for

The Sixth Amendment: Equitable Treatment For All

Video

Written Component

The Sixth Amendment was created to both organize the legal system and help give defendants a fair and legitimate trial. The authors of the amendment created this amendment in response to the disorganized, unjust legal system in effect at the time the Constitution was ratified.  The Amendment gives defendants the right to a trial without unreasonable delay with an unbiased jury, in which the defendant is informed of their accuser and the charges against them. They are also given the right to an attorney either hired personally or by the government if the defendant cannot afford a private lawyer. The Amendment also gives defendants the right to call witnesses.  Among the many rights granted by the Sixth Amendment, “assistance of counsel” and the right to an “impartial jury” have been the most heavily debated in the courts and by scholars. 

In defining the meaning of the right to assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court has looked to the reality of the situation and the consequences to a defendant to determine if constitutional requirements are met. Often, public defense lawyers hired by the government are tasked with hundreds of cases at once, not allowing them to fully research and develop a case for a client. In some situations, public defenders ask their clients to plead guilty for a shorter sentence, even when an innocent verdict is possible, just to save time and effort. In Gideon v. Wainwright, a 1963 Supreme Court case, Clarence Gideon was denied his right to free counsel in a Florida trial for breaking and entering because Florida state law only required that defendants be granted counsel if the death penalty were a possible sentence. The Supreme Court held the Florida law unconstitutional, and concluded that in all trials where a possible sentence could include prison time, the defendant is entitled to “effective” counsel. 

Some scholars today argue that the scope of the Sixth Amendment should be restricted to increase its effectiveness in cases where consequences are the most grave. For example, limiting the right to situations where defendants face prison time of a year or more or potential deportation could increase the effectiveness of public defenders by reducing their caseload. Scholars also suggest that trials outside the scope of the Sixth Amendment be simplified, allowing defendants to represent themselves with minimal assistance from court clerks. These two changes could have the effect of increasing the effectiveness of counsel in consequential cases and enabling defendants to competently defend themselves in simpler situations, both of which would make trials more impartial and equitable for those who cannot afford a private attorney, part of the sixth amendment’s original purpose. 

The Amendment’s right to “impartial jury” has also ignited debate. One often discussed topic is whether juries should know about possible sentences or play a part in sentencing before coming to a verdict. This is extremely important in cases punishable by a long prison sentence, death, or deportation. For these situations, the jury needs to know their true power to further strengthen their “impartiality”, as envisioned by the amendment. However, the Supreme Court has never agreed with this point of view. Scholars cite Padilla v. Kentucky, a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court decided that lawyers must disclose to their clients if a guilty verdict could result in deportation. The court stated that not doing so would be violating the defendant’s right to “effective” counsel. It can be argued that if attorneys not letting their clients know of possible sentences is unconstitutional, then why is the jury exempt from being informed of sentencing so they can correctly understand the consequence of their verdict? Making this change to the interpretation of “impartial jury” in the Sixth Amendment would be effective in further strengthening the amendment’s goal of making trials fair and just for all. 

The Free Exercise Clause and Arguments for and against Religious Exemptions

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise clause is a clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment was ratified alongside nine others. These first ten amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. By providing the people with guaranteed natural rights in these amendments, the government hoped to appease opposition to the Constitution on the grounds that it would give the federal government far too much power. The Free Exercise clause is a section of the First Amendment that protects freedom of religion. Many early Americans viewed religious freedom as one of the most important and fundamental natural rights because several American colonies had been created by religious groups fleeing from persecution in Europe.

By using the specific phrasing of “free exercise of religion,” Congress, which wrote the Bill of Rights, made it clear that it was protecting not just religious convictions but also practices. Using this clause as their argument, many religious groups have sought to receive exemptions from laws on the grounds that they interfere with their religious convictions or practices. In different time periods, the Free Exercise clause has been interpreted differently in order to either permit or disallow religious exemptions. In 1972, the Supreme Court decided in the case Wisconsin v. Yoder that governments could not apply laws that go against religious beliefs to the holders of said beliefs unless they had a “compelling interest” to do so. This ruling allowed for religious exemptions to occur for many laws. However, in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that religious groups could not be exempted from religiously neutral laws that disallow religious practices or enforce doctrine contrary to religious classes.

One large reason for this ruling was the fear that by being exempt from laws just because of religious beliefs, people would be above the law. The argument of whether or not to grant religious exemptions is one of the greatest areas of dispute about the Free Exercise clause. To argue in favor of religious exemptions, it could be said that in most cases, awarding these exemptions results in practically no detriment to anyone and therefore it would only be a benefit to religious individuals who want to comply with their beliefs. On the other hand, James Madison, one of the most influential writers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, wrote that while people should not be mistreated on account of their religion, no special privileges should be given for religious beliefs. Based on this information, an argument can be made that the intended meaning of the Free Exercise clause was not to permit religious exemptions, and therefore none should be given.

While it may be true that the Framers may not have intended for the Free Exercise clause to be interpreted in a way that allows for religious exemptions, the manner in which they wrote it seems to evoke the idea. Additionally, when a religious exemption does not cause any harm to other people, there is no reason not to support it. It is simply ridiculous to say that no one should get religious exemptions even when they cause no harm to anyone else. James Madison may have thought otherwise, but it is perfectly fair to give religious exemptions in cases where there are no adverse effects.