[ 楊金強(qiáng)譯 ]——(2008-5-15) / 已閱29250次
正當(dāng)程序革命
楊金強(qiáng)、余飛* 譯(譯者均系西南政法大學(xué)研究生部2006級(jí)訴訟法研究生)
美國(guó)從一個(gè)英國(guó)殖民地發(fā)展成為今天由50個(gè)州組成的國(guó)家，其中一個(gè)重要的原因就是自由的信念。直到現(xiàn)在，這種信念仍然吸引著眾多人涌入美國(guó)。它產(chǎn)生于幾百年前，經(jīng)過發(fā)展、變革并持續(xù)到今天。自由信念的核心就是正當(dāng)程序的理念——除非經(jīng)由一個(gè)公正的第三方作出裁判，否則不得隨意剝奪任何人的權(quán)利和自由。正當(dāng)程序原則自從確立以來，已經(jīng)發(fā)展成為刑事司法中最重要的理念。它使得許多處于弱勢(shì)地位的當(dāng)事人勝訴并由此產(chǎn)生諸多正義的判決，這些判決在今天仍然影響著司法實(shí)踐。同時(shí)，正當(dāng)程序理念也把美國(guó)公眾分為強(qiáng)調(diào)公共秩序和強(qiáng)調(diào)個(gè)人權(quán)利的兩派。
正當(dāng)程序原則的發(fā)展過程主要涵蓋在四個(gè)重要文件之中，即“大憲章”、“獨(dú)立宣言”、“權(quán)利法案”和美國(guó)憲法�！按髴椪隆笔怯�(guó)的憲法性文件，旨在賦予公民基本權(quán)利并保障其權(quán)利不受統(tǒng)治者——國(guó)王的侵犯。美國(guó)依據(jù)“大憲章”制定了自己的“權(quán)利法案”，并且成為憲法的組成部分。1765年起草的“殖民地權(quán)利與不滿宣言”，是殖民地人民發(fā)泄對(duì)王室怨氣的宣言書。正當(dāng)程序原則和其他相關(guān)法律反對(duì)英國(guó)統(tǒng)治下的不公正審判，并以此消除人們對(duì)現(xiàn)行體制的不滿。這在一定程度上導(dǎo)致了1775年獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的爆發(fā)。從以上提及的資料我們可以得出正當(dāng)程序的理念——除非經(jīng)由一個(gè)公正的第三方作出裁判，否則每個(gè)人的權(quán)利和自由都不得被隨意剝奪。同時(shí)，正當(dāng)程序原則也限制政府的立法權(quán)并確保制定法的公正性和適當(dāng)性。“獨(dú)立宣言”以及1776年的美國(guó)憲法使得正當(dāng)程序原則和美國(guó)刑事司法體系得到進(jìn)一步發(fā)展。被視為最高權(quán)威的憲法補(bǔ)充了前十項(xiàng)修正案，即“權(quán)利法案”，其內(nèi)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(duì)正當(dāng)程序原則，宣稱“公民的人身、住宅、文件和財(cái)產(chǎn)不受無理由的搜查和扣押，沒有合理的事實(shí)依據(jù)，不得簽發(fā)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(diǎn)、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�！边@些保障了公民在警察突擊搜查時(shí)享有的權(quán)利，但同時(shí)也使得對(duì)“合理懷疑”的界定在當(dāng)時(shí)成為一個(gè)爭(zhēng)論激烈的話題，并經(jīng)過了多次修正和發(fā)展。憲法第五修正案通過賦予公民反對(duì)自我歸罪的特權(quán)——任何人不得被強(qiáng)迫提供對(duì)自己不利的證據(jù)——來實(shí)現(xiàn)法律基于正當(dāng)程序原則對(duì)公民自身生命、財(cái)產(chǎn)以及自由的剝奪。在此修正案之前，無論被指控犯罪的人實(shí)際上有罪還是無罪，他都會(huì)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(quán)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(hù)的權(quán)利，不至于因?yàn)椴皇煜し啥荒転樽约恨q護(hù)。正如我們?cè)谡n堂上看過的電影“吉迪恩的號(hào)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(hù)，這也表明了律師辯護(hù)權(quán)重要性。憲法第八修正案是影響正當(dāng)程序原則的另一個(gè)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(cái)產(chǎn)和自由。