Arrested for Murder in Dublin, Ireland - Research Paper Example

Arrested for Murder in Dublin, Ireland Arrested for murder in Dublin, Ireland Introduction Different countries across the globe have laws that govern criminal liabilities like murder, manslaughter and rape and most of these are defined by legislations made by the parliament. Ireland, a country which part of the United Kingdom has some of the most refined and clear laws on criminal liabilities and these define the legal processes that must be taken in the event that a suspect has been arrested. Suspect handling before they are taken to court is an essential phase in any legal system and may determine the admissibility of a number of evidences prepared by the prosecution (King, 2004). Murders in most countries attract different punishments and this is mostly influenced by the circumstance under which the murder was actually committed. Most regions use capital punishments for intentional murders even though current human rights bodies have advocated for the abolition of this punishment. The constitution of the republic of Ireland prohibits the death penalty and this has been in force since 2002 when constitutional amendments were undertaken. The legal processes involved in handling murder suspects in Dublin Ireland and the United States will be compared to highlight some of the legal differences that exist. Suspects have legal liberties and freedoms provided by the constitution of different countries including that of Dublin Ireland. Due process following arrest in Dublin As a murder suspect arrested in Dublin, Ireland, the legal procedure in the country exposes me to various processes which are considered under the due process law of the country. Due process rights are legal protections which are developed by law to protect suspects against unfair treatments and abuses during the arresting, interrogation and sentencing process. The due process rights differ depending on country in question and the process I will face in Ireland differs with that which I may be subjected to in the United States. Despite being accused of murder, the Dublin law demands that I be subjected to a fair process with fair treatment before being presented before a court of law. As an accused, the law does not require me to prove my innocence and may therefore maintain my silence during the initial phases of the trial (King, 2004). As an accused whose crime is still under investigation, the due process law in Dublin Ireland protects from self-incrimination and allows me the right to be represented by an attorney before the court of law. Before being arrested, the law enforcer has to read out the charges to me before I can be taken into police custody. The witnesses against whom the accusation of murder against me must be interrogated by me to enable me understand the accusation before being taken to court. At the court however, I am entitled to a trial by a jury which is rightfully constituted by the chief justice in the city of Dublin, Ireland (Mahoney, 2004). However, in case I was accused of murder in Los Angeles by the United States security apparatus, my treatment by the security officers according to the due process rights will differ significantly (Singer, 2010). The right to fair trail, as envisioned by the constitution of Ireland is also represented in the constitution of the United States and this makes the trial for a murder charge similar in the two countries. The jury formed in case these charges against me were in the United States must demonstrate impartiality and fairness to ensure that justice is served to me as the accused and the family of the individual is accused for murdering. The constitution of Dublin, Ireland guarantees me the services of an attorney during the entire trial and this is also present in the United States. Every individual accused of any charge in the United States must be made aware of his charges and the police must therefore read the charges before arresting the suspects. Failure to read the charges to the suspects can create inadmissibility issues before the court which may result into the unconstitutionality of the case (King, 2004). Search and seizure in Dublin Ireland and the United States As an individual accused of murder, one of the most serious charges in Dublin, the process of search and seizure by the law enforcement agency to collect information is captured by the constitution. The Ireland law on searches and warrants has evolved since the 19th century and this created a new process that I will be subjected to as a murder suspect in the country. The changes were made under the leadership of Sir Matthew hale immediately after the Entick v Carrington case in the 19th century in Ireland. With the murder cases before me, the arrest cannot be undertaken unless the prosecutor presents sworn information of suspicion to the justice who will be required to issue an arrest warrant after being adequately satisfied of the suspicion. In the suspicion application, the prosecutor must provide a detailed description of the place intended for search and once the search for my premise is issued, the prosecutor cannot search any other area which is not included in the search warrant. During the search of my premise which can occur during the arrest or immediately after, the search warrant issued by the court must be adhered to and any searches conducted out of the areas indicated may be considered inadmissible for the court (Mahoney, 2004). During the arrest and searches process, the constitution of Dublin and by extension that of Ireland grants specific rights which must be observed and adhered to by the security apparatus. During the execution of the search warrant within my residence or office, my right to privacy must be duly protected and observed. This law is however weak and this may not provide adequate protection against the abuse of privacy as the law has not indicated what may happen in case I prove before the court that my privacy rights were violated. The exclusionary rule was developed in Ireland to protect suspects against prosecution using evidence which was collected using non-procedural and unconstitutional manner. In case the police officers violate the provision of the search and arrest warrant issued against me, the constitution guarantees the exclusion of this evidence from the final decision made by the jury (Latzer & Mccord, 2010). The search and seizure law in the United States is contained under the fourth amendment of the country and this law has been applied in different areas to protect the rights of the accused. As an accused, the United States protects me against protection from the residence of a friend as this will be in direct contravention of the friend’s privacy. The Katz v the United States case of 1967 set the foundation for the strengthening of the privacy of the accused under the fourth amendment (Wasserman, 2004). As an accused, my right to use telecommunication devices is protected by the United States fourth amendment and this prevents the investigators from tapping on my calls to use my conversation as witness before the jury. However, the