A Criminal Justice System is “a set of legal and social institutions for enforcing
the criminal law in accordance with a defined set of procedural rules and limitations”
(Law Library-American Law and Legal information: crime and criminal law,2009, p.1).
However, in the United States, there are separate federal, state, and military criminal
justice systems, and each state has separate systems for adults and Juveniles ( Law
Library-American Law and Legal information: crime and criminal law, 2009). Although
the idea of a “system” suggest that something is rational, most of the functioning and
processing of the criminal justice system seems to be unplanned, poorly coordinated,
and unjust, resulting to inadequate representation of indigent defendants. Poor
defendants fail to receive due process in the justice system, which leads to wrongful
convictions and imprisonment. Most of these wrongful convictions and imprisonments
result from eyewitness misidentification, unvalidated or improper forensic science, false
confessions, government misconduct, informants, and bad lawyering.
“Due process is a law that grants the right of all persons to receive the
guarantees and safe-guard of the law and the judicial process; {it} includes such
constitutional requirements as adequate notice, assistance of counsel, and the rights to
remain silent, to a speedy and public trial, to an important jury and to confront witness”
(American Bar Association, U.S Supreme Court Cases, 2008, p.54). Yet, indigent
defendants received the total opposite. The criminal justice system is divided into so
many sub-systems: police, prosecutors, public defenders, probation and parole
agencies, custodial institutions (correctional facilities) and department of corrections, all
of which, the criminal justice system has failed to represent indigent defendants and has
been viewed as a racist and unjust system; now, more than anything, the racial
discrimination has been more evident to the public eye.
Derrick A. Bell, Jr, in his article “ Racism in American Courts: Cause for Black
Disruption or Despair?” (1973), states that the United States Commission on Civil Rights
has defined racism as “any attitude, action, or institutional structure which subordinates
a person or group because of his color or their skin” (Bell, 1973, p.165). Racism is all
indigent defendants endure in this corrupted and unjust system. In the criminal justice
system, indigent defendants are considered to be individuals who are poverty stricken
and disadvantaged, who have been accused of a crime and brought before a court of
law. Most indigent defendants are African Americans and Hispanics. The main issue
indigent defendants face is the fact that they do not know their legal rights. The laws are
designed to protect your rights, but, if you do not know the laws, you do not your rights.
According to the article “ Is the criminal-justice system racist?” (2008), Heather
Mac Donald emphasizes on how the then Senator Barack Obama suggested in the
Martin Luther King debate that police, prosecutors, and judges treat blacks and whites
differently “for the same crime” (Mac Donald, 2008, p15). Furthermore, cops over-arrest
blacks and ignore white criminals. Also, according to the article, it states,“prosecutors
overcharge and judges over sentence blacks” (Mac Donald, 2008, p. 15). Blacks
constituted to 39.3 percent of all violent-crime arrest, including 56.3 percent of all
robbery and 34.5 percent of all aggravated-assault arrests, and 29.4 percent of all
property-crime arrest (Mac Donald, 2008).
Evidence that racism lingers in the justice system and the lack of equality in the
definition of crime start with the lack of police doing their job and contributing to proper
arrest procedures. The police sometimes go as far as breaking down people’s doors
without a warrant or even fail to read people their rights. The issue of police abusing
people’s rights, given to them by the Constitution of the United States, dates back to the
1960s. In the case, Miranda v. Arizona , which was before the U.S. Supreme Court in
1966, the arresting officers fail to give Ernesto Miranda, the arrestee, any warnings
before questioning him about a kidnapping case in Arizona. Miranda provided a full
confession to the officer. Miranda was then sentenced to a long prison term, without any
knowledge that his rights were violated. He later appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to the Court, the police violated Miranda’s rights by depriving him of his Sixth
Amendment Right to “have the assistance of a counsel for his defense” (U.S. Supreme
Court Cases, 2008, p. 31). The decision led to the Miranda Warnings, which states,
You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be used against
you; you have the right to talk to a lawyer before being questioned and to have
a lawyer present when you are being questioned; and if you can’t afford a
lawyer, one will be provided for you before any questioning if you want one.
(U.S Supreme Court Cases,2008,
p.31)
Yet, for indigent defendants, when their rights are constantly being violated and
they are unaware of the violations if these defendants knew their rights, most of them
would not have been incarcerated. The last lines of the Miranda warning states, “if you
can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you before any questioning if you want
one”( American Bar Association, U.S Supreme Court Cases, 2008, p.32). In most
cases, some defendants do not even know their attorneys until one is appointed to them
by the court. Thus, in such cases, the attorneys do not even know the defendant and
vice versa. The case, Gideon v. Wainwright 1963, extended the right of thee accused to
a lawyer because of the fourteenth amendment. The court must provide legal assistance
to those defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
In today’s society, those attorneys appointed by the court are known as public
defenders. Public defenders are examples of the justice system not living up to its
expectations. One of the number one issues for indigent defendants is the fact that they
do not receiving adequate representation from the court’s appointed lawyer. Most of
these public defenders are under payed and overworked, so their work load is too much
for them to focus on each individual case and try to represent each defendant to the
best of their abilities. The law does not state that the attorney provided to you would or
should inadequately represent you. For instance, in delinquency courts, juvenile defense
attorneys are essential for guaranteeing children’s due process rights and encouraging
their meaningful participation in the proceedings. Yet, indigent defense systems are
largely falling those youth accused of committing crimes ( Purtiz & Majd, 2007). The
issue of inadequate representation affects juvenile delinquents more than adults,
because they are so young being in jail has a greater mental affect on them.
Unlike adult defendants, the system has provided juveniles regardless of race
with more solutions and alternatives. For instance, a juvenile delinquent who is a first
time offender has the opportunity to have his or her case dropped and given probation
or he or she can be granted a Y.O. status. Y.O. status is an acronym for Youth Offender
status, which means that “the defendant was (a) convicted of a crime when the
defendant was at least 16 and less than 19 years of age; (b) eligible to have the
conviction replaced with a non-criminal (youthful offender) adjudication because of the
nature of the crime and the youth's prior record; and (c) adjudicated a youthful offender
through the discretion of a supreme court judge who believed that such adjudication was
in the interests of justice” (New York City Department of Justice, p. 2). Juvenile
delinquents are fortunate to have the alternatives and solutions to solving their issue of
inadequate representation. Yet, many defendants are unaware that they have the
opportunity to be granted a Y.O. status or even rights as an individual, leaving a more
effective solution to be proposed.
The system currently in place is so ineffective that most attorneys cannot present
their best practices into each of their cases. Systemic reform is necessary to bring out
the true meaning to a child’s right to counsel and to ensure that children are
represented and herd ( Puritz & Majd, 2007). In fact, the focus of most attorneys is not
the juvenile delinquents, due to the fact that the system is designed to make attorneys
look at juvenile cases as a training ground for adult court. The system needs to create a
separate division of defense attorneys devoted to juvenile defense cases, because if the
system remains the same it defeats the purpose of juvenile defense attorneys and
juvenile court. The purpose of specialized juvenile defense practice is the idea of a court
system in which defense attorneys have time, training and resources necessary to
having young clients.
“To ensure access to counsel, courts must appoint attorneys at the earliest stage
of a case, so that the attorney can build rapport and trust with the client,
advise the client of their rights and the process, investigate the case, learn
about the child’s psychological, physical, emotional, and educational needs and
family background, explore alternatives to detention, negotiate with prosecutors,
file pretrial motions, frame the case for the judge, and prepare for trial”.
(Puritz & Majd, 2007,
p.447)
No comments:
Post a Comment