江苏省连云港市人民政府


连 云 港 市 人 民 政 府 文 件

连政发〔2001〕167号

关于印发《连云港市信访管理办法》的通知

各县、区人民政府，市各委、办、局，市各直属单位：
　　现将《连云港市信访管理办法》印发给你们，请认真遵照执行。
　　
二○○一年十一月十三日
　　
　　
连云港市信访管理办法
　　
　　第一条 为进一步做好信访工作，正确处理公民、法人和其他组织的来信来访，保障其合法权益，促进信访工作健康、有序地开展，根据国务院《信访条例》和《江苏省信访条例》，结合本市实际，制定本办法。
　　第二条 受理信访是各级国家行政机关及其负责人的一项职责。各级国家行政机关应当按照法律、法规和政策，实事求是地处理信访问题。
　　第三条 公民、法人和其他组织依法进行的信访活动受法律保护。
　　第四条 信访工作遵循“分级负责，归口办理，谁主管、谁负责，及时、就地依法解决问题与思想疏导教育相结合”的原则。各级国家行政机关应当积极主动地处理好职权范围内的信访工作，不得相互推诿、顶拖不办或把矛盾上交。对于重大、紧急的信访事项，应当立即上报，并及时采取措施，果断处理。
　　第五条 受理信访事项应当遵循就地就近原则和把上访事项妥善处理在基层的原则。上访人员应当首先向有权直接处理的国家行政机关提出，不得越级上访（检举、揭发、控告的除外）。信访部门对未经下一级部门处理的信访，不立案不交办。对越级信访的，应当通知其所在单位。
　　第六条 负责处理或审核裁定信访问题的部门、单位，应当依照有关法定程序并在规定的时限内办理完毕；逾期不能办结的，应当向信访人和交办单位说明情况。
　　第七条 信访案件实行二级终结意见。即市与县（区）信访主管部门结论一致的信访案件复查意见为终结意见。信访人同意相关单位处理意见并签字的，视为信访案件的终结；不同意处理意见，并确有充分理由和事实根据的，可持该单位的处理意见或决定，向上一级信访部门或主管单位要求复查。
　　第八条 信访工作实行责任追究制度。国家行政机关工作人员在信访工作中有下列情形之一的，其主管机关应当根据情节给予批评教育或行政处分，构成犯罪的由司法机关依法追究刑事责任：
　　（一）应当接待而拒不接待，或者应当及时处理而不及时处理，造成群众集体上访或越级信访的；
　　（二）对上级交办的信访案件，扣压不办，拖延不办的；
　　（三）对申诉人、控告人、检举人威胁、压制和打击报复的；
　　（四）泄露信访机密，或者将控告、检举内容泄露给被控告、检举人的；
　　（五）利用职权敲诈勒索、收受贿赂、徇私舞弊的；
　　（六）有其它违法、违纪行为的。
　　第九条 信访人员应当到信访接待部门反映问题，自觉遵守接待制度，经接待完毕后应当及时离去。对滞留不走，妨碍机关公务或者造成不良影响，经说服教育无效的，由公安机关派人协助，强制其离开或者送收容遣送站遣返。
　　第十条 反映群体意愿的信访，应当推选不超过五名代表到信访部门或主管单位反映情况。如发生集体上访，其所在单位及主管部门的负责人应当及时到现场做好教育、疏导劝返工作。
　　第十一条 对恶意煽动、组织、串联集体上访的骨干人员，其所在单位应当按有关规定给予批评教育，情节严重的依法给予纪律处分；触犯刑律的，应当依法追究刑事责任。对为集体上访提供车辆的单位和个人，要对单位负责人和有关当事人进行批评教育，情节严重的给予必要的纪律处分。
　　第十二条 在信访活动中，信访人有下列行为之一、情节较轻的，由信访部门或其所在单位教育处理；情节较重的，由公安机关依法给予相应的处罚；构成犯罪的，由司法机关依法追究刑事责任：
　　（一）冲击机关、团体、企事业单位，妨碍正常活动的；
　　（二）强占办公室、接待室，寻衅滋事的；
　　（三）纠缠国家机关工作人员，妨碍其人身自由，干扰其正常生活的；
　　（四）殴打、谩骂、威胁国家机关工作人员的；
　　（五）静坐、拦截车辆，妨碍交通和社会秩序的；
　　（六）冲击会场，影响会议正常进行的；
　　（七）串联、煽动上访人员聚众闹事或书写诬告信的；
　　（八）在公共场所（含机关门口）以跪地喊冤、拦堵机关大门、演讲、散发传单、张贴标语和大小字报等行为表达上访意愿，扰乱公共秩序和交通秩序的。
　　第十三条 在信访人员中发现精神病患者或酗酒的，接待单位应当通知其家属或所在单位负责接回监管。对其确实需要解决的问题，应当实事求是地负责解决；对妨碍国家机关工作秩序，危及人身安全的精神病患者或酗酒者，由公安机关及时依法予以处理。
　　第十四条 社会团体、企事业单位的信访工作参照本办法执行。
　　第十五条 本办法由市信访部门负责解释。
　　第十六条 本办法自2001年12月1日起施行。



