Iman Williams



Image result for gideon v wrainrights

 Gideon v Wainwright 
372 US 335 (1963)

 These Supreme Court cases all influence life today. Gideon v Wainwright influences how well
public defenders will do their job and the biases and time they will have that can influence how
the defendant pleads. McDonald v Chicago is a sneak peak of what gun control looks like and
how the constitution needs to change if laws change. Citizens Unites v FEC shows the kind of
privilege rich people have in the US and how it can be corrupt. The role of the Supreme Court is
important because they determine big decisions that relate to the constitution.

Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested because a witness saw him steal in a pool room.
Only extremely poor people in death penalty cases had the right to use a public defender
during this time under the 6th amendment. So Gideon as a poor man took the responsibility to
defend himself but was found guilty. Gideon brought his case to the Supreme Court and said the
court who found him guilty violated the 6th amendment by not giving him a lawyer. The 14th
amendment is the right to a speedy trial, an attorney if the defendant wants one, a fair jury, and
a chance to confront the witness who is accusing the defendant. The supreme court decided
over a unanimous decision, to give criminal defendants their own lawyers if they can’t afford one.
The chief justice at the time Justice Earl Warren was a democrat at the time which impacted this
liberal decision because poor people are usually more discriminated against and taken
advantage of so rich people can stay rich. But this law gives poor people a chance to stay out
of jail which makes it liberal.

Currently, Public defenders are so busy and have so many clients that it makes people waiting to
use them stay in jail for weeks or months. The wait can be about the same time spent in jail as
serving your sentence by being guilty. This makes criminal courts, “a system of pleas, not a
system of trials.”. Which means, since the criminal courts are so unorganized, defendants spend
more time claiming whether they’re guilty or innocent rather than being on trial. If people get time
with their public defenders, public defenders have a short time with their clients, that leads to
short conversations, which leads to the defendant pleading guilty which isn't appropriate legal
representation. Not all public defenders are in this situation with their clients. How good your
public defender is depends mostly on the state and county the case is tried. Some counties
contract with lawyers/ law firms to provide representation. But, contractors have exploited poor
defendants by paying their public defenders more money for taking on a lot of high volume
cases and spending the least amount of time on them.

Oak Park and Chicago in Illinois banned handguns. As a result, lots of people sued Oak Park and
Chicago because of the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v Heller which said banning guns
violate the second amendment. So the ban was gotten rid of. The Supreme Court said Banning
handguns is unconstitutional because it violates the second amendment which is the right to
bear arms. This is a conservative perspective because after current mass shootings that are
usually hate crimes, people who are liberal want to ban guns and follow countries like Japan,
Australia, Germany and the UK who have banned handguns or had very strict gun control. The
Chief Justice Rule was Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. who is a conservative because his voting
record is conservative but does not always side with fellow conservative Justices.

Some Americans think the government should limit the amount of money/ fundraising spent in
presidential/ congressional campaigns because it can lead to corruption. Politicians will
feel they "owe" big donors and depend on their donation so politicians will help out and listen to
them more than the average person. Money pays for candidates to share their views through and
advertisements and lectures for citizens to become more involved in politics by listening to them.
Congress has tried for the past 100 years to limit the money spent on campaigns so there won't
be corruption. But, The Supreme Court says, “Laws that restrict how much candidates can spend
on their campaigns are unconstitutional... Laws restricting how much individuals and groups can
give directly to candidates are allowed… because those laws prevent corruption.” This means
limiting how much money citizens can spend on candidates takes away from citizens’ Right to
Free Speech in The First Amendment because citizens will express their view on politicians by
giving them or not giving them money. The Chief Justice at the time was Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy who is conservative and was sworn in by President Ronald Reagan. This case ended up
conservative because rich people still have more of a voice than people who aren't. Rich people
can still give their money to candidates through their businesses/ organizations or lobbies. While
average people can have limits to their spending. Currently, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
(BCRA) regulates how corporations and unions can spend on political campaigns.

 Researching about these three Supreme Court cases opened my eyes to how history shapes
our government today. Cases like Gideon v Wainwright shape how the Justice System
is not only racist from my own knowledge, but unorganized which violates the 14th
amendment, the right to a speedy trial. 2 out of the 3 Cases were conservative and all of the Chief
Justices were white and the majority were conservative. I personally as a Black and Palestinian
Muslim girl in hijab can not relate to a conservative white man so I do not want him to decide and
influence decisions that have to do with gun control, corruption in elections, and many other
important issues that will and do affect my life.

Comments

Post a Comment