When is due process not right?

Before I start this thread. Allow me to state that yes I am aware that every person is afforded the right of due process as far as criminal law states. I dont wanna someone jumping on that right away.

Now on to the thread...

As I am sure many of you have followed the case of Mr. Duncan. The nutjob who brutally killed a family and kidnapped their two young children for sex. I have been following the case. The latest turn of events deals with whether or not the poronographic films duncan made of the molestation of the two children should be allowed to be copied for his defense team. Why are even allowing this to go to court to begin with? The man admitted to the allegations and their is concrete evidence in the way of video's and digital pictures of the acts he committed, not too mention the eye witness testimony of the young girl.

Too me, it would seem that his rights to a fair trial are null and void. He's gonna go to trial and in the end he will be found guilty. And in the end his "defense" will tie up the court, cost a large amount of tax payer money for his defense. The media will rape the case over and over again. And all for what? A guilty plea? Which brings everyone full circle. We knew he was guilty when it the wires. No surprise there.

Why not save the time, money, and efforts of all involved and give him a hearing before a judge (no jury) and sentence him the same day?

I'm not very well versed when it comes to legal issues, but I think (perhaps incorrectly) that in situations such as this, the trial is occuring more to determine the punishment than to determine guilt.

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 11/2/2005 by DCFusion]

[edit on 11/2/2005 by DCFusion]

once you take due process away from one person, it sets the new standard, and before you know it, the constitution will be ammended to read..."Due process of law....to some."

I was just discussing this the other night with a buddy of mine.

The concept of due process is not just about the trial. It's about protecting the citizen from the arbitrary power of the state. We have had several cases here in Canada of people incarcerated for dozens of years who where later proven to be innocent (eg. David Millgard). They were not afforded proper due process. The system broke down.

Due process involves making sure chains of evidence and authenticity can be established. There are valid reasons for excluding evidence and there are frivolous reasons for excluding evidence (a technicality). A trial serves to establish these facts. Doesn't matter if it's all obvious it needs to go through the "process" to be formalised and on "the record".

Every person deserves a defence against the possibility of a frame-up and a hearing in court which serves to determine punishment as well as guilt or innocence. A defense lawyer's job is to give a client that defense. If there is a clear route to acquittal the lawyer must take it.

However, nothing in the law or in professional ethics codes demands that they obtain an aquittal. How hard they fight is a personal choice. For some it's directly proportional to the size of the client's wallet.
.

I just really wonder in some cases. Some people really dont deserve due process.