正当程序革命

杨金强、余飞* 译(译者均系西南政法大学研究生部2006级诉讼法研究生)

美国从一个英国殖民地发展成为今天由50个州组成的国家，其中一个重要的原因就是自由的信念。直到现在，这种信念仍然吸引着众多人涌入美国。它产生于几百年前，经过发展、变革并持续到今天。自由信念的核心就是正当程序的理念——除非经由一个公正的第三方作出裁判，否则不得随意剥夺任何人的权利和自由。正当程序原则自从确立以来，已经发展成为刑事司法中最重要的理念。它使得许多处于弱势地位的当事人胜诉并由此产生诸多正义的判决，这些判决在今天仍然影响着司法实践。同时，正当程序理念也把美国公众分为强调公共秩序和强调个人权利的两派。
正当程序原则的发展过程主要涵盖在四个重要文件之中，即“大宪章”、“独立宣言”、“权利法案”和美国宪法。“大宪章”是英国的宪法性文件，旨在赋予公民基本权利并保障其权利不受统治者——国王的侵犯。美国依据“大宪章”制定了自己的“权利法案”，并且成为宪法的组成部分。1765年起草的“殖民地权利与不满宣言”，是殖民地人民发泄对王室怨气的宣言书。正当程序原则和其他相关法律反对英国统治下的不公正审判，并以此消除人们对现行体制的不满。这在一定程度上导致了1775年独立战争的爆发。从以上提及的资料我们可以得出正当程序的理念——除非经由一个公正的第三方作出裁判，否则每个人的权利和自由都不得被随意剥夺。同时，正当程序原则也限制政府的立法权并确保制定法的公正性和适当性。“独立宣言”以及1776年的美国宪法使得正当程序原则和美国刑事司法体系得到进一步发展。被视为最高权威的宪法补充了前十项修正案，即“权利法案”，其内容涉及公民的自由以及保障自由的程序。宪法第四修正案特别针对正当程序原则，宣称“公民的人身、住宅、文件和财产不受无理由的搜查和扣押，没有合理的事实依据，不得签发搜查令和逮捕令；在有‘合理怀疑’的情况下，搜查令必须描述清楚搜查的地点、搜查和查封的具体文件和物品，逮捕令必须具体地描述清楚需要逮捕的人。”这些保障了公民在警察突击搜查时享有的权利，但同时也使得对“合理怀疑”的界定在当时成为一个争论激烈的话题，并经过了多次修正和发展。宪法第五修正案通过赋予公民反对自我归罪的特权——任何人不得被强迫提供对自己不利的证据——来实现法律基于正当程序原则对公民自身生命、财产以及自由的剥夺。在此修正案之前，无论被指控犯罪的人实际上有罪还是无罪，他都会被推定为有罪。接下来，宪法第六修正案赋予了公民取得律师帮助的权利，这使得任何被指控犯罪的人都可以更好的行使为自己辩护的权利，不至于因为不熟悉法律而不能为自己辩护。正如我们在课堂上看过的电影“吉迪恩的号角”所描述的，主人公被定罪的原因完全是由于他在法庭上没有能力为自己辩护，这也表明了律师辩护权重要性。宪法第八修正案是影响正当程序原则的另一个里程碑。它宣称，“不得要求过多的保释金，不得处以过重的罚金，不得施加残酷和非常的刑罚”。这样，即使在犯罪的情况下，也能合理地保障公民的人身、财产和自由。我们在课堂上看过的多部关于狱中生活、酷刑和非常刑罚的影片此刻又呈现在我们面前。在奴隶制经济繁荣的那段时期，正当程序原则的发展有所减慢；过后，随着北方在内战中取得胜利，该原则又开始继续发展。随着1857年规定“隔离但平等”的“斯科特案”被推翻，1865年宪法第十三修正案废除奴隶制，基于出生地和居住年限赋予所有公民同等的宪法权利。不久之后的1868年，宪法第十四修正案通过赋予公民选举权以便在更广泛的程度上保障公民的生命、财产和自由。公民的选票将被平等地对待，并且允许任何具有一定条件的人在政府中担任职务。同时，第十四修正案增加了正当程序原则的第二个条款——除非各州依据法律规定的正当程序，否则不能剥夺任何公民的生命、财产和自由。
