3.6 Amendments: Balancing Individual Freedom with Public Order and Safety 

Provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights are continually being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.

 Explain how the Supreme Court has attempted to balance claims of individual freedom with laws and enforcement procedures that promote public order and safety. 

Court decisions defining cruel and unusual punishment involve interpretation of the Eighth Amendment and its application to state death penalty statutes.

The debate about the Second and Fourth Amendments involves concerns about public safety and whether or not the government regulation of firearms or collection of digital metadata promotes or interferes with public safety and individual rights. 

Five key provisions in the original Constitution address rights related to criminal justice: habeas corpus, bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, and the rules surrounding treason. Additionally, parts of four amendments—the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth—safeguard those accused or convicted of crimes. The founders emphasized these rights for two main reasons. Firstly, they believed everyone deserved a fair process to determine guilt or innocence. Fairness requires that defendants receive due process, be informed of the charges against them, and have the opportunity to face their accusers in court. Regardless of guilt, every accused person is entitled to fundamental legal protections.

Secondly, the founders recognized that these rights were crucial to prevent abuse by those in power. History shows that tyrants may manipulate the legal system to suppress opponents. The authors of the Declaration of Independence noted how the king misused the criminal process, employing unfair trials to shield British officials and sending colonists accused of crimes to England for judgment, denying them the right to a local jury.

Constitutional protections reveal the numerous ways in which oppressive rulers can misuse the criminal system. They can detain individuals without proper legal justification (violating habeas corpus), punish disliked individuals through legislative actions instead of fair trials (bills of attainder), create laws that retroactively penalize actions that were legal at the time (ex post facto laws), retry individuals for the same crime after they've been acquitted (double jeopardy), or impose harsh punishments that are disproportionate to the crimes committed.

These practices can be exploited by those looking to misuse state power against political adversaries. In addition to prohibiting such actions, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights empower citizens to prevent serious criminal accusations by serving on grand juries (Fifth Amendment) and determining guilt or innocence through regular jury service (Article III). Since trial juries often require unanimous decisions to convict, they can protect unjust verdicts.

Most criminal cases in the United States, around ninety percent, involve state laws rather than federal laws. Typically, local police handle arrests, county prosecutors decide on charges, grand juries or judges assess whether evidence is sufficient for a trial, and county courts determine guilt. Until the twentieth century, these local processes operated independently of federal courts.