constitution does not guarantee my protection and privacy beyond the precincts of my house and this therefore makes me vulnerable to arrest and search while found inside my car. Any witness and information collected from my car and any other place outside my home will be considered admissible before the court of law (Latzer & Mccord, 2010). Based on this comparison, the laws governing arrest and searches in the United States and Dublin Ireland are relatively similar and seek to protect the rights of the accused while ensuring that the victim is granted justice at all times. As a result, I will be subjected to similar treatment as an accused of murder in both countries as the rights that am subjected cannot be used to shadow the process of delivering justice to the victim and the family of the victim (Schmolka, 2002). Self-incrimination in Ireland Self-incrimination is the process of exposing one’s self to different accusations and charges by trying to influence their reasoning and make them incriminate themselves against the charges. In Ireland, the self-incrimination law is borrowed from the law legislated in the United Kingdom which sought to protect the rights of the accused from self-incrimination. The laws of Ireland protects me form answering question which may in the process and in the opinion of a judge expose me to criminal charges in a court of law. As a result, any information which the police will collect from me as a result of the investigation process may be expunged from the evidence if it exposed my to the self-incrimination process. However, the self-incrimination law in the Ireland has specific exceptions that the police in the city of Dublin have exploited to ensure that information of self-incrimination collected from suspects are admitted in courts. A defendant rights to the protection against self-incrimination law may be eliminated according to article 6 of the constitution if the criminal case upon which an individual is charged does not require the determination of the mental level of the suspect (Wasserman, 2004). According to the united states laws, the protection against self-incrimination are carried under the fifth amendment and this has enabled different suspects to be set free after the evidence against them were collected through self-incrimination. According to the right against self-incrimination act enshrined in the fourth amendment of the United States constitution, the government should not force citizens to testify against themselves or produce information which can be used against them in a court of law. As a result, as and accused, the government cannot force me to produce information which will incriminate me to these charges or add more information on my charge sheet. This case was strengthened by the Miranda case which took place in 1966 that forced the police to inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights (Prentzas, 2005). However, the rights against self-incrimination act cannot protect me from evidence collected from fingerprints and DNA evidence which may be used to demonstrate to the court that I was actually present in the site of the crime. As a result, I may not be able to refuse to provide my fingerprint and DNA information to the police in the United States by citing this act as it doesn’t protect me against such (Morrison, 2012). Right to counsel As highlighted in the initial parts of the paper, the laws in Dublin Ireland protects suspects and ensures that all are accessible to free legal representation in a court of law. As a murder suspect therefore, the police will have to declare to me my legal right to legal representation. Once arrested, I will have to inquire from the Dublin police on the availability of the legal representation through the duty solicitor. The defense solicitor call center in Ireland will be responsible for the process of acquiring an attorney whose services will be paid by the state under the department of the attorney. Because of the gravity of my case, the process of acquiring an attorney and providing legal advice will be conducted in person as opposed to through telephone conversation as witnessed in other less serious cases. In the United States, all criminal prosecutions in the county can only proceed if the suspect is represented by a state attorney and this fee for representation must be shouldered by the state. However, as an accused for a murder charge, I am allowed by the constitution to choose a legal representative of my choice (Singer, 2010). Arrest and interrogation of suspects The arrest and interrogation of any suspect, whether for criminal or legal charges is protected by the Irish constitution and this ensures that suspects are exposed to human interrogation and respectful arrest processes. As the first step in any legal process, the approach adopted will influence the entire proceeding of the case and determine whether the case shall continue or not. As a murder suspect within the Dublin Irish jurisdiction, I will be arrested and booked for custody at the nearest police station in Dublin. While in custody, the law places me in the hands of the custody officer who is responsible for ensuring that my legal rights are protected and none of my liberties as an accused are affected with. Though a suspect for murder, I am entitled to meals and refreshment which the custody officer must ensure are provided at all times and that I have access to other sanitary services. As a suspect who may be arrested within the streets of Dublin while in the custody of on one, the Irish law ensures that am allowed to inform the closest person concerning my arrest and to provide the codes of practice for my consultation. Though accused for murder, this does not imply that the prosecution has enough evidence to continue with the process which makes it essential for the custody officer to interrogate the evidence and determine whether it is sufficient to guarantee a full prosecution. However, as an accused, I am entitled to release on a number of option as long as I provide my personal information and transport details like passports, visa and identity information. Being released on bail within the city requires me to pay a specific amount as deemed fit by the custody officer upon depositing my passport and other details which are enough surety for my stay within this jurisdiction (Daly, 2002). In the United States, the arrest process has undergone a number of changes and this followed the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Arizona on Miranda v Arizona of 1966. As an individual who is believed to have committed murder within the United States jurisdiction, I am entitled to specific rights and these include the Miranda rights. These rights must come first before any questioning can actually be conducted by the police to ensure that they have enough evidence to sustain a prosecution (Garrell, 2012). According to Miranda rights, the constitution protects me in case I decide to remain silent and refuse to answer any questions asked by the arresting officer. In the process of arrest, my actions may be used against me in the prosecution