作为正当程序原则发展过程中的重要力量，沃伦法院通过司法审查而非创造新的法律和程序来继续支持正当程序原则。司法审查权使得联邦最高法院有权听审低级别法院的案件，并因此基于联邦法律而不是州法律作出决定。关于司法审查的一个经典案例是1803年的“马伯里诉麦迪逊”（Marbury vs. Madison）案，马歇尔法官就是依据比州法律效力更高的联邦宪法作出的判决。司法审查权在1816年的“马丁诉亨特莱西”（Martin vs. Hunter’s Lessee）案中再次被动用。沃伦法官主持最高法院时坚持司法审查的传统，对一些有可能终结正当程序发展的重要案件作出了决定性改变，使美国进入了被称为“正当程序革命”的时代。
自从沃伦法院在实践中将宪法第十四修正案适用于各州开始，正当程序革命拉开了序幕。形势在几个关键的案件被推翻之后开始了翻天覆地的变化。在关于“是恢复性正义还是重分配正义”的争论声中，宪法第四、第五、第六、第八和第十四修正案在正当程序革命中起了关键作用。
正当程序革命通过1954年的“布朗诉拖皮卡教育管理委员会”（Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka）案推翻1896年的“普莱西诉福格森”（Plessy vs. Ferguson）案而被正式提出。沃伦法院通过司法审查认为，种族隔离是不平等的，所有人都必须在诸如座位、公共设施等各个方面受到平等对待。这一判决的理念促使了1964年民权法案的产生，该法案宣称：“为了贯彻实施宪法规定的选举权，为了授权美国巡回法院旨在救济公共设施歧视案件的管辖权，为了授权总检察长保障公民享有的公共设施和公共教育方面的宪法权利，为了扩大民权委员会的职能，为了在联邦的协助下消除歧视，为了建立一个致力于就业机会平等的委员会，或者为了其他目的，而制定本法案。”
“西尔维斯特•蓝博公司诉合众国”（Silverthorne Lumber Company vs. United States）一案标志着这场革命进入下一个阶段。此案将正当程序的理念引入“毒树之果”的领域，意味着警察必须合法地收集证据，否则证据就不能在法庭上使用。本案中，警方非法闯入蓝博公司并获取了该公司的税务记录，企图指控该公司逃税。最终，由于窃取的税务记录没有被法庭采纳而导致了控方证据不足。同时，第四修正案在推翻“沃尔夫诉科罗拉多”（Wolf vs. Colorado）案判决的“马普诉俄亥俄”（Mapp vs. Ohio）一案中扮演了重要角色，该案宣称1914年“威克斯诉美国”（Weeks vs. US）案确立的涉及第四修正案的证据排除规则也适用于各州法院。这被视为是对宪法第四修正案正当程序条款的合理推定。
