Can someone explain due process to me in laymen's terms?

Question

I'm a high school student and I need to know about all the amendments to the U.S. Consitution for my history project. I've read about due process but I still don't understand it.

Answer 1

The Due Process Clause provides that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." When courts face questions concerning procedural due process, the controlling word in this clause is process. Courts must determine how much process is due in a particular hearing to satisfy the fairness requirements of the Constitution. When courts face questions concerning substantive due process, the controlling issue is liberty. Courts must determine the nature and the scope of the liberty protected by the Constitution before affording litigants a particular freedom.

Substantive due process prohibits the government from infringing on fundamental constitutional liberties. By contrast, procedural due process refers to the procedural limitations placed on the manner in which a law is administered, applied, or enforced. Thus, procedural due process prohibits the government from arbitrarily depriving individuals of legally protected interests without first giving them notice and the opportunity to be heard.

If you need it explained further, send me an e-mail and I'll be happy to help.

Answer 2

Procedural due process says that before the government can take away a liberty right or a property interest, they must follow certain procedures. You must be notified of the government action, and you must have the opportunity for a hearing to present your side of the argument. The hearing may be before or after the government action, based on what is being taken/deprived.

Substantive due process says that certain fundamental rights cannot be limited by government action. These are generally rights implied by other parts of the constitution. Some examples include, the right to seek employment, the right to travel (interstate), the right for parents to raise their children, certain voting rights, and so on. Where the government is attempting to interfere with these rights, the government regulations must generally be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest (goal).

Substantive due process is similar to equal protection, but applies to different laws. If a law limits or interferes with a fundamental right for only some people (based on some class or distinction), then equal protection is involved. If the law limits or interferes with a fundamental right for everyone, it's a substantive due process issue.

Answer 3

It's a process wherein you are (1)accused of the crime by the accuser[second party] that you suspectedly commited(2)given the chance to have your attorney as your counsel[defense](3) your case is heard(processed) in a court where there is a third party[a judge/jurors](4) then your case is decided.
I'm not a lawyer, however that's how i understand it.

Answer 4

Basically, in the plainest and simplest terms, anyone, police, military or otherwise, who would press *ANY* sort of criminal charges against you *HAS TO* obey the law themselves to do it. It really is that simple, all the rest are details.

I don't know all of the differences between military and civilian law, but on the side of ordinary US citizens:

--you have to be told what the criminal charge against you IS. Not being told what the charge is--what crime the system says you've done--is a violation of Habeas Corpus, a Latin term that lawyers use to describe arrest, or "bringing in the body". To arrest you, you MUST be told, and often informed in writing at some point, WHAT the cause for arrest is.

--you cannot be arrested for doing something that was *legal* yesterday but became illegal *today* while you slept. Really, doing that is called enforcing an Ex Post Facto Law, and they are a no-no. Essentially these things make people *criminals* after the fact, by taking something that *was* legal the day before, and making it illegal the *next* day, *after the fact* of what they did.

--you cannot *just barge in* to someone's home and *take* whatever evidence you think you need to either support an arrest or to enforce an arrest. LOTS of people these days are playing *really REALLY* loose with this one, but our Constitution does protect against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures for a reason. There is a reason why Police need a Court Order and a Warrant under normal circumstances to just *forcibly* enter your home and do whatever.

That reason is because back in the beginning, the occupying British troops in the American Colonies, had NO respect for the private property of others, in the sense of people feeling free to be *safe* in their homes and on their own paid-for property. Back before the Revolution, people rather expected the occupying British to just *barge in and ransack and take and plunder and steal from them* at will at any time.

Not unlike what goes on now in certain neighborhoods with this "War on Drugs" business where police use highly trained search dogs to fabricate and make up Probable Cause.

--You have a right to a Quick and Speedy Trial, by a jury of your Peers. This one has been shot halfway to hell as well, but the principle at least is still respected....the idea that no, you can't be jailed without being tried, that the trial--your day in court--can't just go on and on and on forever (and be a jail sentence in and of itself), and that you do have a right to be tried by a jury of people *like you*, and not some elite who might have it in for you.

This of course was in response to the British Courts wherein trials lasted decades, people were held without trial their whole lives, and where the "jury" was a bunch of British lords from across the sea who just neither knew nor cared to know what your circumstances were like.

--You have a right to be protected from Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Meaning if you are convicted of let's say, Petty Theft, no, the system *cannot* just chop off your hand on a block, or beat you bloody with a cane on local TV. Both of these "punishments" would be cruel, and way in excess of what you did. And again, people play fast and loose with the idea way too much these days.

Still, I hope I got the point across. When someone stands accused of a crime in America....there is *supposed* to be a protocol, a path, a *process* that is the due, or *given right* of all citizens.

The people who accuse you of the crime *have to* prove you did it, for example....the burden of proving *guilt* is on them, and not you, and you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

But yeah....there is a process, a *right way* to do it. A legal way to accuse a presumed *innocent and law-abiding* citizen of a crime, prove guilt, and give out the right punishment....

And the Powers that Be, your Police and your Court System, they HAVE to follow that process. They have to Obey the Law themselves in *prosecuting* your own supposed, *alleged and NOT yet proven* offense of the law. If they don't Obey the Law themselves they have to forfeit their authority to press the charge, since it wasn't done right or *legally*.

I hope that helps.