The First Amendment is the foundation of what America stands for. This amendment provides the ability for each Americans’ right to be free from governmental restrictions in a variety of methods whether it is speech, peaceful gatherings, or the practice of religion. The public society has the privilege to access criminal trials, which allows a deep examination and of the judicial process. Access to public trials increase the factual process of the judicial system and the integrity of the parties involved under analysis in the public eye (Peterson, 1992). This amendment is said to be the force behind which all other amendments follow. However, this First Amendment language can conflict with the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. The Sixth Amendment, …show more content…
The act of holding open trials to public society holds many points. Trials held publicly increase the integrity of involved parties while also building the public’s confidence in the judicial system. This gives the system an appearance of nurturing fairness (Peterson, 1992). While closely related to the sixth amendment, the seventh amendment differs by stating that in civil law cases where the monetary award value must exceed twenty dollars, a trial shall be heard by a jury only in federal courts, and cannot be rehashed unless by common law rules (Wolfram, 1973). Though these amendments give way to our rights as Americans and each serves a different purpose, they all have a distinction and sometimes can hold tension between a guaranteed free press and a fair trial. As with any situation, these rights may contradict themselves and furthermore be placed to the side to put into effect other …show more content…
These obligations cause conflict when parents opt for a higher or spiritual power of healing rather than standard medical care to take preventative measures and save a life. In the First Amendment Center’s (2010) article, Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, an Oregon couple, were convicted and sentenced 16 months in prison of criminal negligent homicide in the death of their teenage son for trusting faith healing to save their son. Sixteen- year-old Neil Beagley had difficulties and ultimately died from a urinary-tract blockage, which could have been treated with conventional medical treatment. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act has no requirement for parents to acquire medical treatment for their children if it goes against what religious beliefs they have (First Amendment Center, 2010). The state of Oregon is home to a community called Followers of Christ, which hold liberal religious-exemption laws and was granted immunity against manslaughter charges for parents who choose the option of faith-healing (First Amendment Center, 2010). Other cases, such as the death of a 15-month-old baby girl, where the parents are acquitted by a sympathetic jury, are put into question what balance should be created with free exercise of religious practice and parental rights. The