宪法第五修正案也是正当程序革命的一个重要基础。禁止双重危险的条款规定任何人不因同一犯罪行为受到两次追诉。该原则在1969年的“本顿诉马里兰州”（Benton vs. Maryland）案中得到适用。此案例推翻了1937年的“帕科诉康涅狄格州”（Palko vs. Connecticut）案，该案中，被告帕科遭到重复审判，第一次他被判处监禁刑，第二次他因同一罪被判处死刑。1964年的“埃斯贝托诉伊里诺伊州”（Escebedo vs. Illinois）案阐释了第五修正案，一旦某人涉及到被指控的调查中，必须有律师在场作合适的辩护和解释。这一时期的“米兰达诉亚利桑那州”（Miranda vs. Arizona）案也为第五修正案增加了新的含义，即被逮捕时必须被告知“米兰达权利”。
宪法第六修正案在1963年“吉迪恩诉温赖特”（ Gideon vs. Wainright）案和一些青少年犯罪法庭的审判程序中发挥了重要作用。它通过赋予公民取得律师帮助的权利而完善了法庭审判和正当程序原则，使得任何被指控犯罪的人都可以很好地行使为自己辩护的权利，不至于因为不熟悉法律而不能为自己辩护。我们在课堂上看过的电影“吉迪恩的号角”描述了辩护权的革命，吉迪恩由于没有能力为自己辩护而被定罪。于是，吉迪恩写信给最高法院要求为自己指定辩护律师。其他几个重要案件使得第六修正案在青少年犯罪审判中适用，包括1966年的“肯特诉合众国”（ Kent vs. US）案，1967年的 “高尔特”（ re Gault）案，1970年的温西普案（re Winship），1975年的“布雷德诉琼斯”（ Breed vs, Jones）案和1996年的“伊里诺伊州诉蒙特内兹”（ Illinois vs. Montenez）案，以上案件都要求青少年罪犯必须有监护人陪同出庭。
1962年的“罗宾逊诉加州”（Robinson vs. California）案发展了宪法第八修正案所规定的禁止残酷和非常刑罚的权利。1968年的“艾弗利诉约翰森”（Avery vs. Johnson）案也影响了第八修正案，该案认为，关于监所律师的立法，占用了其他的司法资源。1974年的“沃尔夫诉麦克道尔”（Wolff vs. McDonnell）案推翻了1871年的“拉芬诉联邦”（Ruffin vs. Commonwealt）案，后者把囚犯看作国家的奴隶，前者则为囚犯提供了新的宪法架构内的保护，特别是禁止残酷和非常的刑罚。在第八修正案是支持“恢复性正义还是重分配正义”上存在着巨大的争论，这两种形式的正义针对犯罪的不同方面。“恢复性正义”强调犯罪行为和处罚对社会及个人的影响，而“重分配正义”强调罪犯自身对罪行的悔过。缓刑和假释的观点在第八修正案的发展过程中被质疑。1972年的“莫里斯诉布莱尔”（Morrisey vs. Brewer）案是界定假释制度的里程碑，1973年的“加贡诉斯卡贝里”（Gagnon vs. Scarpelli）案则提出了缓刑的标准。对第八修正案最后的调整是关于囚犯待遇的，包括以下案件：对我们的良心提出挑战的“霍尔特诉萨维”（Holt vs. Sarver）案；1974年关于囚犯基本法律权利的“贝尔诉普罗柯尼尔”案（Pell vs. Procunier）案；1972年涉及死刑问题的“福曼诉佐治亚州”（Furman vs. Georgia）案和1976年“格雷格诉佐治亚州”（Gregg vs. Georgia）案。
宪法第十四修正案拉开了正当程序革命的序幕，同时也为革命的终结埋下了伏笔。它提供了沃伦之后的伯格法院和伦奎斯特法院推翻先例的根据。他们越来越保守的解释引发了如下争议：该修正案是不是违背立法的本意来保障公民的权利。
