Introduction
The Sixth Amendment of the American Constitution offers all individuals who have been accused of criminal activities the right to a prompt trial. Speedy trial is a human right, which asserts that a prosecutor should not hold up a trial indefinitely and illogically. The U.S. Const. amend. XI, § 2 reveals how the constitution and the individual’s state constitution enforce the right to a speedy trial. Under the United States national law, there is no exact extent of “speedy”. However, regulations in most countries identify the period, which prosecutors have to adhere to when availing the accused to trial. For instance, in the state of California, the accused person who is imprisoned because of a misdemeanor must be brought before the bench within two months, except in case a valid explanation is offered concerning the postponement.
However, the accused can waive these rights and opt for slow proceedings. Speedy trial liberties include avoiding lengthy and unfounded imprisonments, minimizing the anxiety of waiting for a case to be resolved, and/or protecting the prisoner’s ability to defend himself or herself against the charges. For example, witnesses may forget important information that may lead to the disappearance of crucial evidence. In Saudi Arabia, prisoners are kept behind bars for a long time without court arraignments. According to the Saudi National Society of Human Rights, lawbreakers are detained for close to a year before they are taken to court. In fact, 33% of the total population of law offenders in police custody has never been arraigned in court. This situation is mostly attributed to a lack of communication and coordination between the judicial authorities and the prisons. This paper presents the speedy trial preparation as it is applied in the US and Saudi America. The goal is to compare the two systems to determine the one that operates better.
Speedy Trial Preparation in the Saudi Arabian System
The justice system in Saudi Arabia is characterized by arbitrary detentions and unfair trials. Even though the country’s government officials have on several occasions declared that their justice system upholds the recently implemented and reformed legal actions as Coleman asserts, the actions of the same justice system do not measure up to their declarations. The reforms have not safeguarded the Saudis against unfair detention, mistreatment in police detentions, or has it enhanced Saudis’ ability to get fair trials. A study by the Human Rights Watch in late 2006 and mid -2007 revealed a massive persistent inequality in the country’s justice system together with several organized violations against defendants. Saudis find themselves arrested and detained for actions that do not justify or rather cannot be regarded as criminal activities.
In most cases, the arresting officers do not mention to the victims the offenses that lead to their imprisonment. Besides, they do not provide any supporting substantiation. Typically, the detained people do not get access to their lawyers or get court-appointed advice. Hence, many individuals stay in police detention centers for a long time before trial. During this period, Vogel observes how these people are unable to examine witnesses or present their legal direction because of their presumption of guilt and/or shifting charges. According to the Middle East Monitor, keeping defendants in police detentions for a long time is one of the most serious violations of human rights in Saudi Arabia. Sadly, since Saudi Arabia has not promulgated a valid penal code, the detained people have no way of knowing what constitutes unlawful offenses.
Saudi Arabia publicized its initial wrongdoing policy in 2002. Even though the move was highly appreciated, the policy on criminal modus operandi, namely the LCP, does not include all principles that are recognized globally pertaining to the fundamental civil liberties of the accused parties. For example, the Law of Criminal Procedure in this country does not allow a prisoner to dispute his or her case in court. Besides not guaranteeing timely and easy access to counsel, it has no provisions at all about free legal counsel to the destitute. In addition, the Law of Criminal Procedure has the power to offer the judge the liberty to announce imprisonment notices and/or extend pre-trial confinement for as long as 180 days with zero legal assessment. During this period, the defendants are put through horrifying moments, which include serious violations of human rights.
Even though LCP forbids this unbecoming torture, it upholds the declarations retrieved under pressure to be allowable in legal chambers. It fails to define the principles of the presupposition of virtuousness or defend the prisoner’s liberty not to implicate herself or himself as Wilcke confirms. It also fails establish the theory of supposition of blamelessness and neither does it safeguard the accused against self-implication. According to Reichel, it empowers prosecutors to detain torture and put defendants through unimaginable horrors while in the process obtaining coerced statements. Court judges who are aware of all these violations pass judgments using the same statements while ignoring the regulations put in place by the Human Rights Watch.
