The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who their accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against them. The state has a responsibility to ensure a speedy process and avoid undue delays. Clearly, the speed of justice cannot come at the price of less thoroughness. It requires that law enforcement authorities have adequate funding and staff.
However, when delays are unavoidable, appropriate compensation mechanisms must be found. Criminal proceedings should never constitute a punishment in and of themselves. Rights of the accused, under the law, the rights and privileges of a person accused of a crime, guaranteeing him a fair trial. These rights were initially limited (generally starting in the 18th century) mainly to the trial itself, but in the second half of the 20th century, many countries began to extend them to periods before and after the trial.
An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice. Official websites use. Gov A. The gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Curtis Ctr, 3rd Floor, Independence Square West, Philadelphia, PA 19106-3399, United States. A criminal trial with unknown charges and secret evidence would constitute nothing less than a Kafkaesque nightmare. If, in this situation, the accused is offered a quick resolution in exchange for an admission of guilt, it will seem like extortion rather than a choice. Law enforcement authorities must be obliged to inform the accused of their right to remain silent from the first contact.
Law enforcement agencies that do not inform the accused of this right or deliberately obstruct its exercise must suffer consequences, while statements obtained in such circumstances must be considered inadmissible. At least during the trial phase of criminal proceedings, this should correspond to the right to have a judge evaluate this request. The Supreme Court has also ruled that when the accused is indigent, the right to a lawyer must be enforced through the appointment of a public defender in the case of all crimes punishable by imprisonment. A blind person cannot read the charges against them, a foreigner may not be able to contact the authorities, and a person with mental disabilities will need additional help to understand what happens during a criminal trial.
The Supreme Court also decided that, at the time of his arrest, the accused should be notified of both his right to a lawyer and the right not to answer any question that could serve as evidence against him (see Miranda v. In addition, to ensure the fairness of criminal proceedings, all decision makers involved should be protected from any undue outside influence). An accuser who remains in the shadows and can only be questioned by the prosecution has doubts and his statements can never serve as the basis for a criminal conviction. The right to be heard also includes the right to object to the conduct of courts and law enforcement authorities.
This is why convictions in absentia are always problematic and, at least in cases where not even a lawyer could speak on behalf of the accused, they are incompatible with the rule of law. If the defendant cannot afford to hire a lawyer, he must be granted legal aid to ensure a fair representation of his interests. At the end of a protracted trial, the defendant often finds herself out of work, with a marriage in tatters, or a once-flourishing business has been ruined. However, its purpose cannot be to protect the judiciary from the critical eyes of outsiders, but only to allow the accused a minimum of privacy.
.
