skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 69045 Find in a Library
Title: CRIMINAL LAW - PRIVATE RIGHTS AND PUBLIC INTERESTS IN THE BALANCE
Journal: WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW  Volume:20  Issue:4  Dated:(SUMMER 1979)  Pages:655-739
Author(s): J C BASHAM; G A ISIBILLA
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 85
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: CONFLICTS ARISING FROM THE ATTEMPT TO BALANCE THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC ARE DISCUSSED THROUGH CASE ANALYSIS; SELF-INCRIMINATION, COUNSEL, THE PRESS, AND PUNISHMENT ARE ADDRESSED.
Abstract: THE COURTS TRADITIONALLY HAVE LABORED TO ADMINISTER CRIMINAL LAW IN ORDER TO PRESERVE A PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL WELFARE. WITH THE WARREN COURT CAME THE 'DUE PROCESS' REVOLUTION, DURING WHICH TIME SOME STEADFAST RULES WERE DEVELOPED TO EFFECT THE SPECIFIC PROMISES OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINALLY ACCUSED. 'MIRANDA V. ARIZONA' (1966), WHICH FOCUSES ON THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION, IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TREND. WHILE THE COURT DID NOT INTEND TO BAR ALL CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IN 'MIRANDA,' IT DID INTEND TO CREATE A STRICTER STANDARD FOR THE ADMISSION OF CONFESSIONS. IN SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS THE COURT FELL SHORT OF THIS GOAL. FAIR TRIAL AND FREE PRESS CONSIDERATIONS WERE ADDRESSED BY THE COURT IN THE 1966 DECISION IN 'SHEPPARD V. MAXWELL.' IN THIS CASE THE COURT SANCTIONED DIRECT RESTRAINTS ON TRIAL PARTICIPANTS, STATE OFFICIALS, AND NEWSMEN. THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL WAS JUDGED INDIPENSABLE IN THE 1963 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN 'GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT.' FINALLY, SOME JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT HAVE EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF PRISONERS' RIGHTS TO INCLUDE ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE. HOWEVER, IT IS SUGGESTED HEREIN THAT WHAT BEGAN WITH THE WARREN COURT AS A VINDICATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLEDGE OF THE AMENDMENTS HAS CONVERTED BEHIND A LAW AND ORDER BACKLASH TO A CIRCUMSTANCES-ORIENTED SYSTEM OF MANDATORY BALANCING OF PRIVATE RIGHTS AND PUBLIC INTERESTS. DECISIONS FOLLOWING THE LANDMARK CASES OF THE 1960'S TEND TO REFLECT MORE SOCIAL POLICY THAN ELEMENTAL JUSTICE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Criminal codes; Cruel and unusual punishment; Fair trial-free press; Right against self incrimination; Right to counsel; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=69045

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.