我們?cè)谡n堂上看過的多部關(guān)于獄中生活、酷刑和非常刑罰的影片此刻又呈現(xiàn)在我們面前。在奴隸制經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮的那段時(shí)期，正當(dāng)程序原則的發(fā)展有所減慢；過后，隨著北方在內(nèi)戰(zhàn)中取得勝利，該原則又開始繼續(xù)發(fā)展。隨著1857年規(guī)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(quán)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(quán)以便在更廣泛的程度上保障公民的生命、財(cái)產(chǎn)和自由。公民的選票將被平等地對(duì)待，并且允許任何具有一定條件的人在政府中擔(dān)任職務(wù)。同時(shí)，第十四修正案增加了正當(dāng)程序原則的第二個(gè)條款——除非各州依據(jù)法律規(guī)定的正當(dāng)程序，否則不能剝奪任何公民的生命、財(cái)產(chǎn)和自由。
作為正當(dāng)程序原則發(fā)展過程中的重要力量，沃倫法院通過司法審查而非創(chuàng)造新的法律和程序來繼續(xù)支持正當(dāng)程序原則。司法審查權(quán)使得聯(lián)邦最高法院有權(quán)聽審低級(jí)別法院的案件，并因此基于聯(lián)邦法律而不是州法律作出決定。關(guān)于司法審查的一個(gè)經(jīng)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(jù)比州法律效力更高的聯(lián)邦憲法作出的判決。司法審查權(quán)在1816年的“馬丁訴亨特萊西”（Martin vs. Hunter’s Lessee）案中再次被動(dòng)用。沃倫法官主持最高法院時(shí)堅(jiān)持司法審查的傳統(tǒng)，對(duì)一些有可能終結(jié)正當(dāng)程序發(fā)展的重要案件作出了決定性改變，使美國(guó)進(jìn)入了被稱為“正當(dāng)程序革命”的時(shí)代。
自從沃倫法院在實(shí)踐中將憲法第十四修正案適用于各州開始，正當(dāng)程序革命拉開了序幕。形勢(shì)在幾個(gè)關(guān)鍵的案件被推翻之后開始了翻天覆地的變化。在關(guān)于“是恢復(fù)性正義還是重分配正義”的爭(zhēng)論聲中，憲法第四、第五、第六、第八和第十四修正案在正當(dāng)程序革命中起了關(guān)鍵作用。
正當(dāng)程序革命通過1954年的“布朗訴拖皮卡教育管理委員會(huì)”（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(rèn)為，種族隔離是不平等的，所有人都必須在諸如座位、公共設(shè)施等各個(gè)方面受到平等對(duì)待。這一判決的理念促使了1964年民權(quán)法案的產(chǎn)生，該法案宣稱：“為了貫徹實(shí)施憲法規(guī)定的選舉權(quán)，為了授權(quán)美國(guó)巡回法院旨在救濟(jì)公共設(shè)施歧視案件的管轄權(quán)，為了授權(quán)總檢察長(zhǎng)保障公民享有的公共設(shè)施和公共教育方面的憲法權(quán)利，為了擴(kuò)大民權(quán)委員會(huì)的職能，為了在聯(lián)邦的協(xié)助下消除歧視，為了建立一個(gè)致力于就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)平等的委員會(huì)，或者為了其他目的，而制定本法案�！�
“西爾維斯特•藍(lán)博公司訴合眾國(guó)”（Silverthorne Lumber Company vs. United States）一案標(biāo)志著這場(chǎng)革命進(jìn)入下一個(gè)階段。此案將正當(dāng)程序的理念引入“毒樹之果”的領(lǐng)域，意味著警察必須合法地收集證據(jù)，否則證據(jù)就不能在法庭上使用。本案中，警方非法闖入藍(lán)博公司并獲取了該公司的稅務(wù)記錄，企圖指控該公司逃稅。最終，由于竊取的稅務(wù)記錄沒有被法庭采納而導(dǎo)致了控方證據(jù)不足。同時(shí)，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(guó)”（Weeks vs. US）案確立的涉及第四修正案的證據(jù)排除規(guī)則也適用于各州法院。這被視為是對(duì)憲法第四修正案正當(dāng)程序條款的合理推定。
