CRIMINAL JUSTICE 228 IMPRESSION ESSAY

Criminal Justice 228 Impression Essay

Criminal Justice 228 Impression Essay

One of the greatest challenges facing the criminal justice system is the need to balance the rights of accused criminals, against the public interest in imposing punishment on persons convicted of crimes. This strain showed the debate about whether defendants are entitled to be represented by counsel. Most Americans are familiar with the Miranda warnings to advise suspects of their rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: the suspects have the right to refuse to answer police questions, they have the right to counsel, and if they can not afford a lawyer, will be provided for them gratis.

Nevertheless, the right to court-appointed lawyer is relatively new. The federal government began to provide court-appointed attorneys for felony defendants in the nineteenth century, and some states began appointing counsel to indigent defendants a criminal offense in the early twentieth century. (Reid et al., 2008, 288) But in 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that counsel must be provided for all criminal defendants in state and federal actions. The case that changed the American jurisprudence was Gideon v. Wainwright.

Clarence Earl Gideon was a homeless ex-convict with eighth-grade education. He was arrested in 1961 in Panama for breaking and entering in the billiard room, a criminal offense under the laws of Florida. At trial, he asked the court to appoint him a lawyer, but the judge in the case ruled that state law only permitted the court-appointed lawyers of the capital offenses. Gideon was forced to represent himself at trial, and not surprisingly, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to five years in state prison. While in prison, Gideon wrote a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to review his case and the court decided to address the question of who has the right to have counsel appointed by the court. (Reid et al., 2008, 288) In Gideon, the court held that the defendant's right to a fair trial should not depend on his or her wealth or education:

In our adversary system of criminal justice, any person, Khaled in court, who are too poor to hire a lawyer, can not be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided to him. This seems to be an obvious truth. . . . Lawyers in the criminal courts do not interfere, not a luxury. The Supreme Court overturned ...