Most of these assaults happen under the watch Saudi’s Department of Interior’s Household Brainpower Services, locally known as mabahith, which also operates its imprisonment centers. The custody centers include confinement cages for restricted acumen staff to reformatory structures, for instance, the al-Ha’ir mabahith reformatory that is situated few meters away from the city of Riyadh. It is close to al-Ha’ir correction facility that addresses simple criminal defendants. External bodies have no permission to inspect the performance and strategies followed by Mabahith. Even though Saudi’s constitution clearly mandates the officials of Bureau of Investigation and Public Prosecution to visit and inspect all prisons to ensure that all prisoners are taken care of, the officials have turned a blind eye on the human violations conducted in these prisons. They have left Saudi citizens to be arrested and detained with no criminal charges and access to advice.
For many years, the mabahith has detained thousands of guiltless human rights advocates, students, supporters of political reformation, and spiritual protesters. Some of these individuals have been detained for over a decade without any charges. After the 2007 liberation of 1,500 captives, these incarceration centers are currently home to over 2000 security prisoners and rebels. The number of innocent people in these prisons has increased in the recent years before the release of the 1,500 detainees because the prisons apprehended additional Saudi’s who were returning from Afghanistan in 2001, those who were suspected of going to Iraq in 2003, and those who are believed to be involved in domestic bombings, which started in 2003. For example, Sa’d al-Faqih, a Saudi individual who stays in London, protested against inequitable treatment from the government towards its people. He was joined by thousands of Saudis who were howling for independence in the streets of Jeddah and Riyadh. In response, the mabahith arrested and detained hundreds of the protesters, some of whom are still in prison today.
The prisoners in the Saudi mabahith have no right of entry to judges or lawful guidance. The said jails carry out arrests with no judicial oversight or legal basis. They are kept in detention for a very long time, way past the expiry of their sentences. Most detainees who get tortured in the prison cells continue to languish in these facilities until they get old and die or succumb to diseases and the beatings they receive every day. The Saudi government claims that it reeducates its detainees while in prison. Since this “re-education” program began in 2003, around 700 detainees have been freed. The Saudi’s Department of Interior’s Discussion Board that majorly comprises critical thinkers and spiritual specialists welcomes prisoners who are believed to depict “nonstandard” personality and beliefs to take part in their re-education curriculum. Saudi officials use the term ‘nonstandard’ to denote both violent and non-violent individuals. The apprehended cannot afford to turn down this offer, even though its triumphant conclusion is essential but not a satisfactory provision for discharge. Replacing a plan like this one for settlement of scandalous verdict in a Saudi bench disallows the accused the opportunity to demonstrate their blamelessness.
Hence, they cannot clear their names. It is believed that this re-education program has largely replaced trials. However, it is very unfortunate for anyone to find himself or herself behind Saudi’s prison bars because it does not matter if one is guilty or not. An arrest will be followed by years of torment, rape, flogging, and beatings with the aim of extracting statements and forced confessions. Defendants can only wait anxiously for the day they will be arraigned in court for trial or talking to their counsel. To many, this day never comes. They are taken to universal reformatories that do not allow disconnection between the offenders, captives still in custody, and/or those awaiting verdict from the bench.
Speedy Trial Preparation in the United States System
The US Constitution recognizes the right to speedy trial in both state and federal case laws. As revealed in the Amar’s work, a series of cases under the US Supreme Court during the 20th-century laid some vital groundwork about the constitutional liberties to a speedy trial. Amar reveals how such “…cases decided by the Supreme Court during the second half of the twentieth century laid down seven general propositions concerning the constitutional right to a speedy trial”. Over the years, Laurin observes how the American Court has identified three interests under the Sixth Amendment clause about speedy trial. They include the concern to restrain pretrial confinement, concern to limit the loss of one’s standing because of public accusation, and the interest in ensuring that all deferred trails are conducted in a reasonable manner. Commonwealth vs. Stephen Scher and Vermont vs. Michael Brillon cases can illustrate the speedy trial situation in the US.
Commonwealth vs. Stephen Scher
Facts
In 1976, Martin Dillon died from a chest gunshot wound that he sustained during a hunting trip with his friend Stephen Scher. Despite rumors of an affair between Scher and Dillon’s wife, Dillon’s death was ruled accidentally. Two years later, Stephen and Patricia got married. The cause of Dillon’s death, whether unintentional or a homicide, is a story that begins with the intervening of two decades, ending with the filling of murder charges against Stephen in 1996 and his first-degree massacre conviction in 1997.
Issue
After his conviction, Stephen appealed claiming that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. He argued that there was a twenty-year difference from the time Dillon was murdered (1976) to the time he (Stephen) was convicted in 1997. He blamed the justice system, especially the police force, for not investigating the case sooner when the evidence was still “fresh”. He also argued that most of the evidence had been lost or tampered with. Besides, most of the witnesses had already passed away. His legal representative, Moses, argued that factors that surrounded this case could not give Stephen a fair trial.
