While the protection afforded by the guaranties found in the federal or a state constitution is often spoken of as the inalienable right of one accused of crime, it does not follow that such guaranties may not be waived by the accused. While he cannot by any act of his give jurisdiction to a court which under the law does not have jurisdiction, nor consent to a punishment which a court cannot lawfully inflict, there is no inherent reason why he may not waive any provisions of the constitution or the law which are intended for his protection, provided he freely and in the possession of a sound mind exercises the discretion of doing so for his own presumed advantage. He cannot waive the necessity for his presence in the court on a trial for treason or felony, because the court has no jurisdiction to proceed without his presence; nor can he consent to be tried in a court which is not authorized by law to try prosecutions for the offence with which he is charged; nor can he consent to death or imprisonment as a punishment for an offence for which such punishment is not provided; but he may waive a jury trial by plea of guilty (Hallinger v. Davis) and may waive objections to evidence which he might interpose according to constitutional provisions; and he may consent to be tried without a jury provided the court is legally authorized to proceed to try a criminal case without a jury (Harris v. People of Illinois); and without question he may waive a speedy trial or the assistance of counsel or any of the other provisions specially intended to secure to him a fair trial.