Rights for the accused protect all people. Comments anyone?
925753
I agree.  The government has gotten too big and intrusive.  They have manipulated many into thinking that questioning the government is "unamerican."  \n\nTaking away the right of habeus corpus goes against centuries of democratic law.  The absolute worst argument in support of removing our privacy rights is that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care.  This makes no sense.  Many innocent conversations and behaviors can be taken out of context and subhect an innocent person to a trial.   Anyone that has ever been falsely accused of a crime can tell you how hard it is to prove that you are innocent.  \n\nHopefully, we are going to see a backlash against this and a return of the power to the people.
490105
This right is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. \n\n"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."
1002558
These people are protected. Look at Rush Limbaugh. If you and I had broken the law twice in a month we would in jail.
780641
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. \n\n\nThe accused has the right to a quick trial. This does not mean that their trial must be over in one week. This means that the state can not make them sit in jail for 6 years while they wait to have a trial. That would be unfair to anyone who is innocent.\n\nThe accused also has the right to a public trial. The state can not put them in a warehouse and question them about the crime. It must be available to the public so that it is fairer to the accused.\n\nThe trial must be held by an impartial jury. The jurors can not be prejudiced against the accused or the crime that they've been accused of, or it would be unfair. \n\nThe trial must also be held in the area where the crime was committed, or else that could be unfair to the accused also.\n\nWhat if a dirty, homeless man was put on trial in a very rich neighborhood? They might think that he is guilty just because he is dirty or homeless. \nThe courts can not change the location from case to case either. It is already decided where the trial will be. Except in some cases, where it is sometimes better to move the trial to a different area because the accused face has been all over the local news and it would be impossible to get an impartial jury in the town where he/she lives.\n\nThe accused has the right to know what they are being charged with and why they're being held in jail. \n\nThe accused also has the right to know who is saying that they've committed the crime, and the right to ask them questions\n\nThe accused has the right to force anyone to come to their trial that they believe can help their case. The court can force someone to come to court by issuing a summons -or subpoena and then the person has no choice, but to come to the trial.\n\nThe accused also has the right to an attorney (a lawyer). If you can not afford an attorney, one will be given to you by the court. The Miranda case has made this right famous. Now whenever someone is arrested they are read their Miranda rights. These rights include the right to be silent, and the right to an attorney.
829991
Thanks for bringing up this important issue.\nMost of the things you mentioned have beneficial uses.  The danger if they are misused.  I think the Bush administration has demonstrated how our rights can be undermined.  They are talking of retaining the prisoners in Cuba for the rest of their lives, without charges or benefit of legal defense.\nThe only way to protect our rights is to participate in the process of government.  I hope anyone who reads this is ready to defend liberty with their vote on the 7th.
17362
One of the rights everyone has is to be prevented by others from harming\noneself.  But the laws on this are pretty strictly drawn in most states.  To be\nhospitalized in a mental health ward against one's will, can only be done if\na person is judged to be an IMMINENT danger to oneself or others, and/or\ngravely disabled, the latter meaning one cannot deal/provide for the basic\nnecessities of life -- all these criteria under this further condition: BASED ON\nmental illness.  So when a mother some years back wanted me to do an\ninvoluntary hospitalization, because her kid was running with a gang which\nshe viewed as harmful to him, I had to explain the "based on" condition \nwritten into the law.   Moreover, an involuntary hospitalization is usually \nknown as a "72 hour hold" -- after which the hospital  staff would have to go to the judge and seek a 'short term certification', usually 30 days, after that\nback to court again, sometimes for a longer term.  But those judgments are\nnot lightly given, because another part of the law, at least in many states, is\nthat patients be in "THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE SETTING" during all phases of\ntheir care, unless the aforesaid issues of harm came into play.\n\nFinally, straight jackets are seldom used.  Some facilities, including jails and\nlocked youth facilities, have literally a rubber room -- every surface covered\nwith soft rubber.  If they did not, a violently angry teenager who has been \nthrough simply horrendous abuse, would hurl herself or himself at an iron\ndoor, head first, to do as much damage as possible.  Underneath it all they\nare effectively saying, "You wanna hurt me.  I'll hurt me, and I'll do it so bad\nyou and no one else will ever forget it -- so bad you and this staff here\ncould not match me in their wildest dreams, because i will harm myself\nbeyond imagination."   I've heard kids say this, then hurl themselves against\nan iron door, doing as they say, terrible damage.   But one of their rights\nis to be protected from acting out that anger, since it effectively allows the\nabuser to get another period of pain out of them.  And that's not ok -- our\njob is to keep them safe until we can work with them to the point where they\nsee that the best response to abuse is to say, "you (the abuser) are not going\nto get one more second out of my life.  And I will have a happy and wonder-ful life in spite of you."\n\nEveryone has a right to get to that point, even if it takes a straight jacket to\nkeep them safe long enough to get there.\n\nAnd the adjective "gay" in your question should be utterly irrelevant and\nimmaterial to the entire set of perameters I have described.   Fortunately\nsociety is going through a sea change in its acceptance of gay people\n(though it certainly can't happen fast enough).  But you will quickly find that\nno licensed professional, and no credentialed institution will dare base any\nof their treatment of an individual on his/her sexual preference.   Already\nI believe we have passed the tipping point in that regard, though it may not\nbe evident to residents of certain towns, cities, and states.
