The Controversy of Legal Representation in the Adversarial Judicial System

#ProjectProposal??#TopicResearch?#Academicresearch??#Essaywriting? #Researchpapers??#Academic?#Academicwriting?#WritingResearchPapers?#Essaywriting? #Thesiswriting? #Dissertationwriting?#EnglishTutoring?#Writingservices? #Writingcommunity?#Writingcoach?#BusinessWriting?#ReportWriting?#Researcher #upwork

Introduction

The Constitution provides various rights and protections for those rights. One of the constitutional protections is the right to liberty and protection against wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system. When a person is accused of a crime, they are taken before a court that decides whether they are guilty of the said offence. The sixth constitutional amendment protects the accused during the trial and ensures that the defendant and the complainant get justice. While there are many clauses under the Sixth Amendment, one of the most controversial revolves around the right to counsel and whether defence lawyers exist to defend criminals and bend justice. Further, the right to counsel attracts the controversy of an adversarial judicial system where people with the most resources win the case, implying the sale of justice. Regardless of all these controversies, the adversarial system where the defence attorney and the prosecutor face before an impartial jury is a vital system that protects the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel and the Bill of Rights at large.

The adversarial judicial system works on the premise that a fair trial includes hearing from both the accused and the plaintiff, who in criminal cases is the state. If one person were to be allowed an audience in a court, the trial would not be fair because they would table all their reasons with accompanying evidence without giving a right of reply or asking questions from the other side. The adversarial judicial system gives both sides in a criminal trial a similar legal footing to make their assertions and defend their evidence (Harr et al., 2018). From this understanding, one can see how the criminalized role of the defence attorney is critical for individual justice and fairness in line with the Sixth Amendment. Further, the place of the defence attorney is recognized in the constitution as the right to counsel. If people were left to go to court with appropriate counsel, the state would use its power to convict innocent people wrongly.

Powell v. Alabama (1932) was the first case to stamp the place of the right to counsel involving a group of black men known as Scottsboro Boys. The nine young black men fought with white boys and were later accused of raping two white girls. The boys could not afford attorneys, and the court appointed all bar members to act as counsel in this case. The boys were found guilty and received the death penalty. The United States Supreme Court overturned this ruling arguing that the court had violated the Bill of Rights, which bound the states to provide counsel for helpless defendants under the sixth constitutional amendment. However, the Supreme Court recognized the limitation of this landmark ruling, arguing that the decision applied to all capital offences because of the sentence they carried. The court said that courts were free to decide when to provide state counsel in other cases where the defendants could not afford their attorneys.

The Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Supreme Court case was another landmark ruling that stamped the place of the right to counsel even in non-capital cases. The order obligated the state to provide an attorney to poor people facing court cases when they could not afford one. The case's particulars involved Clarence Gideon, implicated in a burglary that happened in a pool room in Panama, Florida. An eyewitness accusation had landed Gideon in police hands, and the court refused him, counsel. Gideon could not afford a lawyer because he was poor and lack of counsel landed him a guilty verdict and a prison sentence. While in prison, he appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida, which declined his petition. He then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the criminal justice system had violated Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court argued that it was unfair that moneyed people could afford counsel and win court cases while the poor lacked this privilege. Therefore, the court made a ruling which required states to provide counsel for every person who could not afford one.

The lack of counsel at trial is akin to a one-sided trial where the state has the upper hand through the prosecutor. According to the judges’ opinions in the Gideon v. Wainwright case, the right to be heard in a court is synonymous with the right to counsel. This is because the accused layman lacks any procedural knowledge and cannot know whether an indictment favours or harms them. Most people who go to trial without counsel are likely to be convicted on many wrongful accounts. These include inadmissible, irrelevant, and incompetent evidence. The layperson cannot decipher when evidence is any of the above. The judges also argued that the right because the rich and privileged in society could afford counsel is unfair when the poor go to trial without defences because they cannot afford them (Harr et al., 201). Lack of counsel at trial defeats the purpose and requirement of a fair trial, which the Sixth Amendment promises. Such sentiments precede the adversarial judicial system, which thrives on two opposing sides during the trial.

??????????????? The Controversy over the Commercialization of Legal Representation

The pressure of the adversarial judicial systems has led to the commercialization of legal representation, implying a lack of justice and more of a defensive ability. Research shows that the quality of legal representation influences court decisions, leading some defence attorneys to build influential names in high-profile criminal cases (Agmon, 2020). The main question that critics ask is whether lawyer respects the rule of law and takes victim' interests at heart when they work with evidently guilty individuals. Such critical views condemn the existence of a model that promotes legal justice for sale. They blame market forces that enable some people to "buy" legal justice because they have the money and resources. Others seemingly cannot afford influential lawyers and thus end up convicted. The adversarial model of the justice system remains controversial.

The Benefits of Legal Representation in the Adversarial Justice System

The adversarial justice system model is undoubtedly appealing, especially for criminal justice. First, it is applauded for its competitiveness in pursuing truth and differential interpretation of the law (Assy, 2015). The model takes power from the state and empowers the defendant to fight for their justice. The adversarial model gives the defence and prosecution power to examine the evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and challenge incompetent evidence. The model enhances rigorous examination of all facts and truth and has a high probability of delivering accurate results. The model also protects the people's right to counsel and fair trial by extension (Assy, 2015). There is also an impartial application of the law, guaranteeing justice for the defence and victims. The adversarial model, which thrives on two sides facing off before an impartial jury, protects the Sixth Constitutional Amendment and the Bill of Rights in general.

Conclusion

It is impossible to revert to the non-adversarial criminal justice system where the state has all the power, and the defendant is at the prosecution and jury's mercy. The lack of legal representation has far more negative effects on criminal justice than the seeming sale of justice. Legal representation protects key constitutional statutes and provisions enforced through landmark United States Supreme Court rulings. The right to counsel ensures that people without legal knowledge can challenge evidence presented by the state and achieve justice, especially if they are innocent. The benefits of legal representation outweigh concerns about the sale of justice, especially in a nation where the bending of justice has dire consequences for people and communities. In any case, the state has all the resources to bring credible evidence to win a claim if they genuinely believe and can prove that the defendant is guilty of the accused crimes.?

References

Agmon, S. (2020). Undercutting Justice -Why legal representation should not be allocated by the market. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 20, 99-123. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1470594X20951886

Assy, R. (2015) Injustice in person: the right to self-representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.11-12

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (83 S. Ct. 1963) https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright

Harr, J. S., Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C., & Kingsbury, J. (2018). Constitutional law and the Criminal Justice System. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (53 S. Ct. 1932) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/287/45