Wainwright v Gideon It would be wrong to compound the problem further by denying proper legal defense because they could not afford it. Perhaps, in some cases, if they had enough money and education, they may not have committed crimes in the first place.
In 1961, a man named Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested for stealing coins and alcohol from a Panama City, Florida, pool hall. He was a poor man and could not afford a lawyer. Following his conviction, he served five years in prison. During that time, he sent a handwritten letter to the Supreme Court in which he explained that he had been forced to fend for himself in court, without legal representation. Because of Mr. Gideon, the Supreme Court justices declared that criminal defendants have a right to legal aid (Gest). It was a right decision by the Supreme Court. The United States was founded on the principle that all men should be equal. By providing criminal defense to the poor, the court is leveling the playing field so that everyone receives the same fair treatment. Since crimes are committed disproportionately by the poor, the Supreme Court's decision ensures that those who cannot afford a lawyer still have representation. The decision is not always popular with the public, especially when someone particularly heinous is involved, such as those responsible for the attacks at the World Trade Center in 2001. Even though the law is not always popular, however, it is still right.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees someone the right to counsel if he or she is charged with a crime for which there is a potential prison sentence. According to the Sixth Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to ensuring people get counsel, almost anyone stands the risk of going to jail when charged with a crime if there is not an effective lawyer to help. "The majority of people do not know, for example, what is and is not admissible in a court of law, let alone how to procedurally convince twelve jurors that they are innocent" ("The Right to Counsel"). It is wrong to break the law, but sometimes circumstances lead some people to commit crimes. People who have fallen on hard times, or who have not had much ...
The way that the use of illegal drugs is treated is an example of the differences between the middle and upper classes and the poor with respect to the law. As stated in an article for Nation:
"Drugs are intensively criminalized among the poor but largely unregulated among the rich. The pot, coke and ecstasy that enliven college dorms, soothe the middle-class time bind and ignite the octane of capitalism on Wall Street are unimpeded by the street sweep, the prison cell, and the parole-mandated urine tests that are routine in poor neighborhoods" (Western 13).
Another example of the way the law is not applied fairly is with respect to race. Research shows that whites and blacks have had different historical experiences within the criminal justice system (Staples). African-Americans, until fairly recently in the nation's history, have had considerably fewer opportunities. People who are poor and without much education sometimes resort to criminal activity, sometimes to get things they want and sometimes to express their anger and frustration about life. Again, poverty and lack of…
It would be wrong to compound the problem further by denying proper legal defense because they could not afford it. Perhaps, in some cases, if they had enough money and education, they may not have committed crimes in the first place.
Constitutional Originalism A living constitution is a concept that is found in the United States, it is also referred to as loose constitution. This is because it is a constitutional interpretation that the constitution is dynamic in meaning. It claims that the constitution has human properties since it constantly changes .I hold a strong opinion for the constitution to be interpreted as a living constitution due to several reasons. The idea
Government originalism OR non-Originalism Non-Original Interpretation of the Constitution A substantial amount of debate has occurred in recent times regarding questions of legislation and the interpretation of the constitution. The two primary factions in this debate are that of the originalists, which are largely in favor of a literal interpretation of the constitution and the intention of its founding authors, and that of non-originalists, which are more likely to consider the outcome
District of Columbia v. Heller District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) represents the U.S. Supreme Court's single biggest intervention in Second Amendment jurisprudence. The case was one which had been deliberately manufactured by a small cadre of ideologues: the case was organized and funded from the first by Robert Levy, a Senior Fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute. In 2010, Levy would address his own achievements in getting
Gun Violence in Australia & its impact on federalism & coordinated gun control policy. Gun violence yielding en masse public murders in Australia have provoked the question of whether laws governing guns are too lenient or perhaps have enabled the dangers arising from unregistered firearms. The role of federalism has begged the question of whether more jurisdictional authority is needed by one of the provincial levels of Australian government. First however,
Living Constitutionalism As the leader of the free world, the United States remains in the limelight as the rest of the world keeps a keen eye on how they conduct their affairs. As it appertains to constitutional interpretation, the U.S. has a sound philosophy dubbed 'living constitutionalism.' In the American constitutional dispensation, as in other countries, the letter of the law is unequivocal. That notwithstanding, many agree that every society is
U.S. Constitution: Discussion Questions A) The Fourteenth Amendment: the Case of Whitney V. California 274 U.S. 357 Whitney V. California (No. 3) Argued: October 6, 1925 Decided: May 16, 1927 453 Affirmed Location: Socialist Convention at Loring Hall Factual Analysis: Anita Charlotte Whitney, who subscribed to the CLPC (Communist Labor Party of California), found herself was arraigned for breaching the state's 'Criminal Syndicalism Act', which forbade any actions aiding or advocating crime commission, including "terrorism as a means