Due Process

Pol S 300

October 26, 2009

Week #6 Commentary

Due process as discussed in Chapter 13 of Fisher and Harriger allows individuals certain rights that extend the definitions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. Due process guarantees that any person that is tried and/or accused of any wrongdoing of the law must be given adequate notification and be able to defend him or herself in a court of law. This to me is easier said than done.

In a court of law one is suppose to be innocent until proven guilty but in so many instances a person is convicted by the media, and their peers before they have even been convicted or tried. So where is due process in those cases? Due Process is present it is just present, where the individual is given a chance to make a plea on their own behalf and state their case as to why they are innocent. But so often a case has been so advertised in the media that the accused person has no chance. Take Kaylee Anthony for instance, she is accused of killing her daughter Hayley Anthony last year, she claimed that she had nothing to do with her child’s murder, but the media continued to dig and dig until they found numerous holes in her story and then proceeded to publicly humiliate her and verbalize what was wrong and sometimes there was even individuals who held sign saying she was a killer and should not be let out of jail. This result was also in part that she remained mum and silenced when asked questions, but under the Fifth Amendment she has the right to stay quiet and not give any information that may hurt or help her situation, but her exercising her right makes her guilty. Due process states at a minimum, “that an accused person must be given notice of a charge and adequate opportunity to appear and be heard” (p.621). If that is the case has Kaylee Anthony’s due process rights been compromised? To me, yes because she didn’t get the opportunity to defend herself against the public outcry and wrongful, or maybe their right, a trial has...