方式僅僅是基于最高法院法官的自由意志，而并非通過一個憲法性判決。正當程序原則會以這種方式繼續下去，還是將來會出現轉機？
正當程序原則的未來像其他任何事物一樣不能準確預測，但是歷史發展的過程會給我們提供一些線索來對將來的情況做出推斷。諸多修正陳舊理念的判例已經為正當程序原則的發展提供了方向。犯罪控制的目的與正當程序原則、法律實施的需要與對無辜者的保護將是整個歷史發展過程中都持續存在的矛盾。在將來高科技武器和方法泛濫的情況下，控制犯罪的目的必然會有更高的要求。但是，正當程序理念將絲毫不會削弱，因為它是司法正義和社會發展的內在要求。政治因素和法院之間的角力也將會是影響正當程序原則的重要因素。政客們統治著當下的美國，但是他們能夠控制最高法院嗎？總統將會選擇誰進入最高法院？不同的總統的不同選擇將造成最高法院不同的傾向。因此，最近由最高法院決定的總統選舉和布什將會任命誰進入最高法院都成為了報紙的頭條。最高法院在做出最終決定時，是否會考慮布什或戈爾上臺后會提名什么樣的人進入最高法院？
正如前面所提到的，科技進步在國際關系中發揮著巨大的作用，它也必將影響正當程序原則的未來。憲法修正案會如何對待基因技術？法院如何幫助警方和聯邦調查局在正當程序的規制下控制犯罪？宗教沖突在世界范圍內的與日俱增，是否需要對憲法作出一些改變，以便能回應這種全球范圍的變化？
正當程序原則將來會基于憲法第一修正案有所變化。這源自于互聯網在當今世界的廣泛影響。1919年的“舍克訴合眾國”（Schenck vs. U. S.）案確立的“清楚和現實的危險”原則，將如何規制僅有數據和信息的互聯網領域？1925年的“吉特洛訴紐約”（Gitlow vs. New York）案使問題變得復雜，它賦予了警察懲罰危害社會公德、煽動犯罪以及擾亂社會治安等行為的權力。如何根據互聯網和技術信息的復雜性及廣泛性來控制它們可能存在的流通？
正當程序原則應當繼續堅持，在這個充斥著諸如種族、毒品和文盲問題的暴力年代，正當程序是必需的。這一觀點在我們收到的“聯邦調查局專家對暴力發展趨勢預測”中被提及。如果該預測中有關暴力的觀點直到2005年還是正確的話，那么對那些間接地參與諸如爆炸、劫機、恐怖主義和有組織犯罪的罪犯，強調保護無辜的正當程序原則與犯罪控制目的之間的對抗將繼續存在。這種對抗在目前發生在辛辛納提的種族暴動中是普遍存在的，白人警察在殘酷鎮壓眾多黑人的示威和暴亂，他們是否真正地執行了法律并且又保護了無辜，又或者他們的偏執是否損害了我們平常認為是公正的人？
自十三世紀的“大憲章”至今，正當程序原則經歷了一個漫長的歷史階段。將來在對待該原則的時候應當繼續清除政治中的保守思想。一個典型的例子是最近“阿德沃特訴合眾國”（Atwater vs. U.S）一案，該案中一位母親在高速公路上被捕，僅僅由于她把自己的三個孩子單獨留在車上而沒有給他們系上安全帶。這種判決是我們所需要的嗎？雖然還有相當大的爭論，但是執法人員出于公共安全的目的正一步步地獲取更多的權力來做類似的事情，然而在執行中卻將該目的置之腦后。本案中，給這位母親一張罰單并讓她給孩子系好安全帶就足夠了，而不是當著年輕孩子的面對他們的母親實施逮捕。這應該是美國刑事司法制度改革的方向之一，但我們卻正在堅持錯誤而離正確的道路越來越遠。所以，在今后相當長的時間里，正當程序的理念仍然會繼續發揚它保障公民權利的傳統。
資料來源：http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Government_&_Politics/Due_Process_Revolution.shtml，
附翻譯原文：
Due Process Revolution
The great promise of America that has made a British colony in the 50 States today is Freedom. Many United States. The history of these freedoms starts centuries ago and has developed, revolutionized, and persisted all the way through today. At the core of these Freedoms is the idea of Due Process, the idea that everyone has rightFreedoms which still today cause people to flock to the s and freedom until they are deprived of them arbitrarily, or by the will of a just third party. Due process has been the most powerful force in American Criminal Justice since its creation and development. It has caused many people to win over the overwhelming odds in court cases and has presided over many righteous decisions that still affect cases today. Due process has also divided the country as public order advocates or individual rights supporters.