Rule
At the end, the Supreme Court found Stephen Scher blameworthy of first-degree massacre. He was accorded a life sentence.
Holding
The court argued that most of the important evidence in this case had not been tainted or lost. In addition, the testimonies of the already deceased witness had been recorded during his first arrest and that it could still be used. The holding of the court was that the main factor that had contributed to the case delay was that Stephen had given a false statement at the beginning of the investigations and that all decisions made by the coroner and the investigators were based solely on his statement.
Reasoning of the Court
The court reasoned that this case had been delayed because of the false information that Stephen had given to the police investigators back in 1976. If he had told the truth and given the correct information about what had transpired the day Dillon died, his case would not have lasted for two decades. The court argued that because of misleading police investigators, Stephen enjoyed his freedom for twenty years. In the case, the court could not find how the Commonwealth had failed to charge Scher for the murder of Dillon sooner, including how it had violated his right to a speedy trial.
Vermont vs. Michael Brillon
Facts
In 2001, Brillon was arrested for customary offender charges and lawbreaking for engaging in domestic battering. Three years later, he was tried and found guilty by a jury. He was given a prison term of 12-20 years. Between his capture and examination, more than five legal practitioners had been hired to stand for him. He had fired his first lawyer. His third legal representative left, claiming that Brillon had threatened his life whereas his 5th public prosecutor vacated after 60 days. Close to 120 days later, the country engaged his sixth legal representative who brought the case to examination in 2004.
Issue
Brillon argued that the trial court had dragged his case for three years.
Rule
After the trail court dismissed his (Brillon) plea for a speedy trial that is guaranteed by the American Constitution under the Sixth Amendment, the Supreme Court of Vermont reversed this ruling. It vacated Brillon’s sincerity and discharged all penalties against him.
Holding
The Supreme Court cited the complementary assessment in Baker vs. Wingo where the bench concluded that the examining magistrates had not have taken into account the waiting period of Brillon’s ruling, Brillon’s conformity to his civil liberties, the cause of the ruling interruption, and discrimination experienced by the accused. These factors weighed heavily against the state and in favor of Brillon. The court argued that this case had delayed because of the inconsistency of the state-appointed attorneys. The bench approved that during the first twelve months of its trial, three unlike public prosecutors stood for Brillon. This situation did not count against the state. However, the court reasoned that the delay that Brillon experienced in the following two years resulted from the state’s laxity.
Reasoning of the Court
The court reasoned that the delays experienced in this case were because of failure and/or unwillingness of the state-appointed attorneys to work on Brillon’s case. The highest team of judges of Vermont had made a mistake after it categorized the allocated advocate as a party to the country’s criminal integrity structure. Therefore, it was not justified in treating Brillon’s speedy trial differently in relation to how the situation would have been if he had a private counsel. It reasoned that the delay caused by Brillon’s counsel should have been charged on the defendant’s case. Therefore, the High Court associated the impediments with the office of the Warden General.
Argument about the System that is Better and Why
The judges’ perception of speedy examination varies based on whether the State or centralized rule is adopted. There is no specific time limit set for speedy trial in the US Constitution. The right to speedy trial usually starts on the date of the apprehension or the time the official charges are presented. Despite the judiciary’s duty to protect defendants against long pretrial nervousness, the right to speedy trial is not prompted by disbelief, but only by an arrest or being formally charged. The duration that the accused escapes any apprehension does not add up against the country’s administration.
Looking at the two systems (Saudi and American systems), it is evident that Americans’ belief in the constitutional rights to a speedy trial makes the US system better. Saudi’s actions against its defendants violate human rights. According to Rose, arrest and imprisonment of innocent citizens are illegal and morally wrong. Unlawful detention, coerced statements, and daily beatings are just but a few aspects that characterize Saudis’ prison system.
Constitutionally, according to Miller and Wright, every defendant has a right to a counsel. If he or she cannot afford to hire a legal representative, the state should appoint one. In addition, a defendant has the right to talk to his or her attorney at any time. As Burnham reveals, the accused should not be interrogated in the absence of an attorney. Unlike the Saudi system, the American government tries to uphold and respect defendant’s right to a speedy trial by ensuring that he or she (the accused) is notified of the crime he or she is arrested for, his or her legal right to an attorney, and that the attorney will be available during all questioning. As Brown reveals, this situation helps to prevent self-incrimination by the defendants. Any information a defendant says in the absence of an attorney cannot be used in court.
