Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The right to fairness in the criminal justice system
Injustice within the criminal justice system
Magistration miranda rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The right to fairness in the criminal justice system
The Miranda Rights work quite well as they were intended upon initial conception. They serve to inform, with great accuracy, the arrested individual of their rights and allow them to take the proper next course of action based on what they know. Even if they were not previously aware of their rights, the Miranda Rights serve to briefly and effectively enlighten the apprehended. However, a small, if important addendum is justifiable and perhaps necessary in that the nature of their rights as an arrested individual could be further specified. The right to a court appointed attorney is paramount to the civilized justice system. Despite this, the system is not without its faults. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons both proximate and remote, central and ideological, many court appointed attorneys are overwhelmed with cases. Some have as many as thousands and more still have hundreds of cases. Further more, many court appointed attorneys are amateurs, fresh out of law school with no formal practice of their own. To add further insult to injury, many are often so ill-equipped to handle their cases they opt for their clients to plead guilty and accept lesser sentencing rather than risk a long, arduous battle. …show more content…
To what can we expect a court appointed attorney, knowing this, to be able to adequately defend the hundreds and thousands who can't afford the ever rising cost of a private attorney?
It can be argued that a prosecutor is far more seasoned than the rookies that take on the work of a court appointed attorney, so immediately from the start they are at a disadvantage. Combined with the sheer quantity of cases, many court appointed attorneys can only allocate minutes with their clients. One can assume this to be a substantial disadvantage when the maximum amount of time spent researching a case is less than that spent at a fast food
drivethrough. With this in mind, we are left with two simplified assumptions: One is that this is simply how the system has, does, and will always work. We can do little to change the circumstances of how this unfortunate situation comes to pass, short of a widely publicized campaign for more people to pursue a degree in criminal justice. However, we can offer further enlightenment of this situation to those facing it. We can do this through the Miranda Rights. Thus, the proposal is a simple addendum: To clarify that, while a court appointed attorney will be appointed to the accused, that they are to be aware that their attorney will almost invariably be overwhelmed with work. We can include in the Miranda Rights this addendum as well as a brief suggestion that, if the accused can afford it, that a private attorney is more likely to dedicate the time and effort necessary to defend them. Even if this suggestion fails, it would inform the people of a widespread issue and surely they would seek to change it over time.
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).
Returning to the judicial world of the Bronx Family Court as a judge, after years of working in administration, Judge Richard Ross is astonished to find a distinctly more disjointed situation than the one he left. As he attempts to live out his life as “both the fact finder and arbiter of the law” it is clear the current judicial system does not serve him well (xv). Judge Ross conveys to the reader the fundamental issues of the Family Court system through his day to day happenings which range from endless caseloads to death threats. The use of personal experience is effective in adding credibility to more clearly convey his point that not only the Judges, but the case workers, 18-B attorneys, and various legal aides are overworked to a point
On the morning of January 8th 1962, the Supreme Court received mail from prisoner 003826 of Florida State Prison, also known as Clarence Earl Gideon. In the envelope contained a hand written letter with questionable grammar from Gideon claiming that he was denied a fair trial due to the absence of a lawyer. Gideon’s writ of certiorari was an in forma pauperis petition or pauper’s petition. Due to the fact that most paupers’ petitions are from inmates who do not have the legal means to properly file a certiorari, the Court had special methods of handling cases such as Gideon’s. Paupers’ petitions according to Justice Frankfurter were “almost unintelligible and certainly do not present a clear statement of issues necessary for our understanding”(Lewis 35). It is reasonable to assume that the Court would not spend an exorbitant amount of time going through mounds of paupers’ petitions trying to find a case that seemed presentable. Statistically, about thirteen percent of petitions for certiorari on the regular docket are paupers’ petitions. In addition, only three percent of paupers’ petitions end up being granted. Nevertheless, Gideon’s case was treated just as equally as any other in forma pauperis case. Gideon’s handwritten documents were held for a month until Florida authorities replied to petition. A month passed by and Gideon’s petition was mailed to the office of Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1962. A conference was held in June to discuss whether or not Gideon’s petition should be granted. Gideon’s case was granted three days after the conference and from that day forward Gideon’s fight for justice would ensue. In the eyes of Gideon, an attorney was a fundamental right of due process. However, his biggest ch...