The Development of Due Process is conceived from four important documents, the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, The Declaration of Rights and Grievances, and the U.S. Constitution. The Magna Charta was an English document that gave citizens rights and protection from their ruling body, which in that case was the King of England. The Magna Charta was used by the U.S. to create the Bill of Rights, a part of the Constitution. The Declaration of Rights and Grievances, drafted in 1765, was the original document created by the colonies of their complaints against the crown. The British unfair trials amongst other tragedies were to be fought with Due Process and the creation of other laws to clear the complaints of the current system. This would lead to the start of the Revolutionary War, in 1775. From the aforementioned documents, we would derive the concept of Due Process, the idea that people should have the right to be fairly heard and tried in court before losing life, liberty, or justice. Due process also limits the government’s ability to make laws, ensuring that they are fair and proper. The idea of Due Process and the American Criminal Justice system was furthered again with the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in 1776. The Constitution, the document known as the supreme law of the land included Bill of Rights, which were the first ten amendments discussing the freedoms and procedures to protect those freedoms in America. The fourth amendment applied specifically to Due Process, stating “,The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This secured peoples right to be searched and violated by raids, but at the same time created great controversy in what was to be probably cause, an idea that would be developed and modified many times throughout history. The Fifth Amendment also supported due process in giving any citizen the right against self incrimination. Before their life, liberty, or freedom could be taken away someone other than their selves had to be a witness to their crime or have evidence to convict them. Before this, by force, people could be forced to testify as guilty despite their true innocence or guilt. Next, the sixth amendment changed the courtroom and due process by giving Americans the right to counsel. This gave anyone charged with a crime proper defense of their rights because many people were not able to defend themselves, not knowing the court system. In class the movie Gideon’s Trumpets showed the revolution of right to counsel when he was not able to defend himself in court and convicted due entirely that fact. The Eighth amendment was the next milestone affecting Due Process. The Eighth amendment stated, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This protected life, liberty, and freedom even for those convicted of crimes. Several of the movies we watched in class dealt with prison life and cruel and unusual punishment that reoccurred there. With the booming economy caused by slavery at the time, the development of due process slowed. Then, with the Civil War resolved by the victory of the North, the development moved on. The Thirteenth amendment, in 1865, abolished slavery, giving rights to all peoples of the United States as citizens based on the origin of their birth and their time living in the country. This came from the overturning of the Dred Scott case of 1857, which gave the world the idea of “separate but equal.” Soon after, in 1868, the Fourteenth amendment further gave life, liberty, and freedom to everyone by declaring peoples votes would be counted equally and allowing anyone within certain qualifications to run for government positions. It also added the second due process clause that neither could any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or freedom without due process of law.
The Warren court was the prominent force in the development of Due Process, and continued to support Due Process, but not through the creation of new laws or procedures, but through judicial review. This power gave the Supreme Court the ability to hear cases from lower level courts and make their own decision based on Constitution instead of State law. A classic example of the judicial review is the case of Marbury vs. Madison, 1803, which Chief Justice Marshall redecided the case based on the a greater force than state law, the Constitution. This judicial review was again utilized in 1816, in the Martin vs. Hunter’s Lessee. Warren would carry on this tradition in the modern courts making changes to what would become landmark cases to end the development of Due Process and move the United States in to the era we can classify as the Due Process Revolution.
After the Warren Court applied the Fourteenth amendment to the states, the Due Process revolution began. The legal climate was changed in the overturning of several key cases. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments would all play key roles in the revolution along with the concept of Restorative vs. Redistributive Justice.
The Due Process Revolution was officially launched with the overturning of the case Plessy vs. Ferguson(1896) by the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka in 1954. This case when put through judicial review by the Warren Court (1953-1969), declared that separate was not equal and that everyone must be incorporated together in all aspects, such as seating, public facilities, etc. The ideals that came from this case would also launch the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states, “To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.”
