The laws that govern the daily lives of Americans today constitute a living body of work that , while written centuries ago, continue to evolve in order to protect our rights, liberties and freedoms today. Laws, like living things, they are born, they grow and adapt to their environment, and when they become too old (obsolete) they die. The law is nothing like a static body, l lifeless entity that is the same as it was the day it was born, or written. Like a living creature, it adapts to its environment whenever new challenges or situations occur. “Law is a changing body of knowledge that both reflects and shapes larger social, political, and economic processes (Meyer and Grant, 2003, p.72).” Laws are simply words on a page, with no context on which to stand. When applied to real life, however, they must be adapted by humans and interpreted to determine if an accused is guilty of a crime or not. While laws are black and white, life is many shades of gray. Therefore, it is up to human interpreters and moderators, the lawyers, judges and law enforcement officers, to decide when a law applies to a situation and when it does not. This is all a part of the due process of the criminal justice system, which is founded upon the living body of law that is the basis of the American government today.

Due Process

Due process is the term used for the judicial process through which a person accused of a crime is taken through. It has been set up in order to ensure, to the best of its ability, that the accused is given a fair opportunity to prove their innocence and that prosecutors sufficiently prove the guilt of the accused. Due process has evolved along with the law, and is a good example of the “distinction between law on the books and law in action (Meyer and Grant, 55).” Due process has recently seen major changes due to the events that took place on Sept 11, 2001. After the attacks, the government took actions to ensure that law enforcement agencies were given the tools they needed to prevent future terrorist attacks by making it easier for officers and agents to hold and detain suspects without giving them the constraints of due process. One of the rights guaranteed to individuals accused of a crime is that they cannot be held until the prosecutor can “demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence against the accused to proceed with the case (Meyer and Grant, 2003, p. 52).” After 9/11, however, the PATRIOT Act gave law enforcement agencies the freedom to hold prisoners without having to through due process if they had good reason to suspect that person of terrorist activity (Doyle, 2002, p.2). The situation in Guantanamo Bay is an example of this change. Men suspected of being terrorists were held for years without a trial and without being accused of a crime as the Bush administration, in power at the time, denied these inmates their due process of law (LA Times, 2008, p.1). In order to try to prevent crimes of terror from being committed, the government has forced citizens and non citizens alike to sacrifice due process in certain situations. In the case of the suspected terrorists, they did not have to actually commit a crime to be detained. In the past, only crimes that were committed could be punished. “This paradigm shift has made it difficult for the government to prevail in court, especially when prosecutors have busted up so-called terror rings before the ringleaders have made any overt acts in furtherance of a crime (Alfano, 2006, p.1).” This change in, an elimination of, due process has many far reaching implications in the criminal justice system.

Rights of the Accused

In the American criminal justice system, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. This type of system is called an adversarial system. In some justice systems, the accused is considered guilty and must instead try to prove that they are innocent, a system known as inquisitorial. “The idea is that when the parties contest each others’ versions of events, they serve as a check-and-balance system, thus maximizing the likelihood that the truth will be found (Meyers and Grant, 2003, p. 53).” There are many positive aspects to the adversarial system, including the need for prosecutors to find sufficient evidence that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accused is actually guilty of a crime. However, like all systems, it is not without its imperfections. One of the main flaws is the cooperation between the major players in the courtroom. “Research on how judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors work together to handle cases demonstrates that a highly developed system of cooperation is often evident (Meyer and Grant, 2003, p.54).” This cooperation can work against the accused because they are outside of the system. The events of 9/11 drastically reduced and constricted the rights of the accused. The PATRIOT ACT was created in order to assist the government and law enforcement agencies gather information more efficiently on suspected terrorists (Doyle, 2002, p.2). Before, the law restricted how evidence could be gathered on an individuals. Under the PATRIOT ACT, spying on individuals email, gathering intelligence through wire taps and other spy devices is authorized and admissible in court. Due process has been changed in an attempt to meet the demands of modern society, but the changes come at a price to the rights of the accused.

Americans rely on the law to protect their freedoms and keep them safe from undue harm. When the law works, these two things are protected and nurtured. When they fail, they can have the opposite effect. The modern American living law, while far from perfect, has worked to keep Americans free and prosperous. It has been the job of those who work and interpret the law, such as lawyers, judges and politicians, to ensure the law continues to do its job to protect and serve the people. As long as the system continues with its series of checks and balances that ensure due process and the rights of the accused, then the law should be able to adapt and evolve no matter what events society faces.