I'd take issue with that definition of due process as being a "general" description of it. All it really means is that, whatever the formal process is for legal disputes in society, you have the ability to avail yourself of it. And what those procedures are exactly will vary from society to society. Here we've set up a formal adversarial process, and included things like the right to examine witnesses and evidence presented against you, the right to present evidence and witnesses of your own, and so forth as being a part of the process. But this doesn't apply to other societies with other formal or informal procedures. In a society where guilt or innocence is determined by having the accused walk on hot coals, "due process" just means that you have the right to walk on hot coals to prove your innocence.
In a general sense, "due process" means that, whatever the formal procedure is, it is followed in your case, and you have the ability to avail yourself of it, instead of society just dealing with every case on an ad hoc basis. And if there is no set procedure, there is no real due process in any meaningful sense...
Really? It's been me the whole time here. Maybe you're thinking of someone else. Maybe someone with some loony religious notions about pain or something. You gotta watch out for those types.
And if there is no set procedure, there is no real due process in any meaningful sense...
And that's why I'm just a little bit hesitant to sign on to your description of due process. It leaves so many avenues for playing fast and loose with the rules. Any government can then say, "Yeah, but that's our rule!" I'd have to agree with what Ned said in #46. There's an entire paragraph from that post which I think sums it up pretty well, which I'll post here, hoping he doesn't mind:
The problem that I have with this interpretation is that I don't think that people went to all of the trouble of adopting the Fourteenth Amendment just to make sure that state judges complied with the directions of state legislatures. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I believe that state legislatures were intended to fall within the scope of the term "State" and that the due process clause obligates the State (including the state legislature) to comply with some minimum standards of fairness when disposing of a person's life, liberty or property. I do not believe, for example, that a state can, consistent with the due process clause, execute or imprison people without trials even if the state legislature enacts statutes providing for executions and imprisonment without trial. I firmly believe that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted as a limitation on state laws and practices with the understanding that states would thereafter be held to some national standards of "due process of law." The real debate concerns just what those national minimum due process standards should be.