1115106
IMHO You have asked a very sensible question. In an age of 'human rights' the proscriptive direction of the law towards protecting every single possession right down to the button on your shirt means that we are infact creating a much less liberal society in many respects.\n\nA case in point. I was taking some casual photos of a building which caught my eye because of the colour and texture surrounding an area of dereliction. AS I started shooting someone came running out of the office waving his hands, 'no, no, no' he exclaimed, 'you're not allowed. This is my building'.\n\nI started to argue with him and told him I live in a free country and can take photos of whatever I like. He became threatening and said I had no right to be standing on his driveway and told me in not uncertain terms to go away.\n\nI thought it best to move on. Life is too short to waste time with people like that. But afterwards I thought maybe he did have a point. What if I slipped and fell on his premises, even though I was perhaps a yard in off the street? Could he be liable under the public liability act to deal with a claim for a dislocated hip?\n\nI've read on the internet about corporations suing photographers for using clips from videos that show parts of their premises and presumably showing their logo or name in a wrong context.\n\nI think you are quite wise to be aware of the mad times in which we find ourselves, where everyone seems to be treading on eggshells when it comes to 'rights'.\n\nPersonally, I think the legal system has lost its way slightly and has gone off down a 'human rights' cul de sac off the main road. A subtle diversion from one of the main functions of the judiciary, which is to provide a system of public protection against political abuse of power. INstead we are busy suing each other instead of the government.
107939
The right to eat, sleep, and not be beat up.  Visitors, unless from a lawyer, is probably an earned privilege.
1138686
In our society we believe that all should have basic rights. Criminals have more access to these not because they have more rights, but because they no longer have access to the outside world. They cannot go out and earn money for things like doctors and dentists. As for visitation, they can lose those rights. To be punished there must first be something to punish with. Since criminals have already lost so much, the system manufactures new ways to punish these people. So they allow visitation and other things in order to reward or punish the criminal. It is simple conditioning. What else would they have to behave for if these things weren't available.\nI agree sometimes though that it seems that they "have it made." Most of us cannot go see a dentist when we need one. Why don't we just let them suffer? Unfortunatly this country believes in human treatment of its prisoners. Need a tooth filled? steal a car!\ndoesn't seem quite fair that they get stuff when there are innocent people starving and dying on the streets.
797206
Yes, this amendment states that everyone has the right to a trial by jury. this process insures that everyone will recieve a fair trial that will lead then to the correct punishment. If not for this amendment, many historical cases could have had different outcomes that would alter the way we live in the present.
678741
I'm not a Defense Attorney but rather a Federal Agent. I have apprehended people with HUGE narcotics loads and had full confessions from them. I see the defense attorneys create the most elaborate stories that you could imagine...do I like it, absolutely not! But....the defense attorney has a legal obligation to defend his/her client..we don't have to like it but it is the law. I personally witnessed (off duty) a criminal sexual penetration of a minor, I went to court with everyone knowing who I work for and the defense called me a pathetic liar who does not like older people (The defendant was 61 and I was 37 at the time)...did it piss me off, yes..did I expect it..unfortunately yes. It is the way our judicial system is designed..it isn't perfect but it is a heck of alot better than any other country!\n\nMy addition to your addition: You are obviously enraged that the judicial system and I have sat in your shoes many times. I don't like it any more than you do. We are far from having a perfect system! however, I have seen the judicial system in many other countries and we should be proud. I agree that we are often far too lenient with defendants but many states have laws on the book that were writen so long ago that they are not adequate for todays society.