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
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.
...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.
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.
You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda Warnings including; definition, history, importance to society, constitutional issues, and pro’s and con’s of having the Miranda Warnings incorporated into standard police procedures.
After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning, they must first advise the suspect of their rights, and make sure that the suspect understands them. These rights are known as the Miranda Warnings and include: 1. What is the difference between a. and a. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. 2.
In the 21st century, crimes have been and remains as one of the post-major threats towards
Historically, the right to counsel was only guaranteed in federal criminal court (Wice, 2005). A person charged with a crime in the state court did not have the right to legal representation. Law scholar Professor Mason Beaney explained this by saying, “only a few states guaranteed the right to appointed counsel…In most jurisdictions counsel was appointed in none but the most serious cases, often only when the crime was punishable by death” (Wice, 2005, p. 3). Many defendants, who were poor, illiterate, and uneducated had to face the justice system without legal assistance (Smith, 2004, p. 579). Los Angeles County started one of the first public defender programs in 1914, spreading slowly to other counties (Neubauer & Fradella, 2011, p. 176). By the 1960’s, less than a dozen states still refused to provide attorneys to defendants unable to afford one (Smith, 2004).
At present, many cases are never prosecuted for one reason or another. For example, in about 40 percent of federal embezzlement and fraud cases, charges are dropped because of insufficient evidence to convict, given the resources at hand.85 In some instances prosecutors "deputize" attorneys to try cases, too. Many private attorneys have criminal experience as former prosecutors or public defenders. A logical extension of private preparation for trial is the complete privatization of the prosecutor's job by contracting out. Private attorneys, of course, are often appointed on a pro bono basis for criminal defense. Private attorneys could be deputized for a single trial or for ongoing prosecutor's work, either pro bono or under contract.
I have chosen to use a criminal defense lawyer as my primary legal career for this discussion board. A criminal defense lawyer, is a lawyer who specializes in defending an individual or a company that has been charged with a crime. Criminal defense lawyers have to deal with many different circumstances. For instance, arrests, criminal charges, investigations, sentencing, appeals, and even post-trial issues. However, a lot of criminal defense lawyers will choose to specialize in a certain type of criminal defense. For instance, drug defense, or even DUI defense. Criminal defense lawyers often have to work out substantive issues in connection with their clients supposed crime. Many times criminal defense lawyers will be helping a client even before charges have been filed against them by
Trial consulting is not limited to jury selection and providing consultation is no simple task. According to Andrews (2005, p. 257), “trial consulting consists of empirical research and consulting services designed to evaluate how a judge or jury will perceive and react to case theories, themes, issues, arguments, witnesses, evidence, and exhibits”. Furthermore, consulting services are meant to help enhance the efficiency of the case, improve attorney’s power of persuasion, and to help them in preparing
A civil litigation attorney has to spend the majority of their time at work researching the facts of a case, all while knowing the law and what role it takes in the case. Once the facts have been determined, an attorney next has to write legal documents to use to help prove their view of the case, all requiring the majority of an attorney’s day to revolve around gathering and writing a case for their client. Civil law career-researcher Susan Echaore-McDavid also elaborates on what a litigation attorney often does each day. “Litigation Attorneys perform various legal tasks each day. They conduct legal research, review and analyze legal documents, write legal correspondence, and prepare legal documents such as motions, briefs, and contracts. They keep clients up-to-date with their cases, whether in person, by phone, or through e-mails or correspondence. These lawyers also direct and guide paralegals, legal secretaries, and other staff members, who provide them with essential legal, administrative, or clerical