Politics/Amendment Essay

A indite overview of the amendment in question. What does it say specifically? The Sixth Amendment of the joined States Constitution provides, In all criminal prosecutions, the criminate shall enjoy the ripe to a speedy and public rivulet, by an impartial jury of the State and partition wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by virtue, and to be informed of the temperament and cause of the charge to be confronted with the witnesses against him to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of focussing for his defence (Sixth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). The functions enumerated under this amendment refer to the codified decentlys of the accused in criminal prosecutions. Generally the Bill of Rights was collective in the Constitution on account of the belief that it was necessary to limit the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the federal governing (Oxford Comp anion, 2005). The rights of the accused in criminal prosecution are 1) right to a speedy trial 2) right to a public trial 3) right to a trial by jury 4) notice of the accusation (5) right to confront the opposing witnesses 6) right to compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses and (7) the assistance of apprize or right to counsel (Oxford Companion, 2005). The right to a speedy trial prevents oppressive incarceration before trial and ensures demur by the accused of his cause.The right to a public trial acts as a defense against abuse of judicial power. Moreover, it also assures the accused that he is informed of the charges against him. This is part of due process (Oxford Companion, 2005). The right to confront opposing witnesses refers to the right of the accused to cross examine said witnesses. He is also entitle to subpoena witnesses in his behalf (Oxford Companion, 2005). Finally, the accused is also entitled to be represented by counsel or a lawfulnessyer. This sha ll be lengthily discussed in another section of this paper.When did it become part of the Constitution? This amendment was ratify and adopted in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution in 1791 (Oxford Companion, 2005). It was part of the first ten amendments include in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was actually proposed by James Madison. The group known as Anti-Federalists threatened that if these rights were not included in the Constitution, their states will not ratify the new Constitution. They needed clear safeguards against the vast powers of government. After a compromise was agreed upon, the Constitution was ratified in 1789 but the Bill of Rights was incorporated later and went into onus after it was ratified on December 15, 1791 (National Archives web site, n.d.).3. What cases have come before the self-governing Court in which this particular amendment was applied? Before the ratification of the Sixth Amendment, two statutes were enacted which in import accor ded the assistance of counsel to those accused (USGPO web site, 2005). The Judiciary moment of 1789 allowed the defendant to plead his case in a federal court either someoneally or by counsel. On the other hand, the Act of 1790 allowed the defendant charged with treason or other capital crime to be defended by counsel which the court will assign to him (USGPO web site, 2005). Even with the ratification of the Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel has trammel application. It was only in the 1930s that the Supreme Court developed and enlarged the scope of the Sixth Amendment by virtue of jurisprudence. In the case of Powell v. Alabama, the Court set aside the convictions of eight youthful offenders since the trial was conducted in a hasty musical compositionner and the defendants were not assisted by counsel. The Court further ruled that at that place was denial of due process considering that the right to be perceive is meaningless if it did not entail the right to be heard by counsel 287 U.S. 45 (1932). The Court succinctly explained that even if a man is intelligent and learned he may not be skilled in the science of law and may be indicted on an erroneous charge or be convicted based on gawky evidence.More so, the defendants who are young, indigents, illiterates and are faced with an atmosphere of hostility away from their relatives 287 U.S. 45 (1932). Thus, it was stressed that it is insistent to be represented by counsel and it imposes a duty upon the Court, whether requested or not to establish and assign a counsel otherwise, it becomes tantamount to a denial of due process 287 U.S. 45 (1932).In the case of Johnson v. Zerbst, the Court enunciated the absolute rule of appointing counsel for all federal criminal defendants. Moreover, it ruled that a waiver of such right essential be clear and cannot be presumed from silence of the defendant 304 U.S. 458 (1938). In the case of Betts v. Brady and Progeny, the Court ruled that the appointment of coun sel is not a fundamental right prerequisite to a fair trial 316 U.S. 455 (1942). It laid down the principle that the right to be represented by counsel is not necessary in state cases involving non capital offenses except in special circumstances. This rule was held later on after criticisms, to apply only to the incompetents such as the illiterates and retardates or to grant sculptural relief in cases of judicial abuse of power 316 U.S. 455 (1942). In Hamilton v. Alabama, the rule was in capital cases, the Court must appoint a counsel for the defendant even without proof that defendant may be invidious without such appointment or even if the defendant failed to request that one be appointed as his counsel 368 U.S. 52 (1961).The special circumstances rule was held to apply only in non capital offenses 368 U.S. 52 (1961). In the cases, Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. clv (1957) and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 350 (1963), the Court has laid down the three categories which may be deemed as negative and thus, necessitating the appointment of counsel, namely (1) the personal characteristics of the defendant which made it unlikely he could obtain an adequate defense of his own, (2) the technical complexity of the charges or of possible defenses to the charges, and (3) events occurring at trial that raised problems of prejudice (USGPO web site, 2005). The command of the Court in the Betts case was overturned in the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright. The Court in abandoning the Betts ratiocination held that the right to assistance of counsel is imperative, basic and fundamental and that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the same be available and relevant in state courts. In 1972 this ruling was held to apply to misdemeanor and serious misdemeanor cases provided that it carried a penalization of imprisonment Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972). Additionally, the Gideon ruling was also held to apply to youthful offenders in juvenile delinquen cy judicial proceeding in the case of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).What, if any connection is there between this constituent(a) issue and education? The constitutional issue of the right to assistance of counsel is related to education. The study of law requires knowledge, skill and experience in trial proceedings. Even an educated and intelligent man who is not the right way educated and trained in law is considered incompetent and unable to defend himself. Courts are created to punish and despoil the guilty of their liberties through imprisonment and other imposable penalties. Thus, it is imperative that if a person is charged with an offense in court he must be able to put a defense and be heard by a properly trained counsel.To deprive him of this would be tantamount to depriving him of due process and would bear nugatory the basic tenets of the Bill of Rights. A person charged of an offense would need the expertise of a counsel so that he does not risk himself of being con victed even if he be needy simply because he does not know how to establish his innocence. More so an uneducated man, a halt minded person or an indigent. Consequently, it becomes the duty of the court to appoint counsel so that such person may not be denied due process.ReferencesArgersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)Betts v. Brady and Progeny, 316 U.S. 455 (1942)Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 350 (1963)Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961)In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938)Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155 (1957)National Archives and Records Administration web site. Bill of rights. Retrieved on November 16, 2007, fromhttp//www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights.htmlOxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press, 2005.Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)U.S. Government Printing Office web site. Sixth amendment Rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions 2002. Retrieved on November 16, 2007, fromhttp//www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/024.pdf