Do you  think the Bill of Rights goes too far in protecting the right of the accused?Do you  think the Bill of Rights goes too far in protecting the right of the accused?

2 Answers | Add Yours

litteacher8's profile pic

litteacher8 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

I think that if you were ever accused of a crime, whether you committed it or not, you would not think the Bill of Rights goes to far in protecting your rights. It's one of those things we all hope we never have to use, but we should be glad it will be there when we need it.
pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

If you are talking about the actual wording of the Bill of Rights, it certainly does not go too far in protecting the rights of the accused.  After all, the Bill of Rights itself has fairly vague language that hardly anyone could dislike.  For example, the 4th Amendment says that people should be protected against "unreasonable searches and seizures."  You can't argue against that idea.

If you are talking about the decisions that the courts have made about what the Bill of Rights protections mean, then you have more of an argument.  For example, should the exclusionary rule be kept?  Is it right for someone who is guilty to go free because the police broke a rule in looking for evidence?

To write an essay like this, I would recommend that you look at a few specific cases or rules and say whether you think the courts have gone too far in those specific cases.  Otherwise, you do not have enough concrete facts to talk about and you will just be talking in vague generalities.

We’ve answered 318,958 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question