正当程序的理念在沃伦法院时期得以发展、实施，而在伯格法院和伦奎斯特法院时期却被终结，后两者都不大认同先前沃伦法院的工作。沃伦与其支持者们的许多努力得不到认同，甚至还受到伯格和伦奎斯特的轻视，他们一直力图修改甚至推翻沃伦时期的许多判决。
伯格法院对沃伦法院判决的修正中，最主要的就是规定了排除规则的“善意例外”。伯格法院从1969年一直持续到1986年，“善意例外”使第四修正案的理念发生了变化，“如果执法人员的行为具有客观的善意，或者他们所造成的侵犯是微小的，则过分强调被指控一方的权利就与刑事司法体系的基本理念相违背。”这个原则随着1984年的“合众国诉莱昂”（U.S. vs. Leon）案而普遍化。此案中，根据一位秘密监察员的报告，警方认为存在合理根据而取得了搜查令状，在里昂的三个住处查出了大量毒品。由于申请令状的根据不充分，该证据起初被排除在法庭之外。最终，通过排除规则的例外使该证据的资格得以认定。在1987年的“马塞诸塞州诉舍帕德”（Massachusetts vs. Sheppard）一案中，警察申请令状时的理由也不充分。伯格法院做出了相同判决。这从根本上改变了以前沃伦法院在1961年的“马普诉俄亥俄”（Mapp vs. Ohio）案所强调的原则，从而修正了对“合理根据”的理解。
伦奎斯特法院对沃伦法院判决的修正主要体现在对米兰达案（Miranda vs. Arizona）和埃斯科贝托（escobedo vs. Illinois）案判决的例外规定。从1986年起至今，伦奎斯特法院一直发挥重要作用。1977年“布瑞尔诉威联姆斯”（Brewer vs. Williams）案确立的“必然发现”原则修正了沃伦法院的判决，该案中的被告被剥夺了讯问时的律师在场权。通过支持1984年的“纽约诉跨雷斯”（New York vs. Quarles）案确立了“公共安全的例外”原则，该案中，被告私藏武器侵害了公共安全。“合众国诉迪格森”（U.S. vs. Dickerson）案的判决书中强调了宪法第五、第六修正案的改革，因为被告虽然承认了犯罪，但没有被告知米兰达权利。对米兰达规则的修正仅仅是一种重申，而不是改变。这是伦奎斯特法院时期一个巨大的里程碑，它对美国的刑事司法政策产生了巨大的影响。
不仅仅是以上这些里程碑式的案件，伯格法院和伦奎斯特法院还在其他方面修改了沃伦法院的判决，如规定囚犯不受残酷和非常刑罚的宪法第八修正案。“Hands-Off Doctrine（法官放手）”原则的回归，在基于1991年的“威尔逊诉塞特”（Wilson vs. Seiter）案的惩教制度上允许惩戒体系内部的管理人员拥有更大的权力。本案中，阿肯色州监狱的一个犯人控告监狱滥用囚犯。这条原则要求在衡量是否属于残酷和非常刑罚时，要考虑监狱管理人员是否存在“蓄意的疏忽”。1995年，“桑丁诉克纳”（Sandin vs. Conner）案导致了全美刑事司法体系的调整，允许司法正义的分配有更大的灵活性，强调囚犯通过服刑的过程为自己的罪行负责。
沃伦法院之后，宪法第十四修正案也被修改。正当程序革命的终结使得联邦最高法院朝着对制定法和判例进行严格解释的方向发展。沃伦法院的司法能动主义和美国的司法审查理念都在伯格法院和伦奎斯特法院新的修正下开始慢慢被瓦解。联邦最高法院今天仍然继续对这些理念进行修正。一个明显的例子，最高法院对布什总统的选择和决定方式仅仅是基于最高法院法官的自由意志，而并非通过一个宪法性判决。正当程序原则会以这种方式继续下去，还是将来会出现转机？