321041
yes you can!!\nhuman rights act in the uk relates to fairness of trial.\njudges are not protected my such immunity, as they doing their job wrong.
810059
Rights of the people.
1108469
The problem is that everybody has their own agenda. There are a lot of do gooders out there who think the rights of the offender are more important than the rights of the victim. If you don't believe that take an imaginary incident. The victim will get some counselling but otherwise minimal support for a short time and then every thing is handed over to the social services. Meanwhile the poor offender gets counselling as and when he/she needs it, for the entire time of imprisonment. And when they get out there are special organisations to help them rehabilitate. So who's better off. To me your last point is a good one. Take all the live aid events. All the artists could have donated a portion of their own fortunes and more than covered what was raised. I'm well aware that a lot of artists donate money and do a lot for charity - most of which we never hear about. I'm not saying don't give but when those who have a lot expect us who have little to give then the equation isn't balanced.\n\nDave B
93003
Richard H - I hate to tell you this, but Americans do not have a "right to privacy". We certainly have an EXPECTATION of privacy, and hundreds of years of legal standards have reinforced that expectation, but no right to it. If you can find the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, I sure would love to know where.\n\nIt most definitely DOES NOT violate the First Amendment. If it did, there are hundreds of liberal courts in this nation that would have struck it down long ago. Americans are still free to say what they want - even if it is against the government. Look at Al Gore recently when he said ON SAUDI ARABIAN SOIL in a speech sponsored by the BIN LADEN FAMILY that the US committed "terrible abuses against Muslims" after 9/11. Americans can SAY whatever they want - most Americans tend to forget that there are consequences to false or harmful statements. Remember shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater??\n\nThe Patriot Act merely lets intelligence agencies share intelligence to try to put two and two together - which was one of the biggest recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I would love for you to point out documented cases of abuse due to the Patriot Act. You won't find any. The ACLU didn't find any, and if they can't with their resources, I doubt you will, either.\n\nplanksheer - It is NOT open season of First Amendment rights (see above reply to Richard H's uninformed post). The only people who have been denied those rights are detainees classified as terrorists and foreign combatants against the US military. They are not prisoners of war, and they have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Geneva Convention right are only conferred upon uniformed soldiers of an organized Army. The President has the legal right to hold them.\n\nGranted, courts have already ruled that the government must begin looking at their cases to hold them further, and the President is complying with that. If he had such disregard for the law and Constitution, President Bush would have waved the big middle finger when ordered to begin reviewing cases.\n\nAnd then we have Jose Padilla. An American who was going to explode a dirty bomb on American soil. He should NEVER see the light of day again. He is a traitor and should be treated as such. He deserves whatever he gets.\n\nPeople should do a little research before they are so quick to condemn something. Especially when their arguments are based in inaccuracies and misinformation. Think for yourselves, people. Don't just regurgitate crap that Michael Moore and his ilk put out.
453797
This is basically just a philosophical debate, but I'll put in my two cents.  I know criminal defense attorneys who are very ethical, moral people.  They believe in innocent until proven guilty, which is the foundational principal of our criminal justice system.  Of course, most criminal defendants are convicted (and by implication, most people charged are guilty).  But that does not change the fact that we would want everyone to have a quality defense, because any right we would want for ourselves should be guaranteed to everyone.\n\nJohn Adams (the second President) was a lawyer, and he helped write the Declaration of Independence.  Very cool guy, besides being a Father of Our Country.  Right before the Revolution, he volunteered to represent the British soldiers who were charged in the killings in the Boston Massacre and other lawyers didn't want to represent them(look it up if you don't remember Revolutionary War history).  Even though he lost, he has been quoted as saying that it's the case he was the proudest of taking.  Now that's an ethical stand: one of the Founding Fathers as the criminal defense attorney for the very British troops who were killing the citizens of Boston at the start of the Revolutionary War, because he knew they deserved a fair trial.
624775
No they do not have the right. Every nation should have the right to sovereignty, as long as they do no threaten other nations or commit heinous crimes against their entire populace.