This situation is quite different from the procedure used by the Saudi police investigators. They torture and forcefully get information from the defendants. These statements gotten through threats and beatings are allowed to be presented in a court of law. In addition, the interrogations happen in the absence of an attorney. Hence, defendants self-incriminate themselves since they lack the guidance of an attorney who should tell them what to say and/or what not to say, including the questions they should answer and/or which one they should not. Lack of speedy trial rights in Saudi Arabia has seen many people remain in police custodies for up to 10 years. This time is very long for someone to be in custody without a counsel and arraignment in court. In the United States, courts understand the defendant’s rights to a speedy trial. The system ensures that every defendant has a counsel, appoints a counsel for those who cannot afford one, and/or ensures that the defendant is arraigned in court at the right time. By so doing, the defendant case is deliberated when the evidence is fresh. The witness’ memory is also clear. Looking at Saudi’s system, one cannot help but wonder what chances the accused people have in court.
The more time a defendant stays in police custody, the more the chances of getting prosecuted or acquitted disappear. When the defendant does not appear in court for a long time, there is a chance that the evidence about his or her case might be lost or destroyed. The witnesses’ memories may fade. Some of them may even die. With the lack of enough evidence and witnesses to testify on behalf of the defendant, innocent people may find themselves in prison for crimes they never committed. Looking at the procedures used by both systems from the time an individual is arrested to the time he or she is arraigned in court, the American government or constitution is far much better than the Saudi Arabian system. The American Constitution protects the defendants while the Saudi constitution violates the rights of those accused of crimes.
Conclusion
One of the main responsibilities of any constitution is to protect the rights of its citizens. The constitution establishes the fundamental principles to ensure that all citizens enjoy the same rights and freedom. The constitution gives the right for arrest, court arraignments, and incarceration. However, even though the constitution sets the guidelines of the rules to be followed, the same rules should be in adherence to human rights. Human rights are justifiably believed to belong to every person. The Human Rights Watch is mandated with monitoring and ensuring that every country adheres to the laid down human rights laws. One of the rights accorded to everyone is the right to a speedy trial.
Every country needs to observe speedy trial that sets a limit of the time that should be used to arrest and/or arraign a defendant in court. In addition, every defendant has a right to any attorney. Based on the findings from the US and Saudi systems, it is essential for the justice system to ensure that all evidence is collected and presented in court in the required time and that all witnesses are prepped and their testimonies listened to within the given timeframe. The police investigators, attorneys, witnesses, and any other concerned parties should work together to ensure that cases are heard, deliberated, and a sentence passed on time. Defendants should understand their rights. If they notice that their cases are taking longer than they should, they have the legal rights to question their attorney and/or the court. The right to a speedy trial is a privilege that should be accorded to everyone.
Bibliography
Amar, Akhil. Speed Trial, Bibliography, Cases (2008).
Brown, Darryl, What Can Kafka Tell Us About American Criminal Justice? 93 Tex L. Rev. 487, 487 (2014).
Burnham, William, Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States (4th ed. 2011).
Coleman, Denise, Saudi Arabia: 2015 Country Review. 1 S. Arab. C. Rev. 1, 8 (2015).
Laurin, Jennifer, Criminal Law’s Science Lag: How Criminal Justice Meets Changed Scientific Understanding, 93 Tex L. Rev. 1751, 1753 (2015).
Middle East Monitor, The Gulf. 26 Mid E. Mon. 1, 4 (2016).
Miller, Marc, and Ronald F. Wright, Criminal Procedures: Prosecution and Adjudication: Cases, Statutes, and Executive Materials 320-346 (5th ed. 2015).
Reichel, Pgilip, Comparative criminal justice systems: A topical approach (6th ed. 2002).
Rose, Emily, Speedy Trial as a Viable Challenge To Chronic Underfunding In Indigent-Defense Systems, 113 Mich L. Rev. 279, 281 (2014).
U.S. Const. amend. XI, § 2.
Vogel, Frank, Islamic Law and Legal System: Studies of Saudi Arabia (1st ed. 2000).
Wilcke, Christoph, Precarius Justice: Arbitrary Detention and Unfair Trials in the Deficient Criminal Justice System of Saudi Arabia (3rd ed. 2008).