正当程序原则的未来像其他任何事物一样不能准确预测，但是历史发展的过程会给我们提供一些线索来对将来的情况做出推断。诸多修正陈旧理念的判例已经为正当程序原则的发展提供了方向。犯罪控制的目的与正当程序原则、法律实施的需要与对无辜者的保护将是整个历史发展过程中都持续存在的矛盾。在将来高科技武器和方法泛滥的情况下，控制犯罪的目的必然会有更高的要求。但是，正当程序理念将丝毫不会削弱，因为它是司法正义和社会发展的内在要求。政治因素和法院之间的角力也将会是影响正当程序原则的重要因素。政客们统治着当下的美国，但是他们能够控制最高法院吗？总统将会选择谁进入最高法院？不同的总统的不同选择将造成最高法院不同的倾向。因此，最近由最高法院决定的总统选举和布什将会任命谁进入最高法院都成为了报纸的头条。最高法院在做出最终决定时，是否会考虑布什或戈尔上台后会提名什么样的人进入最高法院？
正如前面所提到的，科技进步在国际关系中发挥着巨大的作用，它也必将影响正当程序原则的未来。宪法修正案会如何对待基因技术？法院如何帮助警方和联邦调查局在正当程序的规制下控制犯罪？宗教冲突在世界范围内的与日俱增，是否需要对宪法作出一些改变，以便能回应这种全球范围的变化？
正当程序原则将来会基于宪法第一修正案有所变化。这源自于互联网在当今世界的广泛影响。1919年的“舍克诉合众国”（Schenck vs. U. S.）案确立的“清楚和现实的危险”原则，将如何规制仅有数据和信息的互联网领域？1925年的“吉特洛诉纽约”（Gitlow vs. New York）案使问题变得复杂，它赋予了警察惩罚危害社会公德、煽动犯罪以及扰乱社会治安等行为的权力。如何根据互联网和技术信息的复杂性及广泛性来控制它们可能存在的流通？
正当程序原则应当继续坚持，在这个充斥着诸如种族、毒品和文盲问题的暴力年代，正当程序是必需的。这一观点在我们收到的“联邦调查局专家对暴力发展趋势预测”中被提及。如果该预测中有关暴力的观点直到2005年还是正确的话，那么对那些间接地参与诸如爆炸、劫机、恐怖主义和有组织犯罪的罪犯，强调保护无辜的正当程序原则与犯罪控制目的之间的对抗将继续存在。这种对抗在目前发生在辛辛纳提的种族暴动中是普遍存在的，白人警察在残酷镇压众多黑人的示威和暴乱，他们是否真正地执行了法律并且又保护了无辜，又或者他们的偏执是否损害了我们平常认为是公正的人？
自十三世纪的“大宪章”至今，正当程序原则经历了一个漫长的历史阶段。将来在对待该原则的时候应当继续清除政治中的保守思想。一个典型的例子是最近“阿德沃特诉合众国”（Atwater vs. U.S）一案，该案中一位母亲在高速公路上被捕，仅仅由于她把自己的三个孩子单独留在车上而没有给他们系上安全带。这种判决是我们所需要的吗？虽然还有相当大的争论，但是执法人员出于公共安全的目的正一步步地获取更多的权力来做类似的事情，然而在执行中却将该目的置之脑后。本案中，给这位母亲一张罚单并让她给孩子系好安全带就足够了，而不是当着年轻孩子的面对他们的母亲实施逮捕。这应该是美国刑事司法制度改革的方向之一，但我们却正在坚持错误而离正确的道路越来越远。所以，在今后相当长的时间里，正当程序的理念仍然会继续发扬它保障公民权利的传统。

