Discussion Responses
Student’s Name:
Course, Department:
Institution:
Date:
I agree with the first post. The main discussion point is how an individual’s constitutional rights are usually violated when arrested or in detention under police custody. Suspects who have been arrested or are under police custody most often don’t understand and know how their rights are vital for them in the case. Only those with the representation of a lawyer usually get to exercise their constitutional rights while under custody. Another important to note is that the legal assistance in different jurisdictions has legal provisions that differ considerably, influencing how individuals practice their rights under control (Hodgson 2016).
In response to the second post, I concur that persons who have been arrested cannot be held under custody for an unreasonable amount of time. Usually, there is a specified period with which the state has to charge them or release them. There are several factors which led to the 6th amendment creating room for a speedy trial. the several factors include; avoidance of obstructive hold-ups, repressive imprisonment, mental state of the accused, and the chance that the suspects’ appeal will be weakened through interference with memories (Novotny 2016). It’s also important to note that the right to a speedy trial is quite different from other constitutional rights.
From the third post, I agree that it is essential that law enforcement agencies and law practitioners observe the prerogative to a speedy trial. The privilege of a speedy trial should be one of the most fundamental rights maintained by the constitution. The court’s duties typically are to ensure an individual’s rights under custody are not violated concerning speedy trials. They would also be guilty to be liable and in contravention with the federal laws of the particular state in which the court proceedings are taking place. The constitutional rules of criminal conviction allow that rulings are to be inflicted without unnecessary delays and conditions have indistinguishable facilities, some even distinct time caps (Betterman 2016).
References
Corley, P. C. (2016). Does the Speedy Trial Guarantee Apply to the Sentencing Phase: Betterman v. Montana (2016). Just. Sys. J., 37, 290.
Hodgson, J. S. (2016). From the domestic to the European: an empirical approach to comparative custodial legal advice. In Comparative Criminal Procedure. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Novotny, M. (2016). Don’t Hurry Me Up to Make Me Wait! The Framers Intended the Sixth Amendment to Cover Speedy Sentencing. The Framers Intended the Sixth Amendment to Cover Speedy Sentencing (May 16, 2016).
Student’s Name:
Course, Department:
Institution:
Date:
I agree with the first post. The main discussion point is how an individual’s constitutional rights are usually violated when arrested or in detention under police custody. Suspects who have been arrested or are under police custody most often don’t understand and know how their rights are vital for them in the case. Only those with the representation of a lawyer usually get to exercise their constitutional rights while under custody. Another important to note is that the legal assistance in different jurisdictions has legal provisions that differ considerably, influencing how individuals practice their rights under control (Hodgson 2016).
In response to the second post, I concur that persons who have been arrested cannot be held under custody for an unreasonable amount of time. Usually, there is a specified period with which the state has to charge them or release them. There are several factors which led to the 6th amendment creating room for a speedy trial. the several factors include; avoidance of obstructive hold-ups, repressive imprisonment, mental state of the accused, and the chance that the suspects’ appeal will be weakened through interference with memories (Novotny 2016). It’s also important to note that the right to a speedy trial is quite different from other constitutional rights.
From the third post, I agree that it is essential that law enforcement agencies and law practitioners observe the prerogative to a speedy trial. The privilege of a speedy trial should be one of the most fundamental rights maintained by the constitution. The court’s duties typically are to ensure an individual’s rights under custody are not violated concerning speedy trials. They would also be guilty to be liable and in contravention with the federal laws of the particular state in which the court proceedings are taking place. The constitutional rules of criminal conviction allow that rulings are to be inflicted without unnecessary delays and conditions have indistinguishable facilities, some even distinct time caps (Betterman 2016).
References
Corley, P. C. (2016). Does the Speedy Trial Guarantee Apply to the Sentencing Phase: Betterman v. Montana (2016). Just. Sys. J., 37, 290.
Hodgson, J. S. (2016). From the domestic to the European: an empirical approach to comparative custodial legal advice. In Comparative Criminal Procedure. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Novotny, M. (2016). Don’t Hurry Me Up to Make Me Wait! The Framers Intended the Sixth Amendment to Cover Speedy Sentencing. The Framers Intended the Sixth Amendment to Cover Speedy Sentencing (May 16, 2016).