Del Carmen, R. V. (2004). Criminal procedures: Law and practice (6th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
?Review Criminal Procedures: Law and Practice, pp.176-180.
Do you think the government response to terrorism has decreased procedural rights, and are those responses valid? Explain your reasoning. Be sure to address the three responses described in your text.
Please see attachment.
Constitutionally guaranteed rights are additionally supported by procedural rights, that set of 'due process rights' that must be followed and be in place when any individual/person is involuntarily detained or if a petition is filed against set individual/person that has legal and very real consequences. For instance, the state of Montana has guaranteed procedural rights in their State Code, Annotated in 2007, as follows -
(1) the right to notice reasonably in advance of any hearing or other court proceeding concerning the person;
(2) the right in any hearing to be present, to offer evidence, and to present witnesses in any proceeding concerning the person;
(3) the right to know, before a hearing, the names and addresses of any witnesses who will testify in support of a petition;
(4) the right in any hearing to cross-examine witnesses;
(5) the right to be represented by counsel;
(6) the right to remain silent;
(7) the right in any hearing to be proceeded against according to the rules of evidence applicable to civil matters generally;
(8) the right to view and copy all petitions on file with the court concerning the person;
(9) the right to be examined by a professional person of the person's choice when the professional person is willing and reasonably available;
(10) the right to be dressed in the person's own clothes at any hearing held ...
The solution discusses procedural rights as it relates to the current US government response to terrorism. The solutions starts of by enumerating the current procedural rights that is constitutionally guranteed. Since procedural rights vary from State to State, because of its similarity to most that is practiced across the US, the solution use that which is used as of 2007 by the State of Montana. Further expansion of the argument is presented by discussing the current 'procedural rights shortcut' practiced by law enforcement as empowered by the government in their fight against terror threats enhanced post 9-11 although the solution traces back the 'shortcuts' to FISA for a historical view on the practice of circumventing procedural rights for the purpose of national security. The solution is written in APA format with references.