资料来源：http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Government_&_Politics/Due_Process_Revolution.shtml，
附翻译原文：
Due Process Revolution

The great promise of America that has made a British colony in the 50 States today is Freedom. Many United States. The history of these freedoms starts centuries ago and has developed, revolutionized, and persisted all the way through today. At the core of these Freedoms is the idea of Due Process, the idea that everyone has rightFreedoms which still today cause people to flock to the s and freedom until they are deprived of them arbitrarily, or by the will of a just third party. Due process has been the most powerful force in American Criminal Justice since its creation and development. It has caused many people to win over the overwhelming odds in court cases and has presided over many righteous decisions that still affect cases today. Due process has also divided the country as public order advocates or individual rights supporters.

The Development of Due Process is conceived from four important documents, the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, The Declaration of Rights and Grievances, and the U.S. Constitution. The Magna Charta was an English document that gave citizens rights and protection from their ruling body, which in that case was the King of England. The Magna Charta was used by the U.S. to create the Bill of Rights, a part of the Constitution. The Declaration of Rights and Grievances, drafted in 1765, was the original document created by the colonies of their complaints against the crown. The British unfair trials amongst other tragedies were to be fought with Due Process and the creation of other laws to clear the complaints of the current system. This would lead to the start of the Revolutionary War, in 1775. From the aforementioned documents, we would derive the concept of Due Process, the idea that people should have the right to be fairly heard and tried in court before losing life, liberty, or justice. Due process also limits the government’s ability to make laws, ensuring that they are fair and proper. The idea of Due Process and the American Criminal Justice system was furthered again with the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in 1776. The Constitution, the document known as the supreme law of the land included Bill of Rights, which were the first ten amendments discussing the freedoms and procedures to protect those freedoms in America. The fourth amendment applied specifically to Due Process, stating “,The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This secured peoples right to be searched and violated by raids, but at the same time created great controversy in what was to be probably cause, an idea that would be developed and modified many times throughout history. The Fifth Amendment also supported due process in giving any citizen the right against self incrimination. Before their life, liberty, or freedom could be taken away someone other than their selves had to be a witness to their crime or have evidence to convict them. Before this, by force, people could be forced to testify as guilty despite their true innocence or guilt. Next, the sixth amendment changed the courtroom and due process by giving Americans the right to counsel. This gave anyone charged with a crime proper defense of their rights because many people were not able to defend themselves, not knowing the court system. In class the movie Gideon’s Trumpets showed the revolution of right to counsel when he was not able to defend himself in court and convicted due entirely that fact. The Eighth amendment was the next milestone affecting Due Process. The Eighth amendment stated, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This protected life, liberty, and freedom even for those convicted of crimes. Several of the movies we watched in class dealt with prison life and cruel and unusual punishment that reoccurred there. With the booming economy caused by slavery at the time, the development of due process slowed. Then, with the Civil War resolved by the victory of the North, the development moved on. The Thirteenth amendment, in 1865, abolished slavery, giving rights to all peoples of the United States as citizens based on the origin of their birth and their time living in the country. This came from the overturning of the Dred Scott case of 1857, which gave the world the idea of “separate but equal.” Soon after, in 1868, the Fourteenth amendment further gave life, liberty, and freedom to everyone by declaring peoples votes would be counted equally and allowing anyone within certain qualifications to run for government positions. It also added the second due process clause that neither could any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or freedom without due process of law.

