Rights of accused

The accused will legally enjoy the defendant's rights and privileges and guarantee a fair trial. Although these rights were originally limited to actual trials themselves (usually from the 18th century), in the second half of the 20th century many countries began to expand these rights to pre-trial periods.

All legal systems provide warranties at least on paper to ensure the defendant's specific basic rights. These include the right of a jury trial (unless a jury trial is abandoned), a lawyer (if at least charged with a serious crime), a witness and evidence to prove that he is not guilty and not confronted It is included. And freedom from unjust search and seizure and freedom from double danger

This process is accompanied by very general rights. The accused should not be allowed to enter the prison indefinitely, but it needs to be tried quickly. Involving in this issue is the right to receive reasonable bail and the right to be detained for a certain period of time without bail.

The most important right is the right represented by a lawyer. In the second half of the 20th century, this right was expanded until the time a person was arrested for a final appeal. Different countries have set different times and lawyers must be offered to the accused and different types of offenses must be offered at the time of accident by the accused. The United States has made the greatest change in this field and has shaped the model that other countries began to follow. In short, the system of the US stipulates that the defendant has the right to defend before the accused is detained until all appeals are exhausted. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that if all the offenses that may be punished by imprisonment by the accused are poverty, the attorney's right must be exercised by providing a lawyer appointed by the court did. In the case of Powell v. Alabama (1932) and Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963), the court established the right to defend lawyers of poor defendants. The Supreme Court also ruled that when he was arrested, he must inform the defendant about the rights of such attorneys and the right not to answer questions that may give evidence (see Miranda v. Arizona). These two rights were introduced to prevent police from extracting unwilling confessions as evidence in court.

In civil law countries such as France and Germany, the importance of confession as evidence is not so important. It is only considered as evidence. Since confession is not so important, there is no clear definition of the right to advise and keep silence. As a result, especially in France, there was a certain breach during the trial.

Other important right to justify the defendant is the right to protect him from collecting evidence illegally whether it is an investigation and seizure or electronic wiretapping (qq.v.). The right to appeal is also important and varies from country to country (see appeal).

The problem of Javea Corpus is also an important factor in considering the rights of the accused. In the past, such legal remedies existed since the great charter to protect the defendant 's rights. Constitutionally, it was established in the early 1940's, that is, (1) if the conviction is invalid due to lack of personal or subjective jurisdiction, (2) rules that define a violation unconstitution Or being convicted is an infringement of federal constitutional rights.

Modern uses of Javea Corpus in the United States are diverse. In the mid-20th century, the US Supreme Court interpreted broadly the constitutional rights of criminals, so that the prisoners submitted a number of Havea Corpus and questioned their convictions. The law of the Supreme Court and Congress gradually narrowed this interpretation in the second half of the century. In modern law, it is often necessary to have a written document calling on the police for prosecution or release to the arrestor by the police. Personal protection procedures can be used to release the accused before the trial because the amount of bail is too high. Occasionally, Javea Corpus was awarded to a prisoner who was illegally detained after the sentence was over.