憲法第五修正案也是正當(dāng)程序革命的一個(gè)重要基礎(chǔ)。禁止雙重危險(xiǎn)的條款規(guī)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(fù)審判，第一次他被判處監(jiān)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(diào)查中，必須有律師在場(chǎng)作合適的辯護(hù)和解釋。這一時(shí)期的“米蘭達(dá)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(shí)必須被告知“米蘭達(dá)權(quán)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(fā)揮了重要作用。它通過賦予公民取得律師幫助的權(quán)利而完善了法庭審判和正當(dāng)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(hù)的權(quán)利，不至于因?yàn)椴皇煜し啥荒転樽约恨q護(hù)。我們?cè)谡n堂上看過的電影“吉迪恩的號(hào)角”描述了辯護(hù)權(quán)的革命，吉迪恩由于沒有能力為自己辯護(hù)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(hù)律師。其他幾個(gè)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(guó)”（ 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(nèi)茲”（ Illinois vs. Montenez）案，以上案件都要求青少年罪犯必須有監(jiān)護(hù)人陪同出庭。
1962年的“羅賓遜訴加州”（Robinson vs. California）案發(fā)展了憲法第八修正案所規(guī)定的禁止殘酷和非常刑罰的權(quán)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(rèn)為，關(guān)于監(jiān)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(lián)邦”（Ruffin vs. Commonwealt）案，后者把囚犯看作國(guó)家的奴隸，前者則為囚犯提供了新的憲法架構(gòu)內(nèi)的保護(hù)，特別是禁止殘酷和非常的刑罰。在第八修正案是支持“恢復(fù)性正義還是重分配正義”上存在著巨大的爭(zhēng)論，這兩種形式的正義針對(duì)犯罪的不同方面。“恢復(fù)性正義”強(qiáng)調(diào)犯罪行為和處罰對(duì)社會(huì)及個(gè)人的影響，而“重分配正義”強(qiáng)調(diào)罪犯自身對(duì)罪行的悔過。緩刑和假釋的觀點(diǎn)在第八修正案的發(fā)展過程中被質(zhì)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(biāo)準(zhǔn)。對(duì)第八修正案最后的調(diào)整是關(guān)于囚犯待遇的，包括以下案件：對(duì)我們的良心提出挑戰(zhàn)的“霍爾特訴薩維”（Holt vs. Sarver）案；1974年關(guān)于囚犯基本法律權(quán)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(dāng)程序革命的序幕，同時(shí)也為革命的終結(jié)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(jù)。他們?cè)絹碓奖Ｊ氐慕忉屢l(fā)了如下爭(zhēng)議：該修正案是不是違背立法的本意來保障公民的權(quán)利。
正當(dāng)程序的理念在沃倫法院時(shí)期得以發(fā)展、實(shí)施，而在伯格法院和倫奎斯特法院時(shí)期卻被終結(jié)，后兩者都不大認(rèn)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(rèn)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(shí)期的許多判決。
伯格法院對(duì)沃倫法院判決的修正中，最主要的就是規(guī)定了排除規(guī)則的“善意例外”。伯格法院從1969年一直持續(xù)到1986年，“善意例外”使第四修正案的理念發(fā)生了變化，“如果執(zhí)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(qiáng)調(diào)被指控一方的權(quán)利就與刑事司法體系的基本理念相違背。”這個(gè)原則隨著1984年的“合眾國(guó)訴萊昂”（U.S. vs. Leon）案而普遍化。此案中，根據(jù)一位秘密監(jiān)察員的報(bào)告，警方認(rèn)為存在合理根據(jù)而取得了搜查令狀，在里昂的三個(gè)住處查出了大量毒品。由于申請(qǐng)令狀的根據(jù)不充分，該證據(jù)起初被排除在法庭之外。最終，通過排除規(guī)則的例外使該證據(jù)的資格得以認(rèn)定。在1987年的“馬塞諸塞州訴舍帕德”（Massachusetts vs. Sheppard）一案中，警察申請(qǐng)令狀時(shí)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(qiáng)調(diào)的原則，從而修正了對(duì)“合理根據(jù)”的理解。
