Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Right to Counsel
In the United States, the right to counsel is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. Right to counsel is the civil right of an accused person to seek the aid of an individual who is an expert in the law of the land. Often when a person finds him or herself in a position where they are a defendant in either a civil or criminal court, they need to utilize the skills of someone who understands the law. Without this right, the accused would be at a decided disadvantage against prosecution who are trained and employed in the field of the law. The present law of the United States is that a person may employ an attorney to represent him or her in a court. If a person is unable to afford an attorney, then counsel will be appointed to that person and paid for by the government. Should a person desire, they may also choose to represent him or herself in court. This decision should only be made if the person has an extensive knowledge of law themselves.
The original interpretation of the Sixth Amendment was that those who could afford to be represented by counsel in court could not be denied their chosen representative (Revolutionary 2011). Otherwise, it was the responsibility of the individual to become as learned as possible in the legal situation in order to defend him or her. The appointed attorney is paid for by the government and not the defendant...
That does not mean the attorney can do a half-hearted job of the proceedings. "The court appointed attorney must be in good standing with his local bar association, the organization that accredits attorneys, must give his undivided loyalty and attention to the defendant and must make a good faith effort to assist the defendant" (Revolutionary 2011).
Originally a person who could not afford an attorney would not be provided with one. This changed in the case of Powell vs. Alabama. In this 1932 case, it was determined that the 6th Amendment held a right to counsel for everyone, whether or not the individual could afford representation themselves (Revolutionary 2011). In the Powell v. Alabama case, nine black youths were accused of raping two white women. Three trials were held over the course of one day and all nine men were sentenced to death without having anyone to counsel them. The decision of the court in that case was that due process had been violated. This was based on three arguments: "(1) they were not given a fair, impartial and deliberate trial; (2) they were denied the right to counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and opportunity for trial; (3) they were tried before juries form which qualified members of their own race were systematically excluded" (Powell 1932). However, that did not mean all states immediately adopted…
Works Cited:
Crawford, Kimberly. "The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.
2001.
"Powell v. Alabama." (1932).
"Revolutionary War and Beyond." (2011). Retrieved from http://www.revolutionary-war-and-
"Right to Counsel." (2011). Southern Center for Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.schr.org/counsel
However, this Court also recognizes that mental illness oftentimes differs from other immutable characteristics, such as mental retardation and age, in that a defendant oftentimes has the ability to control mental illness through medical interventions. While there is tremendous evidence of Panetti's deteriorated mental state, there is very little evidence to support Panetti's assertions that he was insane at the time of the murders. Though there are serious questions regarding
Public Safety vs. Civil Rights The United States and its citizens promote a vision of the country as the epitome of civil rights and liberties. These, however, are not offered free from the conditions of honoring the civil rights and liberties, and indeed the safety, of those who share citizenship and residency within American borders. Hence, public safety and civil liberties often need to share an uncomfortable balance. In many cases,
("USAID Family Planning Program Timeline: 1970s-1980s"). President Regan's successor, President George H.W. Bush, continued to adhere to the Mexico City Policy. In 1993, it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001 by establishing conditions in the grants awarded to USAID. In addition, President George W. Bush extended the policy to apply to any "voluntary population planning" assistance provided by the Department of State.
United States judicial system has honored the policy that children and adults do not have the same psychological and emotional capacities and should therefore be treated differently when tried for a crime. With the exception of extremely malicious acts performed by juveniles, the court system has separated juveniles from adults in trials. Recently, mechanisms allowing juveniles to be tried as adults have become more widely used. Judicial waiver involves a
"..three asymmetric methods that could be used to exploit the Court: (1) misusing the Court's investigative processes, (2) filing questionable or fraudulent complaints, and (3) manipulating mass media (Austin, W. Chadwick, Kolenc and Anthony Barone, 2006, p. 291)." Finally, the issue of how the court might deal with the problem of international terrorism is not well understood (Yarnold, Barbara, 1991). The court's authority to extradite and prosecute terrorists from third world
Leonard Pielter Global news provides Americans with a ringside seat to political prisoner issues across the world. Americans hear about people who are taken as prisoners, charged with a crime, but the general consensus remains that they are actually prisoners because they angered the government of either their homeland or the government of the nation they lived in. Americans sit tight and secure in the belief that those type of things