¶ … defendant entitled to dispute the courts characterization of him or her being a danger to society? A defendant is certainly entitled to dispute the courts characterization of him or her as being dangerous to society. This is so because everyone has the right to a fair trial. This is one of the essentials of the American Constitution.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), in fact, insists that all are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that extensive care should be taken to ensure that the court has arrived at the correct decision. In that case, it only makes sense that the defendant -- who is, after all the focus of the case - should dispute the court's characterization of her if she thinks it necessary to do so.

Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11 all tell her to do so, but the key injunction lies in Article 10 which states that:

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." (United Nations. "Universal declaration...

The defendant can certainly plead his case:
All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (Doebbler, 2006).

Many other conventions reiterate this claim. In all cases, therefore, the defendant is certainly entitled to dispute the courts characterization of him or her as being dangerous to society.

2. Active narcotics addicts may be untrustworthy and high-risk cases if released before trail on bond. Is this really fair to defendants? Why or why not, explain your answer.

Active narcotics should not be released before trial on bond. This is so not only due to the fact that they may be further harming themselves, but they may also…