Video
Written Component
The common interpretation of the Sixth Amendment is that it purports that everyone has the right to a fair trial. This trial must be speedy, public, and contain a jury consisting of unbiased people from the state where the alleged crime was committed, and witnesses for and against the defendant. Lastly, the amendment also states that the accused has the right to a lawyer for said trial. Before the Sixth Amendment, our court system was very disorganized.
Neither side of a trial had a lawyer, trials were glorified, minute-to-hour-long shouting matches, and the jury consisted of 12 men who knew the defendant and/or the victim and were therefore very biased. The incentive to include the Sixth Amendment in our constitution was to help organize the legal system and make criminal trials fairer for defendants. Originally, the main contention with the Sixth Amendment was whether or not the amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases applies to felony defendants in state cases as well as capital ones.
The main Supreme Court ruling dealing with the importance of the Sixth Amendment is Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). In this case, Gideon was accused of Breaking and Entering. When he requested a lawyer, he was denied one and sent to jail. He then filed a habeas corpus petition claiming that, under the Sixth Amendment, he was deserving of a lawyer and shouldn’t have gone to jail. At the end of the appeals process, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, stating that almost every aspect of the Sixth Amendment is valid to federal and state prosecutions, meaning that Gideon in fact did deserve a lawyer. I agree with the interpretation supported by the Supreme Court: the Sixth Amendment is meant to be taken at face value and applied to all aspects of our legal system.
In order to truly present ourselves as a fair country with an unbiased legal system, we need to support all of our citizens. If I could change one aspect of the Sixth Amendment, I would advocate for amending the part of the amendment added by the Supreme Court after Gideon x Wainwright, in which it is required that public defenders give adequate representation to their clients. I believe that instead of controlling the effectiveness of public defenders, which is already a near impossible task, the legislation should instead provide better funding for public defenders. More than 80% of defendants charged with felonies are indigent, meaning that more than 80% of defendants in felony cases rely on public defenders. Despite public defenders representing a massive portion of defendants in our country, they are severely underfunded. In 2009 in Florida, the annual caseload of felonies per public defender 2,225 misdemeanors and over 500 felonies.
This disregard for public defender’s time has disadvantaged both them and their clients, seeing as they no longer have the time to fully investigate each case. Also, due to how many cases each public defender has, they get severely backed up, meaning that approximately 500,000 defendants waiting for their trial wait in jail for at least a year before it happens. These conditions are horrific and not sustainable. If the government increases funding for public defenders and places more equitable limits on how many cases public defenders can have, the way the US conducts criminal cases will improve exponentially for defendants and lawyers alike.
Bibliography (for written portion):
Guardian. “Poor People Rely on Public Defenders Who Are Too Overworked to Defend Them.” The Guardian. Last modified June 17, 2015. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked.
Bibliography (for video):
Guardian. “Poor People Rely on Public Defenders Who Are Too Overworked to Defend Them.” The Guardian. Last modified June 17, 2015. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked.