Running head: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VS. PUBLIC ORDER
Individual Rights vs. Public Order
Mountain State Univeristy
Summer 1 2011
When our four fathers came together and created the Bill of Rights, they did not think it would last as long as it did. They created something that determines everything in the world, when it comes to crimes and issues. They set up rights for the people to protect the people. The first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are particularly important to criminal defendants facing formal processing by the criminal justice system (Schmalleger, F. , 2008). We were giving rights, for us individuals. Individual rights are the rights guaranteed to all members of the American society by the U.S Constitution ((Schmalleger, F. , 2008). As the world advanced, so did the criminal justice system. This caused more of an emphasis on individual rights that was accompanied by the dramatic increase in reported criminal activity worldwide. Just in the sevenths and eighties, F.B.I.‘s traditional crimes, murder, rape, and assault increased. With individual rights, came due process. Due process is procedural fairness. Fairness is the idea of doing what is best. It may not be perfect, but it is the good and decent thing to do. It requires being levelheaded, uniform and regular, when all around you is prejudice, corruption, or the desire of an angry mob to see justice done. Fairness requires breadth and depth ( Stevenes, M , 2003). Not only does the outcome have to be fair, but also so does everything along the line such as evidence gathering and presentation. (Stevenes, M., 2003). The due process standard was served in the sixties, by the warren courts. From the beginning, the individual-rights revolution had two critics. First, critics disputed the premise that the government cannot be expected to honor behavioral norms without being subject to an adversarial process (Super, D., 2005). Second, critics asserted that enforcing norms through individual rights has heavy costs in the form of lost managerial efficiency of government programs (Super, D., 2005). In the Mathews v. EldridgeJ case, these critiques provided the basis of two of the three prongs of the central due process (Super, D., 2005). Court's decisions declining to imply private rights of action to enforce statutes and regulations (Super, D., 2005). Because of this , a movement for over ten years had enforced the rights of several politically weak groups such as immigrants, prisoners, people of troubled families and people suspected to be connected to terrorism. Of the movement , responses have attacked the individual-rights revolution, braking it into two main forms. First, champions of individual rights have emphasized the importance of those rights, sometimes finding substantive value in the procedures of individual adjudication (Super, D., 2005). Second, they have sought to rebut assertions that government agencies can be counted upon to conform to legal norms without giving individuals the ability to enforce those norms (Super, D., 2005). Mathews v. Eldridge factors: the individual interest and the risk of erroneous deprivation. however, champions of individual rights have implicitly conceded their opponents' contention that interposing individual rights has a cost in terms of the efficiency of the underlying government activity(Super, D., 2005). After September eleventh, the world went on a permanent shut down. No one knew who did it and why. Shortly after the towers where down, we all knew something was to come of this, but we did not how much it would change our society today. We knew that the tower where knocked down by terrorist from the Middle East, but we did not know what they looked like. The world, as a whole, went crazy, and any one and everyone who was of Middle Eastern descent or even looked like they where...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document