English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

For better or for worse, our Constitution ensures that the basic rights of fair procedure are guaranteed to all American citizens, including those accused of crime, no matter how much society may disapprove of their actions. The United States Supreme Court has expressly provided that “[d]ue process of law is the primary and indispensable foundation of individual freedom” and effectively serves as the “basic and essential term in the social compact which defines the rights of the individual and delimits the powers which the state may exercise.” Recognizing that the failure to observe fundamental procedural due process guarantees has historically resulted in substantial unfairness to criminal defendants, the Court has worked to establish heightened procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings over the latter half of the past century.6 In this sense, the Court has openly embraced the belief that “the progression of history, and especially the deepening realization of the substance and procedures that justice and the demands of human dignity require” has called for courts to “invest the command of ‘due process of law’ with increasingly greater substance.” Consequently, the Supreme Court has set a clear example that lower courts must move forward “with advancing the conception of human rights in according procedural as well as substantive rights to individuals accused of conflict with the criminal laws.”

university of pittsburgh law review

The Problem with Forgiving (But Not Entirely Forgetting) the Crimes of Our Nation’s Youth: Exploring the Third Circuit’s Unconstitutional Use of Nonjury Juvenile Adjudication in Armed Career Criminal Sentencing