The next step in the revolution was the case of the Silverthorne Lumber Company vs. United States. This case added to Due Process the idea of the “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree,” which specified that is evidence is taken illegally, then the evidence may not be used in a court of law. In this case, police broke into the lumber company and stole tax records that proved that the company was guilty of tax evasion. However the 1920 case ruled it inconclusional based on not enough evidence due to the fact that the records were not taken into consideration. The Fourth amendment also played a part in the case of Mapp vs. Ohio (1961) which overturned Wolf vs. Colorado(1949), by saying that the Fourth amendment Exclusionary Rule from the case Weeks vs. US (1914) was now applicable to the states individually. This was possible through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth amendment.
The Fifth amendment was also a significant factor in the Due Process revolution. The double jeopardy clause, the idea that you cannot be tried twice for the same crime was applied to the states in 1969 in the case of Benton vs. Maryland. This case overturned the previous case of Palko vs. Connecticut (1937) where Palko was retried on a case where he was sentenced to prison and the second time he was tried for the same crime he was sentenced to death. The case of Escebedo vs. Illinois(1964) also elaborated on the Fifth amendment, saying that once you move from investigating to accusing a person, a lawyer must be present for the proper defense and interpretation. Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) also developed during this period adding onto the Fifth amendment that you must be read your “Miranda Rights” when taken into custody.
The Sixth amendment was revolutionized with the cases of Gideon vs. Wainright (1963), and several juvenile court procedings. The sixth amendment changed the courtroom and due process by giving Americans the right to counsel. This gave anyone charged with a crime proper defense of their rights because many people were not able to defend themselves, not knowing the court system. In class the movie Gideon’s Trumpets showed the revolution of right to counsel when he was not able to defend himself in court and convicted due entirely that fact. His wrote to the Supreme Court who tried his case and gave him proper counsel to defend himself. Several court cases also changed the Sixth amendment to apply to juveniles convicted of crimes. They included Kent vs. US( 1966), In re Gault (1967), In re Winship (1970), Breed vs, Jones (1975), and Illinois vs. Montenez (1996), which held that a “concerned adult” must accompany a child on trial.
The Eighth amendment was revolutionized with the case of Robinson vs. California (1962), which applied the Eighth amendment, the right against cruel and unusual punishment to the states. The case of Avery vs. Johnson also affected the Eighth amendment in 1968 when it declared “jailhouse lawyers legal, absent other legal resources.” The case of Wolff vs. McDonnell (1974) reversed the case Ruffin vs. Commonwealth of (1871), which made prisoners slaves of the state, and gave the prisoners new Constitutional protections, especially against cruel and unusual punishment. There was also great debate over whether the Eighth amendment supported Restorative or Redistributive Justice. These two types of justice focused on different aspects of criminals. Restorative focused activities and punishment on the consequences of the crime towards the public and individuals, while Redistributive focused on the offenders past behavior. The ideas of probation and parole were also questioned in the revolution within the Eighth amendment. The case of Morrisey vs. Brewer (1972) was the landmark defining the specifications of parole, and the case Gagnon vs. Scarpelli in 1973 set forth the standards for probation. The final adaptations to the Eighth amendment were about inmate conditions, it included Holt vs. Sarver which discussed “shocking the conscience,” Pell vs. Procunier (1974) which dealt with the legal base of prisoner’s rights, capital punishment cases Furman vs. Georgia in 1972 and Gregg vs. Georgia in 1976.
The Fourteenth amendment began the Due Process Revolution and would conclude the revolution leading to the aftermath. The Fourteenth amendment gave the courts after Warren, Burger and Rehnquist the ability to again change the cases and ideal that ruled the amendments. Their more conservative interpretations created controversy in the way that amendments now affected citizens as opposed to their “old” meanings.
During the Warren Court, there was the idea of, the development of, and the enforcement of Due Process. However, then came the aftermath, the Burger and Rehnquist courts, both of which were not happy with the previous work of the Warren Court. The many efforts of Warren and his supporters were not liked, even despised by Burger and Rehnquist, and they made valiant efforts to modify and overturn many of his landmarks.
總共2頁 1 [2]
下一頁
