Politics/Amendment Essay

A written overview of the amendment in question. What does it say specific all in ally? The Sixth Amendment of the United States disposition provides, In all wretched pursuances, the accused shall enjoy the the pay way to a speedy and prevalent trial, by an im contributionial dialog box of the State and district wherein the crime shall crap been committed, which district shall require been previously ascertained by honor, and to be intercommunicate of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against him to have dictatorial ferment for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence (Sixth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). The in good orders enumerated under this amendment furbish up to the codified rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions. Generally the flyer of Rights was combine in the Constitution on account of the belief that it was incumbent to hold back the investigatory and prosecu torial indexs of the federal government (Oxford Companion, 2005). The rights of the accused in criminal prosecution are 1) right to a speedy trial 2) right to a populace trial 3) right to a trial by jury 4) nonice of the accusation (5) right to confront the opposing witnesses 6) right to compulsory plow for obtaining favor qualified witnesses and (7) the help of guidance or right to counsel (Oxford Companion, 2005). The right to a speedy trial prevents oppressive incarceration originally trial and ensures abnegation by the accused of his cause.The right to a public trial acts as a safeguard against abuse of judicial power. Moreover, it in all result assures the accused that he is informed of the charges against him. This is part of due process (Oxford Companion, 2005). The right to confront opposing witnesses refers to the right of the accused to cross examine utter witnesses. He is also entitled to subpoena witnesses in his behalf (Oxford Companion, 2005). Finally, the accused is also entitled to be represented by counsel or a justiceyer. This shall be lengthily discussed in a nonher section of this paper.When did it become part of the Constitution? This amendment was ratified and adopted in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution in 1791 (Oxford Companion, 2005). It was part of the first ten amendments included in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was in reality proposed by James Madison. The group known as Anti-Federalists threatened that if these rights were not included in the Constitution, their states will not ratify the new Constitution. They requisite clear safeguards against the vast powers of government. After a compromise was agreed upon, the Constitution was ratified in 1789 but the Bill of Rights was incorporated later and went into set up after it was ratified on December 15, 1791 (National Archives web site, n.d.).3. What cases have come before the Supreme apostrophize in which this particular amendment was utilise? Be fore the confirmation of the Sixth Amendment, two statutes were enacted which in effect accorded the assistance of counsel to those accused (USGPO web site, 2005). The Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed the defendant to say his case in a federal court either in person or by counsel. On the other hand, the Act of 1790 allowed the defendant aerated with treason or other detonator crime to be defended by counsel which the court will assign to him (USGPO web site, 2005). Even with the ratification of the Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel has limited application. It was only in the mid-thirties that the Supreme Court developed and enlarged the scope of the Sixth Amendment by virtue of jurisprudence. In the case of Powell v. Alabama, the Court set aside the convictions of eighter from Decatur youthful offenders since the trial was conducted in a hasty manner and the defendants were not assisted by counsel. The Court further ruled that there was defence of due process considering th at the right to be heard is meaningless if it did not entail the right to be heard by counsel 287 U.S. 45 (1932). The Court succinctly explained that even if a man is knowing and intentional he whitethorn not be skilled in the science of law and whitethorn be indicted on an erroneous charge or be convicted based on incompetent evidence.More so, the defendants who are young, indigents, illiterates and are faced with an atmosphere of hostility away from their relatives 287 U.S. 45 (1932). Thus, it was stressed that it is positive to be represented by counsel and it imposes a vocation upon the Court, whether communicate or not to shoot down and assign a counsel otherwise, it becomes equivalent to a denial of due process 287 U.S. 45 (1932).In the case of Johnson v. Zerbst, the Court enunciated the absolute rule of appointing counsel for all federal criminal defendants. Moreover, it ruled that a waiver of such right must be clear and cannot be presumed from silence of the defendant 304 U.S. 458 (1938). In the case of Betts v. Brady and Progeny, the Court ruled that the appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right essential to a fair trial 316 U.S. 455 (1942). It laid down the formula that the right to be represented by counsel is not necessary in state cases involving non capital offenses except in special circumstances. This persuasion was held later on after criticisms, to put on only to the incompetents such as the illiterates and retardates or to grant relief in cases of judicial abuse of power 316 U.S. 455 (1942). In Hamilton v. Alabama, the rule was in capital cases, the Court must appoint a counsel for the defendant even without proof that defendant may be prejudiced without such appointment or even if the defendant failed to request that one be appointed as his counsel 368 U.S. 52 (1961).The special circumstances rule was held to apply only in non capital offenses 368 U.S. 52 (1961). In the cases, Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155 (1957) and Gid eon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 350 (1963), the Court has laid down the leash categories which may be deemed as prejudicial and thus, necessitating the appointment of counsel, namely (1) the individualised characteristics of the defendant which made it unlikely he could obtain an adequate defense of his own, (2) the technical complexity of the charges or of possible defenses to the charges, and (3) events occurring at trial that increase problems of prejudice (USGPO web site, 2005). The ruling of the Court in the Betts case was confused in the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright. The Court in abandoning the Betts reasoning held that the right to assistance of counsel is imperative, basic and fundamental and that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the same be available and applicable in state courts. In 1972 this ruling was held to apply to misdemeanor and serious misdemeanor cases provided that it carried a penalty of imprisonment Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) . Additionally, the Gideon ruling was also held to apply to youthful offenders in juvenile offense litigation in the case of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).What, if any connection is there between this organic issue and education? The constitutional issue of the right to assistance of counsel is related to education. The study of law requires knowledge, skill and experience in trial proceedings. Even an educated and intelligent man who is not properly educated and trained in law is considered incompetent and unable to defend himself. Courts are created to punish and deprive the criminal of their liberties through imprisonment and other imposable penalties. Thus, it is imperative that if a person is charged with an offense in court he must be able to put a defense and be heard by a properly trained counsel.To deprive him of this would be tantamount to depriving him of due process and would render nugatory the basic tenets of the Bill of Rights. A person charged of an offense would need the expertise of a counsel so that he does not risk himself of being convicted even if he be costless simply because he does not know how to establish his innocence. More so an uneducated man, a feeble minded person or an indigent. Consequently, it becomes the duty of the court to appoint counsel so that such person may not be denied due process.ReferencesArgersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)Betts v. Brady and Progeny, 316 U.S. 455 (1942)Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 350 (1963)Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961)In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938)Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155 (1957)National Archives and Records Administration web site. Bill of rights. Retrieved on November 16, 2007, fromhttp//www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights.htmlOxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press, 2005.Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)U.S. presidential term Printing Office web site. Sixth amendment Rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions 2002. Retrieved on November 16, 2007, fromhttp//www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/024.pdf