But, in this case the government is representing us, the people. We are the ones effected by the alleged crime so we are trying them. The state is only acting as our lawyer.
Disclaimers first: I am not a lawyer, this is my unprofessional understanding of the law and not legal advice. I also do not believe this is right or should be the case. As I mentioned before, I think it is one of the biggest issues of the US legal system.
However, legally speaking, your rights are only preventing the government from doing things. If the government passed a law that murder is legal on Halloween, reenacting the Purge, then you still have a constitutional right not to be killed by government agents acting on behalf of the government. But the government (including cops and courts) have no duty to prevent ordinary citizens from killing you or to prosecute them after the fact.
Your right to Life and Liberty only applies against the government and its agents. This is why the government or you by extension don’t have any constitutional right to a speedy trial in this case. Only the accused does. You don’t have any constitutional rights at all against other people. Bearing arms and using them for self-defense is also a restriction on government punishing you for it.
And that is why 2A and the right of self-defense is important, even though you should hopefully never need it in practice.
PS: By the way, most of this is not purely theoretical. Cops did watch a man get stabbed to death right in front of them and courts ruled that was fine, since they have no duty to help.
Prosecutor also don’t have to press charges for any crime they don’t feel like prosecuting. This is called prosecutorial discretion. They can even officially file a noprosecution affidavid with the court making a binding promise not to prosecute a crime.
But, in this case the government is representing us, the people. We are the ones effected by the alleged crime so we are trying them. The state is only acting as our lawyer.
Yes, but legally speaking, no.
Disclaimers first: I am not a lawyer, this is my unprofessional understanding of the law and not legal advice. I also do not believe this is right or should be the case. As I mentioned before, I think it is one of the biggest issues of the US legal system.
However, legally speaking, your rights are only preventing the government from doing things. If the government passed a law that murder is legal on Halloween, reenacting the Purge, then you still have a constitutional right not to be killed by government agents acting on behalf of the government. But the government (including cops and courts) have no duty to prevent ordinary citizens from killing you or to prosecute them after the fact.
Your right to Life and Liberty only applies against the government and its agents. This is why the government or you by extension don’t have any constitutional right to a speedy trial in this case. Only the accused does. You don’t have any constitutional rights at all against other people. Bearing arms and using them for self-defense is also a restriction on government punishing you for it.
And that is why 2A and the right of self-defense is important, even though you should hopefully never need it in practice.
PS: By the way, most of this is not purely theoretical. Cops did watch a man get stabbed to death right in front of them and courts ruled that was fine, since they have no duty to help.
Prosecutor also don’t have to press charges for any crime they don’t feel like prosecuting. This is called prosecutorial discretion. They can even officially file a noprosecution affidavid with the court making a binding promise not to prosecute a crime.