Providing A Lawyer

613 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The importance of justice

“…where the potential for jail or prison time exists, a defendant has the right to be represented by an attorney even if the defendant can’t afford one.” (court.ca.gov). Even though some one might abuse the right to a free lawyer I believe that it will let those who cannot afford one a fair trial. I believe that those who have been convicted of a crime should be given a lawyer if they cannot afford one. Because some people can't afford a lawyer and do not know how to defend themselves properly in order to win a case. In the 6th amendment it says you have the right to a speedy and fair trial. Also providing a lawyer gives people a fair chance to defend themselves against an accusation.
As I said before, I believe that those who have been convicted of a crime should be given a lawyer if they cannot afford one since some people don’t have the money to hire one or they do not have the training defend themselves properly. “Although defendants sometimes wish to represent themselves, to do so in a criminal case is unwise” (osbar.org). The defendant could have said something that was miss interpreted and could send them to jail. For example, if the defendant says something wrong a harsh punishment would be their citizenship gets taken away, if it is that bad, or in jail for longer time period than deserved. In the Gideon v. Wainwright was a court case where the defendant was not provided a lawyer and Gideon had to defend himself. Despite his efforts to defend himself he was sentenced to five years in prison because of his lack of a lawyer. As shown in the Gideon v. Wainwright court case, defending yourself against a talented attorney is not wise for your case.
In the 6th amendment it says you have the right to a speedy and fair trial, a...

... middle of paper ...

...etrieved January 29, 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/218

3. Miranda vs. Arizona (1996) Miranda v. Arizona (n.d.). In Cornell University Law School. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436

4. Fuller vs. Oregon (1974) Fuller v. Oregon (n.d.). In Justia US Supreme Court. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/40/

5. Strickland vs. Washington (1984) STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON (n.d.). In OYEZ. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1554

Books
1. Smith, R. (n.d.). Fifth Amendment: The Right To Fairness (pp. 12-16). Minnesota: ABDO publishing Company.
2. Sonneborn, L. (2004). 2. Supreme Court Cases, Miranda v. Arizona, the rights of the accused (first ed.). New York: The Rosen Publishing Group Inc.

Show More
Related

  • Gideon's Trumpet

    661 Words  | 2 Pages

    At his trial Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so he asked the judge to appoint him one, Gideon argued that the Court should appoint him one because the Sixth Amendment says that everyone is entitled to a lawyer. The judge turned down his request, saying that the state did not have to pay a poor person's legal defense unless he was charged with a capital crime or that "special circumstances" existed. Gideon was left to represent himself in court.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Case: Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District

    550 Words  | 2 Pages

    "Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .

    Read More

  • False Confessions and the Norfolk Four Case

    2738 Words  | 6 Pages

    Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.

    Read More

  • Against Consent Searches

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.

    Read More

  • Victimized By The Court's Appointed Counsel

    1798 Words  | 4 Pages

    When working with a court appointed lawyer you need to research and follow up on guidelines that carry with your charge. You have to learn how the court system works. Lawyers that are hired by the court to represent the low and middle-income people are lazy in doing their job. There are many reasons why court appointed lawyers don't do their best for their clients involving the court cases.

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected. This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning, anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law. The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects.

    Read More

  • The 6th Amendment and Criminal Proceedings

    839 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984).

    Read More

  • The Stonewall Riots

    1224 Words  | 3 Pages

    LAWRENCE V. TEXAS. 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case: Ernesto Miranda's Law

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).

    Read More

  • Is Affirmative Action still needed?

    973 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thomas, Justice Clarance (2013) Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. No. 11-345. U.S. Supreame Court. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.

    Read More

  • Essay On Des Moines Independent Community Schools

    579 Words  | 2 Pages

    Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.

    Read More

  • Restraint and Activism

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.

    Read More

  • Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1)

    2066 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

    Read More

  • Explain The Steps In The Legal Process Of Criminal Defense Attorney

    305 Words  | 1 Pages

    If you or someone you love has been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or intoxicants, then retaining an experienced attorney is not only your right, it’s essential to navigating the next steps in the legal process. With a combined experience of 95 years, the criminal defense attorneys at Anggelis & Gordon, PLLC, are prepared to assist you with your case, and ensure that you receive the highest quality of service.

    Read More

  • The Criminal Justice System

    1079 Words  | 3 Pages

    They are hired by the defendant and sometimes even appointed to someone that is not able to pay for one. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to be represented by a qualified attorney. In Miranda V. Arizona, the Supreme Court mandated that every person who is arrested be informed of this right and that if they cannot afford an attorney, the court will provide one (Klein, 2012). These defense attorneys are impelled by law to assist their clients by making sure that they are treated fairly by the United States justice system. Their jobs see that people are granted the right to a trail by a jury of their peers, the right of innocent until proven guilty, the right to a speedy and public trial, and the right to remain silent (Klein, 2012). Lawyers are a necessary part of the criminal justice system.

    Read More

More about Providing A Lawyer

Open Document