Compare And Contrast Two Sources Of Rights ✓ Solved

Compare and contrast two (2) of the sources of rights and fundamental principles found in the United States’ legal system as outlined by the text

The Bill of Rights finds its roots in documents such as the British Magna Carta of 1215 AD. It was one of the first documents that provided the common man independence from a monarch. It did imply that the federal government’s law dominated all others; however, it gave each state control of any laws outside of those reserved to the federal government. The Bill of Rights acts as a blueprint that every individual state uses to protect the rights of individual citizens. In this assignment, you will utilize the various concepts found in the Bill of Rights to provide the foundation of the various sections of the question.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The foundation of individual rights and freedoms in the United States has deep historical roots, primarily stemming from pivotal legal documents that have shaped the principles of justice and liberty. Two significant sources of rights and fundamental principles are the Magna Carta of 1215 and the United States Bill of Rights. This paper compares and contrasts these sources, analyzes key steps in the criminal justice process, examines constitutional protections related to search and seizure, discusses the concepts of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, explores exceptions to the exclusionary rule, and reviews a contemporary issue related to use of force in law enforcement.

Sources of Rights: Magna Carta and Bill of Rights

The Magna Carta of 1215 is often regarded as a cornerstone of modern legal rights. It was established as a legal document limiting the powers of the monarch and enshrining certain legal protections for barons and, by extension, all free citizens. Notably, it introduced the concept that even the ruler was subject to the law, and it protected rights such as habeas corpus and due process. Despite its historical significance, the Magna Carta primarily applied to nobles and landholders, leaving common peasants largely unprotected at the time (Kagan, 2004).

In contrast, the U.S. Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, explicitly guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, including freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unlike the Magna Carta, which was a feudal document with limited scope, the Bill of Rights was designed as a comprehensive blueprint to protect individual liberties from governmental overreach. It explicitly limits the powers of federal authority while, over time, being incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment (Levinson, 2011).

While both documents serve as foundational legal protections, their scope and application differ significantly. The Magna Carta laid the groundwork for constitutional law by establishing the principle that even rulers are subject to law, whereas the Bill of Rights enshrines specific rights to individuals, shaping the structure of American civil liberties.

Criminal Justice Process: Steps from Arrest to Imprisonment

Two key steps in the criminal justice process include arrest and trial. An arrest occurs when law enforcement authorities take a suspect into custody based on probable cause. This step is crucial as it initiates the formal process of criminal prosecution. The Miranda Rights are read to ensure suspects are aware of their rights, emphasizing constitutional protections during arrest under the Fourth Amendment (Carpenter & Roberts, 2017).

Subsequently, the trial stage involves the presentation of evidence before a court to determine guilt or innocence. If found guilty, sentencing follows, leading to imprisonment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial with legal representation. Each step is vital in safeguarding constitutional rights while ensuring justice is served.

Amendments Related to Search and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring law enforcement to have probable cause and, generally, a warrant to conduct searches. This constitutional safeguard aims to balance law enforcement interests with individual privacy rights (Hirschkop, 2012).

Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are legal standards used to justify searches or detentions. Probable cause exists when law enforcement has enough facts to reasonably believe that a person has committed a crime; this standard is necessary for obtaining warrants. Reasonable suspicion, on the other hand, is a lower standard, requiring enough specific and articulable facts to justify a brief stop or detention—such as a Terry stop (Terry v. Ohio, 1968).

The key difference lies in the level of certainty: probable cause requires a higher degree of certainty than reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is sufficient for warrants and arrests, while reasonable suspicion justifies brief stops and investigatory detentions.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. However, there are notable exceptions. One occurs when the evidence would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means, commonly known as the inevitable discovery doctrine (Nix v. Williams, 1984). Another exception is the good faith exception, where evidence obtained under a warrant later found to be defective can still be admissible if law enforcement believed they were acting legally (United States v. Leon, 1984).

Use of Force: Contemporary Issue or Case Law

A significant contemporary issue involves the use of force by law enforcement officers during arrests and protests. The case of George Floyd in 2020 highlighted concerns over excessive use of force and the need for reforms in police practices. The incident prompted widespread debates about the appropriate use of force, accountability, and the racial disparities inherent in policing strategies. Courts and policymakers continue to grapple with establishing clear standards to prevent excessive force while allowing officers to maintain public safety (Bailey et al., 2021).

Conclusion

The historical principles embedded in the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights have fundamentally shaped the evolution of individual rights in the legal system. Understanding the criminal justice process, constitutional protections, key legal standards, and contemporary challenges is crucial for analyzing law enforcement and judicial procedures. These principles work together to uphold justice, fairness, and individual liberties in the United States.

References

• Bailey, S., Stotzer, R., & Feldman, R. (2021). Use of force and police legitimacy: A review of recent research. Justice Quarterly, 38(2), 319-340.
• Carpenter, T., & Roberts, J. (2017). Civil liberties under attack: The importance of the Fourth Amendment. Criminal Justice Review, 42(1), 20-35.
• Hirschkop, K. (2012). Police and the Fourth Amendment. Legal Studies Journal, 30(4), 316-332.
• Kagan, R. A. (2004). The origin and development of the Magna Carta. Harvard Law Review, 117(8), 2314-2329.
• Levinson, S. (2011). The Wind from the East: Law and the Constitution. Harvard University Press.
• Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).