According to the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Its been a year, and hundreds of people are still in federal jail awaiting trial, without bond in some cases, still awaiting charges in others, and some STILL IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for their involvement in the Jan 6 attack in DC. The charges thus far include assault, vandalism, demonstration in a restricted area and trespassing. No charges for insurrection have yet been made against anyone. Do these people have a constitutional right to a speedy trial? Are they getting it?
Yes, they have a right to a speedy trial. And yes their rights have been violated. We've really become lazy since the war on terror filled-up Guantanamo and left a number of people imprisoned there, on and on forever without trial or charges. Of course, they could just use the excuse that the Coronavirus pandemic has led to a slow down in processing the cases and that there are a lot of cases because many hundreds of people participated in the Jan 6 riots.
This is normal. People who think speedy trials happen do not understand how the justice system actually works. (Keep in mind many of those people have been denied bail too) Many of these people probably deserve about 6 months in jail, but are going to be held in jail for longer than that. Even before the trial. In most cases there will be no trial. The prosecutor will just offer them a plea bargain at some point, offering them mostly "time served" if they agree to plead guilty. If a defendant wants to have a fair trial with everything in their benefit, usually it takes at least 11 to 18 months for all the preparations, pre-trial claims and counter-claims to be made. The justice system is not really made or designed for "speedy trials".
Anybody who's read the Revolutionary trial scenes in "Tale of Two Cities" can understand that a "speedy" trial is not always the best thing for the defendant
Overall, I agree with that summary. The wait time to trial is about that, or even longer depending on the state and county. Plea bargaining is the new monkey wrench because of the way we measure the actors in the justice system. The folks we vote for positions in the justice system, be it a District Attorney, a Police Chief, or a Judge know that the only thing the voting public will ever get about their credentials is how many criminals did they lock up or get off the streets. Plea bargaining is a method of padding those numbers because the wait times to trial are insurmountable 99% of the time. There are just too many criminal cases and not enough people in the justice system, and giving them the resources and people they need is not a top priority for politicians. They would rather put the money in places where people can see the money being used, which is why the police tend to get the bulk of that money. The courts however see far less of it. Judges aren't cheap, and neither are the hundreds of people who work around a judge. So if you truly want "speedy trials", fork over your tax dollars for more court staff and judges.
I would like to add that the reason for a speedy trial is that when someone wants to do someone else in they can take all the time in the world manufacturing all sorts of "evidence" of a person's guilt. I'm sure the law enforcement and court system we have today couldn't have been foreseen to prepare for it in the founding documents.
They gave up their rights when they engaged in crime and this applies to all criminals. This is never applicable because the right, itself, relates to all criminals so there is no such thing as "giving up their rights". ------------------------- They gave up their rights when they engaged in crime, and this only applies to the Jan 6 crowd. Same as above and even farther away. The arrestees from the Capitol riot should not be singled out for extra punishment because of the type of crimes they committed or who they targeted. They shouldn't be favored either. There is also the risk of the public not realizing that crimes against law enforcement officers usually carry stiffer penalties so it may appear the judges are being biased against them but it's the letter of the law relative to the "degree" of harm caused when the victim is representing any kind of law enforcement (municipal, state or Federal). ------------------------- As citizens they have rights, but a year is not unreasonable to be held for trial. This is my choice. It takes a long time for a case to be heard in most courts. That's the way it works and I absolutely disagree they should be able to butt in line because some members of the public are outraged. Unless somebody is constantly outraged about the length of time for a trial to be heard for ALL arrestees, then they are just being hypocritical and want to apply a different set of rules for these specific arrestees. ------------------------- As citizens they have rights and their right to a speedy trial has been violated. I would imagine that anyone choosing this isn't familiar with the US court system. There is no "set" number of days, months or years, for a case to be heard so "speedy" doesn't actually mean "fast" or "prompt". This law is strictly designed to ensure that people aren't sitting in prison waiting for years or even decades for a judge to hear their case.
Assuming they have not violated rules in the institution or are assumed to be an institutional risk and held under administrative confinement, their solitary confinement is nothing but of a punitive nature. At this point they are political prisoners
they do, obviously some choose to waive that right for whatever reason not sure why that was not an option in the poll
I don't know how the courts interpret the law but my thinking is that if a court is suddenly burdened with an excessive number of cases the court has the responsibility to handle them as quickly and efficiently as possible. If their 'overload' is such that it's taking longer than usual, so be it as long as the number of cases is the cause of delay.