The Warren court was the prominent force in the development of Due Process, and continued to support Due Process, but not through the creation of new laws or procedures, but through judicial review. This power gave the Supreme Court the ability to hear cases from lower level courts and make their own decision based on Constitution instead of State law. A classic example of the judicial review is the case of Marbury vs. Madison, 1803, which Chief Justice Marshall redecided the case based on the a greater force than state law, the Constitution. This judicial review was again utilized in 1816, in the Martin vs. Hunter’s Lessee. Warren would carry on this tradition in the modern courts making changes to what would become landmark cases to end the development of Due Process and move the United States in to the era we can classify as the Due Process Revolution.

After the Warren Court applied the Fourteenth amendment to the states, the Due Process revolution began. The legal climate was changed in the overturning of several key cases. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments would all play key roles in the revolution along with the concept of Restorative vs. Redistributive Justice.

The Due Process Revolution was officially launched with the overturning of the case Plessy vs. Ferguson(1896) by the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka in 1954. This case when put through judicial review by the Warren Court (1953-1969), declared that separate was not equal and that everyone must be incorporated together in all aspects, such as seating, public facilities, etc. The ideals that came from this case would also launch the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states, “To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.”

The next step in the revolution was the case of the Silverthorne Lumber Company vs. United States. This case added to Due Process the idea of the “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree,” which specified that is evidence is taken illegally, then the evidence may not be used in a court of law. In this case, police broke into the lumber company and stole tax records that proved that the company was guilty of tax evasion. However the 1920 case ruled it inconclusional based on not enough evidence due to the fact that the records were not taken into consideration. The Fourth amendment also played a part in the case of Mapp vs. Ohio (1961) which overturned Wolf vs. Colorado(1949), by saying that the Fourth amendment Exclusionary Rule from the case Weeks vs. US (1914) was now applicable to the states individually. This was possible through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth amendment.

The Fifth amendment was also a significant factor in the Due Process revolution. The double jeopardy clause, the idea that you cannot be tried twice for the same crime was applied to the states in 1969 in the case of Benton vs. Maryland. This case overturned the previous case of Palko vs. Connecticut (1937) where Palko was retried on a case where he was sentenced to prison and the second time he was tried for the same crime he was sentenced to death. The case of Escebedo vs. Illinois(1964) also elaborated on the Fifth amendment, saying that once you move from investigating to accusing a person, a lawyer must be present for the proper defense and interpretation. Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) also developed during this period adding onto the Fifth amendment that you must be read your “Miranda Rights” when taken into custody.

The Sixth amendment was revolutionized with the cases of Gideon vs. Wainright (1963), and several juvenile court procedings. The sixth amendment changed the courtroom and due process by giving Americans the right to counsel. This gave anyone charged with a crime proper defense of their rights because many people were not able to defend themselves, not knowing the court system. In class the movie Gideon’s Trumpets showed the revolution of right to counsel when he was not able to defend himself in court and convicted due entirely that fact. His wrote to the Supreme Court who tried his case and gave him proper counsel to defend himself. Several court cases also changed the Sixth amendment to apply to juveniles convicted of crimes. They included Kent vs. US( 1966), In re Gault (1967), In re Winship (1970), Breed vs, Jones (1975), and Illinois vs. Montenez (1996), which held that a “concerned adult” must accompany a child on trial.

The Eighth amendment was revolutionized with the case of Robinson vs. California (1962), which applied the Eighth amendment, the right against cruel and unusual punishment to the states. The case of Avery vs. Johnson also affected the Eighth amendment in 1968 when it declared “jailhouse lawyers legal, absent other legal resources.” The case of Wolff vs. McDonnell (1974) reversed the case Ruffin vs. Commonwealth of (1871), which made prisoners slaves of the state, and gave the prisoners new Constitutional protections, especially against cruel and unusual punishment. There was also great debate over whether the Eighth amendment supported Restorative or Redistributive Justice. These two types of justice focused on different aspects of criminals. Restorative focused activities and punishment on the consequences of the crime towards the public and individuals, while Redistributive focused on the offenders past behavior. The ideas of probation and parole were also questioned in the revolution within the Eighth amendment. The case of Morrisey vs. Brewer (1972) was the landmark defining the specifications of parole, and the case Gagnon vs. Scarpelli in 1973 set forth the standards for probation. The final adaptations to the Eighth amendment were about inmate conditions, it included Holt vs. Sarver which discussed “shocking the conscience,” Pell vs. Procunier (1974) which dealt with the legal base of prisoner’s rights, capital punishment cases Furman vs. Georgia in 1972 and Gregg vs. Georgia in 1976.

The Fourteenth amendment began the Due Process Revolution and would conclude the revolution leading to the aftermath. The Fourteenth amendment gave the courts after Warren, Burger and Rehnquist the ability to again change the cases and ideal that ruled the amendments. Their more conservative interpretations created controversy in the way that amendments now affected citizens as opposed to their “old” meanings.

During the Warren Court, there was the idea of, the development of, and the enforcement of Due Process. However, then came the aftermath, the Burger and Rehnquist courts, both of which were not happy with the previous work of the Warren Court. The many efforts of Warren and his supporters were not liked, even despised by Burger and Rehnquist, and they made valiant efforts to modify and overturn many of his landmarks.