Essay on Sixth Amendment: Balancing Individual & Societal Rights

Introduction

The Sixth Amendment is an alteration made to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution in 1791. The changes established the measures that would govern criminal courts while protecting the interests of criminal defendants. The Amendment was founded on the principle of delayed justice is equivalent to negated justice (Rappaport, 2017). The Amendment was fundamental to American society's development as it balanced both individual and societal rights. The notion is supported under the first clause, which requires proceedings to be prompt. Other aspects affected was the judicial branch of the government as the amendment promoted transparency and equality (Cornell Law School, 2020). Nonetheless, the Sixth Amendment's purpose was to strengthen the public’s faith in the government when enforcing the law and to assure impartiality in the process.

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

Order now

The First Clause

The language used in the amendment captures the importance of rights to both the accused and the prosecutor. It also captures the government’s resolve in ensuring impartiality and transparency in the court process (Essner, 2016). The first clause mandates public trials with a jury present; however, the clause's integral role is to enforce impartiality. During the country’s founding, there were not professionalized law enforcement bodies as compared to today. Ordinary settlers took turns in patrolling the night and protecting the others. Therefore, in criminal cases, the accused had no legal representation; the result was a biased system. The legal system was founded on the inquisitorial system utilized in continental Europe, where the magistrates investigated and judged criminal proceedings (Essner, 2016). However, after the implantation of the Sixth Amendment, the Anglo-American system was founded. The main contrast was that each party involved in the litigation was given the freedom to present their evidence, side of the narrative, and finally, conduct their investigation. By increasing transparency, judicial decisions were deemed fair and accurate as per the evidence presented by the involved parties.

The Second Clause

The identified impartiality and transparency in the enforcement of criminal law also contribute to the confrontation and accusation clause (Gau, 2015). The second clause of the amendment mandates that the accused be made aware of their accused crimes. The process takes the form of an indictment, which is a formal complaint of a crime acknowledged by a jury and presented to the court for a hearing. As previously mentioned, the first clause complements the second clause in reinforcing the accused criminal's rights by demanding the accused confront the witnesses (Harvey et al., 2017). The action has two primary objective outcomes; firstly, the accused can affirm that the accusation is not false and can cross-examine the witnesses. Secondly, the accused is eligible to be a witness in their defense.

The Third Clause

The final clause of the amendment entitles that the accused defendants must have legal counsel. The clause further applies during interrogations with law enforcement and trials. Regardless of the setting, the absence of legal counsel during interrogation or trial may negate the judicial process has imposed impartiality and transparency (Bailey, 2015). With the prospects of coercion and intimidation, the law cannot protect the liberties of the accused. In other words, the lack of legal counsel in either trial or interrogation would result in an unbalanced criminal justice structure (Rappaport, 2017). The unbalanced nature of the process will thereby negate the amendment's objective.

Application of the Amendment

From a personal perspective, the Third clause is the most critical aspect of the amendment. The accused is offered an equal opportunity to defend themselves against the accusation by having a right to counsel (Bornstein. & Greene, 2016). The notion was recognized in the 1963 case Gideon v. Wainwright, where defendant Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of breaking and entering with the intent of committing a misdemeanor (Mauet & Wolfson, 2012). He was presented in court without counsel resulting in Gideon representing himself. Nevertheless, he was found guilty and sentenced to five years of imprisonment. However, he wrote a letter to the Florida Supreme Court filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Mauet & Wolfson, 2012). The petition was accepted, and a proper hearing was held to resolve the lack of counsel during his initial trials. The case was impactful to society as the Supreme Court declared that impoverished criminal defendants had a constitutional right to court-appointed lawyers (Rhode, 2015). It is then critical to note that the supreme court rejected the notion that the Sixth Amendment entitled defendants to inform the jury of their power and the sentencing consequences (Brion, 2013). The decision was made on the notion that impartiality was mandatory.

Conclusion

Nevertheless, with the Amendment's historical resolve, the final decision is left to the public through the jury. The case's outcome is determined by the jury regardless of the strength of the prosecutor’s logic to the alleged criminal behavior. Additionally, they have the power to return erratic verdicts. The American justice system has evolved over the centuries and has incorporated numerous laws into the practice streamlining the process. In enforces the notion that the public is in charge of how they rule society. The second purpose of the amendment was to create equal settings for both the accused and accusing parties. Moreover, it enforced equity, impartiality, and transparency in the judicial process. Finally, it was a means of cutting costs and improving the law's effectiveness by mandating the defense and accusing parties to develop their cases for the judge and jury to hear and judge.

References

Bailey, C. (2015). Criminal procedure. Oxford University Press.

Bornstein., B., & Greene, E. (2016). The jury under fire. Oxford University Press.

Brion, D. (2013). The Criminal Trial as Theater: The Semiotic Power of the Image. Law, Culture And Visual Studies, 329-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9322-6_16

Cornell Law School. (2020). Limits on the Right to Retained Counsel. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/limits-on-the-right-to-retained-counsel.

Essner, T. (2016). Luis v. United States: Protecting the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel. Slu.edu. https://www.slu.edu/law/law-journal/online/2015-16/luis-v-united-states-sixth-amendment-when-defendant-assets-are-frozen.php.

Gau, J. (2015). A jury of whose peers? The impact of selection procedures on racial composition and the prevalence of majority-white juries. Journal Of Crime And Justice, 39(1), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2015.1087149

Harvey, T., Rosenfeld, J., & Tomascak, S. (2017). Right to Counsel in Misdemeanor Prosecutions After Alabama v. Shelton: No-Lawyer-Courts and Their Consequences on the Poor and Communities of Color in St. Louis. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(6-7), 688-709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417743301

Mauet, T., & Wolfson, W. (2012). Trial evidence. Aspen Publishers.

Rappaport, J. (2017). The Structural Function of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel of Choice. The Supreme Court Review, 2016(1), 117-156. https://doi.org/10.1086/691355

Rhode, D. (2015). The trouble with lawyers (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.