倫奎斯特法院對(duì)沃倫法院判決的修正主要體現(xiàn)在對(duì)米蘭達(dá)案（Miranda vs. Arizona）和埃斯科貝托（escobedo vs. Illinois）案判決的例外規(guī)定。從1986年起至今，倫奎斯特法院一直發(fā)揮重要作用。1977年“布瑞爾訴威聯(lián)姆斯”（Brewer vs. Williams）案確立的“必然發(fā)現(xiàn)”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(shí)的律師在場(chǎng)權(quán)。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�！昂媳妵�(guó)訴迪格森”（U.S. vs. Dickerson）案的判決書中強(qiáng)調(diào)了憲法第五、第六修正案的改革，因?yàn)楸桓骐m然承認(rèn)了犯罪，但沒有被告知米蘭達(dá)權(quán)利。對(duì)米蘭達(dá)規(guī)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(shí)期一個(gè)巨大的里程碑，它對(duì)美國(guó)的刑事司法政策產(chǎn)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(guī)定囚犯不受殘酷和非常刑罰的憲法第八修正案�！癏ands-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(nèi)部的管理人員擁有更大的權(quán)力。本案中，阿肯色州監(jiān)獄的一個(gè)犯人控告監(jiān)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(shí)，要考慮監(jiān)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(dǎo)致了全美刑事司法體系的調(diào)整，允許司法正義的分配有更大的靈活性，強(qiáng)調(diào)囚犯通過服刑的過程為自己的罪行負(fù)責(zé)。
沃倫法院之后，憲法第十四修正案也被修改。正當(dāng)程序革命的終結(jié)使得聯(lián)邦最高法院朝著對(duì)制定法和判例進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格解釋的方向發(fā)展。沃倫法院的司法能動(dòng)主義和美國(guó)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(lián)邦最高法院今天仍然繼續(xù)對(duì)這些理念進(jìn)行修正。一個(gè)明顯的例子，最高法院對(duì)布什總統(tǒng)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(gè)憲法性判決。正當(dāng)程序原則會(huì)以這種方式繼續(xù)下去，還是將來會(huì)出現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)機(jī)？
正當(dāng)程序原則的未來像其他任何事物一樣不能準(zhǔn)確預(yù)測(cè)，但是歷史發(fā)展的過程會(huì)給我們提供一些線索來對(duì)將來的情況做出推斷。諸多修正陳舊理念的判例已經(jīng)為正當(dāng)程序原則的發(fā)展提供了方向。犯罪控制的目的與正當(dāng)程序原則、法律實(shí)施的需要與對(duì)無辜者的保護(hù)將是整個(gè)歷史發(fā)展過程中都持續(xù)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(huì)有更高的要求。但是，正當(dāng)程序理念將絲毫不會(huì)削弱，因?yàn)樗撬痉ㄕx和社會(huì)發(fā)展的內(nèi)在要求。政治因素和法院之間的角力也將會(huì)是影響正當(dāng)程序原則的重要因素。政客們統(tǒng)治著當(dāng)下的美國(guó)，但是他們能夠控制最高法院?jiǎn)�？總統(tǒng)將會(huì)選擇誰(shuí)進(jìn)入最高法院？不同的總統(tǒng)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(tǒng)選舉和布什將會(huì)任命誰(shuí)進(jìn)入最高法院都成為了報(bào)紙的頭條。最高法院在做出最終決定時(shí)，是否會(huì)考慮布什或戈?duì)柹吓_(tái)后會(huì)提名什么樣的人進(jìn)入最高法院？