process and this ensures that everything that occurs during the process is under my own discretion and not under duress from the police. During the process of arresting, the police must inform me of my rights to an attorney, one of which if am not in a position to finance, may be done by the state. The Miranda law has therefore significantly affected the arresting and interrogation process in the united states as it has strengthened the country legal system and ensured that information from the suspect can only be used against him in a court of law if he his Miranda rights were read out (Lafave, 2004). Murder cases are serious crimes under the Irish law and this explains the need for a high court jury to hear the case and give the judgment as compared to other civil cases. After the completion of the investigation and the satisfaction of the custody officer that the information before him is enough to guarantee a full prosecution, the case will be moved to the high court. Here, I will be subjected to full jury constituted by the court to determine my case and make a full ruling of guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented (Garrell, 2012). On the first day of the hearing, the judge in charge of the process will read out the murder accusation charge against me and I will be required to take a plea of guilty or not guilty. The plea will determine the proceeding of the case as a guilty plea will force the judges to hand a sentence based on the evidence presented and the circumstances surrounding the offence. However, in case i take the not guilty plea, the case will be subjected to full hearing in which I will be represented by a legal counsel. The time taken for the whole process to reach completion is determined by the availability of the evidence against me, the length of the evidence and the discretion of the court (Daly, 2002). In the United States, upon the completion of the investigation and the arrest of the suspect, the defendant is interviewed by a probation officer and this enables the conduction of background checks on the conduct and history of the accused. This information is essential in determining whether I can be released through bail during the trial process or whether such an action will interfere with the trial process. When the actual trial begins, the judge provides information on the case and determines whether the case should be continued to full trial or not. To take a plea, a hearing known as the arrangement is made in which I will be required to either confirm or deny the murder charges before me. In the united states, pleading guilty before the trial can move to full trial enables the accused to access certain privileges and paroles by the state. A plea bargain can thus be entered in case a take a guilty plea and this will ensure that the government drops certain charges against me and grants a lenient sentence as compared to if the case would have gone to full trial. In cases like murder for which I am accused of, the United States constitution requires the government to prove my guilt as opposed to cases in Ireland that requires me to prove my innocence (Neumann, 2003). Sentencing possibilities Murder charge is one of the heavily punished offences in different jurisdictions across the world including the United States and in Dublin Ireland. Most countries issues capital punishment but the current progress on human rights has led to the abolition of such sentences in the United States and in Dublin Ireland. In Ireland, upon being found guilty of committing the murder offence, the constitution does not provide the maximum prison sentence that I may be subjected to serve and this leaves my sentence to the discretion of the jury. The decision by the jury will also be significantly influenced by the depth of the witnessed and evidence presented before them during the entire process and if such guarantees a maximum or lenient sentence (Daly, 2002). In the United States, the sentencing will be influenced by whether the prosecution has proved that the murder was first degree or not. The sentence that I may be faced with in the United States for a first degree murder charge is also dependent upon the state where the offence was committed. In Florida for example, first degree murder charges are sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or even to death sentence (Wasserman, 2004). Deportation As a convicted criminal, the city of Dublin is required by the constitution of the country to allow me serve a given fraction of the term of my sentence awaiting deportation to my country of origin. Upon deportation, the city of Dublin and by extension the country of Ireland will no longer be able to grant be access into the country as my presence will be restricted. Depending on the laws of my country and the relationship between the two, I may be subjected to finish the terms of my sentence within the local prisons (Daly, 2002). Conclusion Different countries have different legal systems and this influences their court process, suspect’s rights and other issues that involve the process of sentencing the accused. Dublin in Ireland and the United States laws on the rights of the accused was investigated in this paper to demonstrate the differences and similarities between the rights and privileges of the accused (Neumann, 2003). The process of arresting a murder suspect differs between the two countries but the rights and privileges enjoyed by suspects in the two countries have some similarities. References Daly, Y. (2002). Unconstitutionally obtained evidence in Ireland: protectionism deterrence and the winds of change. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 19 (2). pp. 40-50. Neumann, K. (2003). A comparative study of the rule of against self-incrimination in common and civil law countries. Criminal law review group. Garrell, B. (2012). Habeas corpus and due process. Cornell law review, 98(47), 47-125. Wasserman, R. (2004). Procedural due process: A reference guide to the United States constitution. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Morrison, C. (2012). Passwords, profiles and the privileges against self-incrimination: Facebook and the Fifth Amendment. Arkansas law review, 65. Schmolka, V. (2002). Making the case: the right to publicly funded legal representation in Canada. The Canadian bar association. Mahoney, P. (2004). Right to a fair trial in criminal matters under article 6. Judicial studies institute journal, 14(2), 107-118. King, N. (2004). How different is death? Jury sentencing in capital and non-capital cases compared. Ohio state journal of criminal law, 2(195), 195-207. Lafave, W. R. (2004). Search and seizure: A treatise on the fourth amendment. Minnesota: West Group Publishing. Latzer, B., & Mccord, D. (2010). Death penalty cases: Leading US Supreme Court cases on capital punishment. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Prentzas, G. S. (2005). Miranda rights: Protecting the rights of the accused. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. Singer, R. (2010). Self-incrimination. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Read More