Gideon v. Wainwright: Right to Representation in Capital Offenses - Free Paper Example

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) is a case that revolves around the representation of an individual in a situation where they cannot hire an attorney for themselves. Earlier, according to the circumstances, the only instance where an individual would have the state hire representation for them was when they had committed a capital offense. When an individual had committed a capital offense and was unable to hire an attorney to represent them, it was the state's responsibility to find the appropriate representation. When individuals committed other crimes, they were not guaranteed to have the state get them representation in court. The previous standing proved to have a loophole because it should apply equally among all people regardless of their situation. However, for a long time, the law stood, whereby when an individual committed smaller offenses and could not hire representation, they would not get one from the state.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Various issues were associated with the original case, which led to conviction and appeal by Earl Gideon, who was the defendant. In the example, Earl Gideon was accused of theft; on account of a witness. He was seen walking out of the establishment that had been robbed of the property while some were destroyed. Earl Gideon asked for representation, based on the state laws that offered representation for individuals who could not hire an attorney (Israel, 1963). However, according to Florida's laws, only capital offenses were capable of having such a privilege. In this case, the offense did not qualify as capital; therefore, Earl Gideon could not get any representation. In the absence of an attorney, he decided to represent himself in court. He presented his defense, cross-examined the witnesses, and offered an opening statement. However, he was charged as guilty of the offense in that case. Therefore, he was sent to prison so that he could serve his sentence. The significant issues in the first trial were the offense not qualifying as capital, and lacking the capacity to hire a judge by himself or provision by the state.

After the lower court convicted Earl Gideon of being guilty of committing the crime, he was charged and sent to prison. In prison, he appealed to the court's earlier decision because of the inconsistency in the Fourteenth Amendment, which discriminated against offenders. After the partition, he was granted the writ of certiorari, and his case was heard again and determined. It was established that the provision of the Sixth Amendment that the state should give a proper representation was all individuals' fundamental right, which had to be respected. The provision was to provide a chance for an accused person to have a fair trial in court. That was based on the fact that it is quite challenging for an individual to represent themselves in court. They may be ignorant of their rights or the due procedures required in determining their case. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that all individuals should be guaranteed representation in court regardless of their offenses. However, although the Supreme Court overturned the ruling, the decision was not unanimous. There was a dissenting opinion by Justice Black, who later wrote the court's opinion. Therefore, from that time, it was normal for an individual to seek representation by the state attorneys provided if they were not in a position to get their representation.

The case is significant because of the effect it had on the justice system; and the cases that followed after it. The primary source of significance was highlighted by what was referred to as the due process revolution. That was where there was a preference given to fairness given to all people as they faced trial, regardless of who they were or what they had done. Based on the case and winning of the appeal, all people who had committed any offense had the right to get representation from the state (Abel, 2005). That was because they all needed to obtain fair trials in court; through the assistance of professionals in law. If the defendant, in this case, had representation, they would not have served a jail sentence. However, because of the absence of representation, they were wrongly convicted. Were it not for the appeal they won, they would have served the entire sentence in jail, which would have been unfair. Due process rights are meant to ensure all people face the same treatment before the law. That was different from what was applicable earlier, where an individual was only given representation when they had committed capital offenses. Therefore, the case set a basis for equal treatment of offenders regarding representation in court. That led to better outcomes for the cases associated with them in the long run.

The right to counsel was the major policy implication that was associated with the case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Initially, there was discrimination in assigning counsel to offenders, which depended on the type of violation they had committed. In that case, there was a flaw in the application of the law because it discriminated against some offenders. The law should always be applied uniformly among all people, which increases the chances of fair trials in court (Backus & Marcus, 2018). The outcome, in this case, illustrates that. Based on the case, there was a policy where all individuals who had no means of getting counsel were to be provided with one by the state. That was to be applied to all poor people, regardless of the offenses they had committed. That proved to be an equal application of the law.

Conclusion

The Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) case highlights the significance of due process in law. All people should be subjected to the same treatment before the law; to increase fair trial. There was an unfair trial initially, which was because of the discrimination directed at the defendant. They were denied representation, which led to wrong sentencing. Based on the outcome of the appeal, there was a relief to offenders as they were guaranteed fair trial through representation.

References

Abel, L. K. (2005). A Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: Lessons from Gideon v. Wainwright. Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev., 15, 527. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tempcr15&div=30&id=&page=

Backus, M. S., & Marcus, P. (2018). The Right to Counsel in Criminal Cases: Still a National Crisis. Geo. Wash. L. Rev., 86, 1564. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2935&context=facpubs

Israel, J. H. (1963). Gideon v. Wainwright: The" Art" of Overruling. The Supreme Court Review, 1963, 211-272. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=articles