正如前面所提到的，科技進(jìn)步在國(guó)際關(guān)系中發(fā)揮著巨大的作用，它也必將影響正當(dāng)程序原則的未來。憲法修正案會(huì)如何對(duì)待基因技術(shù)？法院如何幫助警方和聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局在正當(dāng)程序的規(guī)制下控制犯罪？宗教沖突在世界范圍內(nèi)的與日俱增，是否需要對(duì)憲法作出一些改變，以便能回應(yīng)這種全球范圍的變化？
正當(dāng)程序原則將來會(huì)基于憲法第一修正案有所變化。這源自于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)在當(dāng)今世界的廣泛影響。1919年的“舍克訴合眾國(guó)”（Schenck vs. U. S.）案確立的“清楚和現(xiàn)實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)”原則，將如何規(guī)制僅有數(shù)據(jù)和信息的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)領(lǐng)域？1925年的“吉特洛訴紐約”（Gitlow vs. New York）案使問題變得復(fù)雜，它賦予了警察懲罰危害社會(huì)公德、煽動(dòng)犯罪以及擾亂社會(huì)治安等行為的權(quán)力。如何根據(jù)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)和技術(shù)信息的復(fù)雜性及廣泛性來控制它們可能存在的流通？
正當(dāng)程序原則應(yīng)當(dāng)繼續(xù)堅(jiān)持，在這個(gè)充斥著諸如種族、毒品和文盲問題的暴力年代，正當(dāng)程序是必需的。這一觀點(diǎn)在我們收到的“聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局專家對(duì)暴力發(fā)展趨勢(shì)預(yù)測(cè)”中被提及。如果該預(yù)測(cè)中有關(guān)暴力的觀點(diǎn)直到2005年還是正確的話，那么對(duì)那些間接地參與諸如爆炸、劫機(jī)、恐怖主義和有組織犯罪的罪犯，強(qiáng)調(diào)保護(hù)無辜的正當(dāng)程序原則與犯罪控制目的之間的對(duì)抗將繼續(xù)存在。這種對(duì)抗在目前發(fā)生在辛辛納提的種族暴動(dòng)中是普遍存在的，白人警察在殘酷鎮(zhèn)壓眾多黑人的示威和暴亂，他們是否真正地執(zhí)行了法律并且又保護(hù)了無辜，又或者他們的偏執(zhí)是否損害了我們平常認(rèn)為是公正的人？
自十三世紀(jì)的“大憲章”至今，正當(dāng)程序原則經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)漫長(zhǎng)的歷史階段。將來在對(duì)待該原則的時(shí)候應(yīng)當(dāng)繼續(xù)清除政治中的保守思想。一個(gè)典型的例子是最近“阿德沃特訴合眾國(guó)”（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(gè)孩子單獨(dú)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(dāng)大的爭(zhēng)論，但是執(zhí)法人員出于公共安全的目的正一步步地獲取更多的權(quán)力來做類似的事情，然而在執(zhí)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(dāng)著年輕孩子的面對(duì)他們的母親實(shí)施逮捕。這應(yīng)該是美國(guó)刑事司法制度改革的方向之一，但我們卻正在堅(jiān)持錯(cuò)誤而離正確的道路越來越遠(yuǎn)。所以，在今后相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間里，正當(dāng)程序的理念仍然會(huì)繼續(xù)發(fā)揚(yáng)它保障公民權(quán)利的傳統(tǒng)。
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(yè) 1 [2]
下一頁(yè)
