shapiro

Amendment VI – Julian Shapiro

Video

Written Component

Amendment VI:

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

The 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution provides a set of rights for the accused that are crucial to America’s legal and prosecution process. These rights, since their original uses in the context of the 18th century, have evolved and been interpreted by the Supreme Court. In the late 18th century, cases were most often debated with the prosecutors and defendants themselves. The 6th Amendment built on this, with the purpose of allowing both the prosecuting and defending sides to each present their own arguments and evidence, resulting in a more equal process with less emphasis on the court itself investigating the case. 

 

One of the most significant rights which the 6th Amendment outlines is the right to a “speedy and public trial.” The importance of this right is that it helps provide fairness to the defendant; it creates a swift system preventing the defendant from being held under unproven accusations for long periods of time and making sure all evidence is presented before it is altered or lost. The right generally requires that the case starts within a certain duration of time after the incident, or the defendant can dismiss the case. A “speedy” trial is, however, subjective, and the Constitution does not provide a more specific duration, causing divergent interpretations. It was most significantly debated in the 1972 Barker v. Wingo case. In 1958, Two men, Manning and Barker, who killed a couple were indicted. The state, however, convicted Manning first, as there was more evidence against him, and he would later have testimony to help convict Barker. Barker was finally convicted in 1963, five years after the crime, and claimed he had been denied the right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Barker’s claim, saying a “speedy” trial is not firmly defined and depends on the circumstances. In this case, though it was long, there was no prejudice against Barker in the trial and he had not actually requested a faster trial during the case.

 

The right also provides publicity to the trial. The basis of this is that it is open, allowing for more people and media to have opinions on the case, as well as preventing corruption and judicial bias that may occur in a private case. Another right the 6th Amendment provides for the defendant’s benefit is the compulsory process clause, requiring witnesses requested by the defendant to attend the court. Additionally, prosecutors’ witnesses must be “confronted” against the defendant in person, in order to require evidence that can be questioned by the defendant and jury under oath.

 

The final and most debated right described in the 6th Amendment is the assistance of counsel, which guarantees the defendant a lawyer if they wish. Those who can afford to can hire a lawyer of their choice, while those who cannot are entitled to one paid for by the government. The extent of this clause has been debated, most significantly in the 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright case. Gideon, who had been the defendant in a state court, requested a lawyer, however was denied the right as it was not a part of the state’s laws for a trial court. The case reached the Supreme Court, who unanimously decided in Gideon’s favor, extending the right mentioned in the 6th Amendment to be extended to defendants state courts. The decision was a milestone in the protection of legal rights, as most cases are in state courts rather than federal ones.

 

The 6th Amendment is a crucial democratic legal right that has been often changed through the Supreme Court. I believe the amendment still needs change, specifically in clearly defining the amount of time in which a trial must start, to better ensure a fair case.

Sam Shapiro-The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was ratified, many people believed that armies were a way for governments to oppress their citizens. The Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms, served as a counterbalance to this potential threat to liberty. Citizens bearing arms allowed the government to utilize standalone militias consisting of regular people with their own guns as an alternative to a standing army. The right to bear arms also gave citizens a direct ability to resist tyranny.

However, the common interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it all grants citizens the right to bear arms, is subject to debate. Some argue that like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment is an individual right granting personal protection and a right to self-defense. In this context, regulations cannot sacrifice one’s individual right to protection, and gun control laws must be extremely limited in nature to be constitutional. The ‘individual right’ argument was supported by the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. vs Heller. This ruling overturned previous gun control restrictions in the District. 

Others argue that the Second Amendment supports a more limited right to bear arms. They argue that the first clause of the amendment, “a well regulated Militia,” is a restriction on gun ownership; gun control is therefore broadly permissible. This is further supported by the fact that gun control laws existed when this amendment was enacted. At the time, slaves and loyalists were banned from gun ownership, and laws specified which guns were allowed for militias to use. Some of these laws were intended for public safety. As a result, this side believes that gun ownership today, and the Second Amendment more broadly, must be placed in the context of public safety concerns.

Today, the Second Amendment has proven to be problematic because our society is very different from the founding fathers’ era. The Constitution was ratified at a time when people were concerned about government tyranny. The Second Amendment, by enabling citizen militias, partially addressed that concern. Today, government tyranny is much less of a fear as it was, and even if it is a concern, individuals owning guns are powerless against the US Military. So, the reasons behind the Second Amendment no longer exist, but Americans still have the right to bear arms. This right, combined with the availability of advanced weaponry, has led to an epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence in our society. Change is needed.

The Second Amendment should be amended to make it clear that gun control is lawful and that gun ownership is not an individual right. This change can be coupled with laws that restore public safety with respect to guns. Examples could include a ban on semi-automatic weapons and requiring education, training, and background checks before gun ownership. By restoring balance to the Second Amendment, we can have a safer society while maintaining personal liberties. One hopes our current political environment will evolve to make this future possible.