The great writ of liberty essay
The great writ of liberty essay
That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. Edition: current; Page:  The conclusion, therefore, is, that any government, that can, for a day, enforce its own laws, without appealing to the people, or to a tribunal fairly representing the people, for their consent, is, in theory, an absolute government, irresponsible to the people, and can perpetuate its power at pleasure. It was also filed by the Panthers Party to protest the imprisonment of Anna Hazare , a social activist. Moreover, the judicial and executive departments of the government are equally irresponsible to the people, and are only responsible, by impeachment, and dependence for their salaries , to these irresponsible legislators. The trial and sentence, then, were wholly in the hands of the jury. Restrictions on the power of the authorities to arrest and detain individuals also emanate from article 2 paragraph 2 of the Basic Law which guarantees liberty and requires a statutory authorization for any deprivation of liberty. It was simply, that they would neither convict the innocent, nor acquit the guilty. The presence of a parliament was wholly unnecessary. Hence we may collect that the law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind: but every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether practiced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly, is a degree of tyranny. The trial by jury, be it observed, was the only real barrier interposed by them against absolute despotism. On the contrary, when they required him to renounce forever the power to punish any freeman, unless by the consent of his peers, they intended those peers should judge of, and try, the whole case on its merits, independently of all arbitrary legislation, or judicial authority, on the part of the king. Italy  the European Court of Human Rights ruled that "detention is intended to facilitate … the preliminary investigation". The idea that the right to murder or to commit other such wrongful acts was thought by the Founders to be worthy of constitutional protection is just silly. But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. In particular, a constitutional obligation to grant remedies for improper detention is required by article 19, paragraph 4 of the Basic Law, which provides as follows: "Should any person's right be violated by public authority, he may have recourse to the courts.
Subject to the Article of the Constitution, "A High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, on the application of any person, make an order that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without a lawful authority or in an unlawful manner".
Et habeas ibi hoc breve.
Habeas corpus example
If anything whatever could be dictated to them, either of law or evidence, the sentence would not be theirs, but would be dictated to them by the power that dictated to them the law or evidence. Whether Magna Carta allowed sentence to be fixed otherwise than by the jury. Article Like many other slaves they may have sufficient courage and strength to keep their masters somewhat in check; but they are nevertheless known to the law only as slaves. Coke described one part of the meaning this way: [Liberties protected by Magna Carta] [signifies] the [freedoms], that the Subjects of England have; for example,. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves—the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. Origins in England[ edit ] Further information: English law Habeas corpus originally stems from the Assize of Clarendon , a re-issuance of rights during the reign of Henry II of England.
Did it not rather imply that the jury were to judge independently and fearlessly as to everything involved in the charge, and especially as to its intrinsic justice, and thereon give their decision, unbiased by any legislation of the king, whether the accused might be punished?
Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all.
Their consent or advice was evidently a matter of no legal importance to the enactment or validity of the laws, but only inserted, when inserted at all, with a view of obtaining a more willing submission to them on the part of the people.
The words, in their common signification, describe physical action alone. Thus, the court can examine the malafides of the action taken.
For those detained as criminal suspects, articleparagraph 3 specifically requires that the judge must grant a hearing to the suspect in order to rule on the detention. The jury are also to judge whether the laws are rightly expounded to them by the court.
Habeas corpus ad respondendum: a writ ordering return to allow the prisoner to "answer" to new proceedings before the court.
Thus the legislators hold the whole power of the government in their hands, and are at the same time utterly irresponsible for the manner in which they use it. The power of the state to detain persons prior to trial was extended by the Sixteenth Amendment , in The jury must also judge of the laws of evidence. The Indian judiciary has dispensed with the traditional doctrine of locus standi , so that if a detained person is not in a position to file a petition, it can be moved on his behalf by any other person. In this way they took the liberties of each individual—and thus the liberties of the whole people—entirely out of the hands of the king, and out of the power of his laws, and placed them in the keeping of the people themselves. All unsuccessful attempts at revolution, however justifiable in themselves, are punished as treason, if the government be permitted to judge of the treason. To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, or must be, to make them lawful jurors, from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. Ferrari-Bravo sought relief after nearly five years of preventive detention, and his application was rejected. The Constitution further states that 'No one may be arbitrarily detained. Spain[ edit ] The present Constitution of Spain states that "A habeas corpus procedure shall be provided for by law to ensure the immediate handing over to the judicial authorities of any person illegally arrested".
Italy  the European Court of Human Rights ruled that "detention is intended to facilitate … the preliminary investigation". Since the 18th century the writ has also been used in cases of unlawful detention by private individuals, most famously in Somersett's Casewhere the black slave Somersett was ordered to be freed.
If the government can dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only shut out any evidence it pleases, tending to vindicate the accused, but it can require that any evidence whatever, that it pleases to offer, be held as conclusive proof of any offence whatever which the government chooses to allege.
Writ of habeas corpus
The second body of legislators are liable and likely to be just as tyrannical as the first. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom. If the judiciary can authoritatively dictate to a jury any exposition of the law, they can dictate to them the law itself, and such laws as they please; because laws are, in practice, one thing or another, according as they are expounded. The evidence is therefore conclusive that the phrase per judicium parium suorum means according to the sentence of his peers; thus implying that the jury, and not the government, are to fix the sentence. The most important of these are article 19, which generally requires a statutory basis for any infringements of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Basic Law while also guaranteeing judicial review; article 20, paragraph 3, which guarantees the rule of law; and article 3 which guarantees equality. The Second Amendment provided that a prisoner has only the right to apply to a single judge, and, once a writ has been issued, the President of the High Court has authority to choose the judge or panel of three judges who will decide the case. If, now, this government, the three branches thus really united in one , can determine the validity of, and enforce, its own laws, it is, for the time being, entirely absolute, and wholly irresponsible to the people. Any act of physical and moral violence against a person subjected to restriction of personal liberty shall be punished. And if it be but suffered to be executed, it must then be borne; for the government never makes compensation for its own wrongs. We also have sufficient evidence of the nature of the oath administered to jurors in criminal cases. New Zealand[ edit ] In New Zealand , habeas corpus may be invoked against the government or private individuals. After widespread protests, however, the Arroyo administration decided to reintroduce the writ.
based on 42 review