Development of The Constitution in the US - Essay Example

Introduction The concept of human civilization is proportional against the implementation of the judicial system. The compliance of judicial system has entrusted the masses to practice and apply their opinion and faith independently. The judicial system of the country shall offer necessary rights to the prosecutor, but at the same should also encouraged adequate rights for the defence. The realization of the civilized society can be only verified based upon the treatment given to the "people accused of crimes" by the judicial system. The English government has neither supported nor encouraged adequate protection for the people accused of crime. The English legal system denied provisions granting necessary resources and protection to the people accused of crimes; unless the allegations were proven true. It was the American law which initially offered legal asylum to the accused groups (Paul, 2006). The legal asylum does not imply special and lenient treatment, rather the defendants were provided with minimum services to defend their position. The intent of such measures has been to bring credibility to the judicial system of the United States. PART-A Before 1960s, the courts were reluctant to offer counsel services to the accused groups. The services for the counsel were either limited or rejected; the provisions for counsels were provided based upon the financial standing of the accused groups. It was in the case entitled Powell v. Alabama 1963, when the court favoured the counselling services for the accused groups; the ruling encouraged the states to offer judicial protection to the accused groups through counselling. This was considered to be the first ruling which blatantly refused and challenged the interpretation of the British law; the law which discouraged any such counselling provisions for the accused groups. The court ruling considered it to be the legitimate demand of the defence for provisions of legal counselling services; however the court involved the states to determine the extent and nature of counselling to the accused groups. In 1942 during the hearing of Bett v. Brady, the court ruled it necessary to provide adequate legal protection to the accused group through counselling; however the requirement of legal counselling through lawyer to the accused group shall be evaluated on the basis of necessity. Such rulings confirmed that American law was adopting distinct approach, and in some cases challenged the interpretation of the English law. In 1960 the American law confirmed and reiterated its resolution to provide legal services to the accused group, and discouraged any such act of restricting legal services to the accused group in financial or educational grounds. During the case entitled Gideon v. Wainwright, the court granted the Sixth Amendment right of access to legal services to the accused groups. The American courts then established criminal justice system; this system offered adequate leverage to the accused groups; “the accused were provided access to fundamental legal services; the element of bias judgement was therefore eliminated” (Thomas, 2004). The background of the case entitled Gideon v. Wainwright has been that the defence entered the poolroom with intent to commit misconduct, and caused damaged of the property. The defence claimed that he has no fund to hire legal services, and therefore requested the court to arrange counsel to fight his case. It is important to mention that during 1960s, the right of counselling was only granted in very limited cases in particular when the defence was accused of capital offense. The case was being fought in Florida state court; the court announced its verdict against the defence, and subjected him to five years of imprisonment. The defence then approach Florida Supreme Court and challenged the rulings of the Florida state court on the basis that defence was not provided with legal counsel. The defence claimed that access to justice was the fundamental right of the American national, and this right was protected under Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the United States Government (Thomas, 2004). The Supreme Court ruled out in the favour of the defence, the decision of the court was based upon the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment and Bett v. Brady case. The Sixth Amendment stated that the accused should be granted services of legal counsel during criminal prosecutions. The ruling of the case entitled Bett v. Brady mentioned that in the light of Bill of Rights it is mandatory for the court to ensure that defence is treated under fair trail, and fundamental and essential rights shall be offered to the defence. Furthermore, the right to aid of counsel is fundamental and shall be offered to the defence on requirement basis (Paul, 2006). The particular case entitled Gideon v. Wainwright was fought in 1961. Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of stealing besides causing substantial property damage. During hearing the court concluded that the requirement for the legal counsellor for defendant shall be determined by the judges. The need and justification for the legal counsellor is essential if the lack of presentation can render the trial unfair. The case entitled Argersinger v. Hamlin was about the conviction of the defendant without legal assistance. The defendant was accused of carrying weapon; in the jury his was not represented by the legal counsellor. The defendant therefore challenged his conviction, and termed it illegal. The Florida Court did not allow access to the counsellor because it regarded that the case was not jury trial because the conviction period was less than 90days. The decision of the Florida court was challenged in the Supreme Court; the court rejected the ruling and interpretation of the Florida court. From this case, it was confirmed that the access to the legal counsellor is the fundamental right of the defendant irrespective of the nature punishment. The Fourth Amendment has discouraged any such measure through which the person is pronounced cruel and unusual verdict under unreasonable circumstances. The Fifth Amendment has stated that without offering compensation no private property shall be taken into custody. From these amendments it is essential to interpret that the American constitution encourage access of counsellor for the defence, and the concept of free trail is essential. These rulings and the constitutional amendments have offered adequate protection to the defence to seek legal counsellor for representation. It is the responsibility of the state and court to ensure that judicial system should provide equal rights to the defence without any bias or prejudice. PART-B The American constitution has provided adequate safeguards to the defence for the representation of this case in the court. The defence has the access to the legal counsellor, but has the choice to self-represent his case in the front of the judiciary. The constitution has special provisions for the legal rights of the mentally-ill accused groups, but such provisions are only limited to the counsel services. In 1975 case entitled Faretta v. California, the right to self-representation was ruled as fundamental constitutional right of the defence. The right for self-representation is applicable on every person, the intent behind such amendment has been to provide defence with an opportunity to fight their case with possible support; however the right for self-representation does not imply that this right shall be granted to the mentally-ill or retarded individuals. The mentally-ill or retarded individuals are much different from normal human being, therefore the concept of counselling has several limitations in this case. The issues generally encountered in the midst of the mentally-retarded person case are beyond controllable limits. There have been reports that in such cases the conflicts between the mentally-retarded defence and lawyer have often erupted. This has created unnecessary confusions, and has often caused delays in the court proceedings (John, 2004). The courts have often sought the help of the psychiatrists to validate and confirm the self-representation status for the mentally-ill defence person; it has been confirmed that the existence of the “disorganized thinking and impaired expression that characterize severe mental illness” have the potential to affect the influence and role of the defence and will eventually lead to his failure of self-representation, therefore provisions for legal counsel shall be encouraged. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the mentally-retarded defence is unable to fight his case under self-representation or support of counsellor. The defendant Ahmed Edwards was accused of firing shots and for attempting to steal shoes. The defendant was "schizophrenic man" and was charged under attempted murder case. The defendant was under police custody for last six years, before that the police found him incompetent to stand trial. After his submission to the judges, the court decided upon legal counsellor for the defendant. The decision for the legal counsellor was based upon the condition assessment of the defendant by the court. The decision was against the 1975 case entitled Faretta v. California; however the decision to reverse was taken on the ground of mental condition assessment by the judges. During the proceedings, it was observed that conflict existed between the defendant and counsellor; the defendant was interested in pursuing his case under self-representation. Under case Faretta v. California, the accused shall be accused guilty even if the convict fails in representation of their case. The court has therefore adopted neutral approach on the cases dealing mentally-retarded individuals; the court has offered such individuals the right to have counsellor and /or self-representation (John, 2004). The case entitled Dusky v. United States was regarding the rape accusation on Dusky, the defendant mentally ill and was suffering from schizophrenia. Prior to the start of the trial, the mental health of the defendat was confirmed by the court and the defendant was found competent to stand his trial. The defendant was found accused of the rape allegations of minor, and was given 45years sentence. The convict then approached the court, and claimed that he was unable to present his case previously. The court approved his plea, and validated that the defendant shall be confirmed competent for standing his trial, if the defendant is able to "present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and further understands rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him". The mental examination was therefore considered not appropriate to assist the mental condition of the defendant. After retrial, the sentence of the convict was reduced from 45yrs to 25yrs. The case has significance in history because for the first time the courts challenged the medical examination criteria for the mentally-ill defendant, rather the assessment of the mental condition of the defendant was linked with his ability to communicate with the legal counsellor, and his ability to understand the accusations and consequences. The particular case entitled McKaskle v. Wiggins, the court allowed the defendant to defend his case independently, and also offered him the services of legal counsellor. The decision of the court was based upon interpretation of the Sixth Amendment; however the court took nascent approach of providing the services of stand-by counsel. The case entitled Godinez v. Moran; the defendant used his constitutional covers regarding mental illness to prolong his case. Initially the convict Moran was offered the services of legal counsellor, however in the middle of the proceedings these services were ignored and rejected. The defendant then fought his case alone and was found guilty. The mental condition of the defendant was verified by team of psychiatrists which termed the defendant as patient of depression, but competent to face trial. The accused was sentenced to death, however the defendant requested for soft approach towards the ruling based upon his mental illness. The plea by the defendant was rejected on evidentiary hearing. Under the case entitled Godinez v. Moran, the defendant was initially offered services of legal counsellor; however the defendant voluntarily refused any external support and expressed his resolved to fight his case independently. The court approved the option selection by the defendant. Thus after offering adequate safeguards to the defendant the court stated its proceedings. Prior to the proceedings the defendant is warned of the consequences related to the self-representation. Under American law, the mentally- retarded defendant has to be aware of the following statement prior to the grant of self-representation; “Under special treatment by the Court, that you must follow all the technical rules of evidence and procedure and the substantive law in making objections and motions, and so forth, the same rules will apply to you as will apply if you had a lawyer represent you” (John, 2004). The court has categorically stated and verified that mentally retarded defendant has initial option of legal counsellor, and upon rejection the defendant has the option of self-representation. The severe challenges associated with the mentally-retarded defendants have been their variable focus upon the case, and the seriousness of attitude. The court has therefore evolved simple and comprehensive strategy to initially offer legal counsellor to the defendant for the case, and only after receiving the agreement of the defendant, he/she shall be granted the permission for self-representation (Thomas, 2004). Conclusion The American constitution has adequate provisions of safeguard for the defendants. The defendants have the right to approach and seek assistance from legal counsellor to fight his battle; and such support is granted irrespective of the financial condition of the defendant. The law treats the defendant with equal respect against any other American citizens, however if found convicted the same law has rigorous punishment and other sentences. The American law has special provisions for the mentally-retarded defendant, and these provisions have further improvised after some court rulings. The American courts have offered services for legal counsellor to such defendants, and upon agreement the mentally-retarded defendants have the right to self-represent their case. The American law is therefore set of comprehensive legislations which have provisions for special cases. References 1. Paul Finkelman. Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. CRC Press. 2006. pp. 165-178. 2. Thomas Campbell. Separation of powers in practice. Stanford University Press. 2004. pp. 34-76. 3. John B. Taylor. The right to counsel and privilege against self-incrimination. ABC-CLIO. 2004. pp. 232-243. Read More