Basic Concepts of Criminal Law - Essay Example

The defendant has the right to be present when charges are brought against him/her. It is, thus, and as shall be argued through reference to the due processes of the law, civil liberties, and constitutional guarantees, that the absence of defendants from Grand Jury hearings is a violation of the defendant's right to hear the charges brought against him/her. The dual concepts of substantive and procedural due processes are integral to any proper understanding of criminal law. As Fletcher (1998) explains, they concern both the how and the why of law.

In direct relation to criminal procedure, substantive and due processes are expressive of defendants' constitutional rights and importantly, outline the means by which these rights are guaranteed or implemented. Within the context of the stated, procedural due process refers to the how of the law and as pertains to the US criminal justice system, how defendants are presumed innocent until otherwise proven and how the said presumption, which is a Constitutional guarantee, is embraced by the criminal justice system.

Substantive due process, which both complements and builds upon the aforementioned, deals with why the law is just and, more relevant to the present discussion, why criminal defendants are allowed the opportunity to hear the charges leveled against them (Fletcher, 1998). The concept of due process, whether substantive or procedural, is enshrined in the US Constitution and comprises nothing less than a fundamental right. As Bryer (2005), a constitutional law scholar, explains, the concept of procedural due process of the law is immediately expressive of the fundamental freedoms which the US Constitution spells out and, importantly, serves to ensure that governments do not transgress against the legal rights of their citizens and that courts and judges, acting independently of the government, ensure that citizens receive their due rights.

In further affirmation of the fact that due process is enshrined in the Constitution, Bryer (2005) quotes the following from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, respectively:No person shall be . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of lawAndNo State shall . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.The implication here is clear. Given that the Constitution presumes defendants innocent until otherwise proven beyond reasonable doubt and, in light of the fact that defendants possess a fundamental right to hear the charges and accusations against them so that they may respond accordingly, neither state nor the federal government has the authority to violate, or in any way try to limit, this right.

It is, quite simply stated, a constitutional guarantee which immediately relates to the concept of civil liberty.There is an intrinsic relationship between civil liberties and the due process of the law, both procedural and substantive. Fletcher (1998) and Bryer (2005) highlight this particular point when they emphasize the fact that civil liberties, the fundamental right to life, liberty and property, which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights explicitly define as inherent to all citizens, cannot be transgressed against unless a person has, through his/her violations of the law acted against society and the law in such a way that the penal code legalizes the placement of limitations on his/her liberty.

Proceeding from the above stated, it is critically important to note that constraints on a person's liberties and freedoms cannot be placed unless guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The establishment of guilt, however, must adhere to a specified legal process that draws from both the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Within the context of the stated, it is imperative that individuals be given their due processes, inclusive amongst which is to confront their accusers, hear the charges brought against them, and be given a just and fair opportunity to respond (Fletcher, 1998).

/it is precisely because of this, as stated in the introductory paragraph, that the absence of defendants from Grand Jury hearings may be considered at odds with the very concept of due process.