Gideon v. Wainwright
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:13:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Gideon v. Wainwright
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: right or wrong?
#1
right
 
#2
wrong
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 11

Author Topic: Gideon v. Wainwright  (Read 5910 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 19, 2005, 01:57:35 PM »

definately right.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2005, 02:08:42 PM »
« Edited: October 19, 2005, 09:09:43 PM by Emsworth »

The decision was correct as far as the incorporation was concerned. The Supreme Court had earlier decided in Johnson v. Zerbst that the Sixth Amendment compels the federal government to provide attorneys for defendants who could not afford to pay them. Gideon v. Wainwright correctly extended this rule to the states, under the Fourteenth Amendment.

As with all incorporation cases, the caveat that the Supreme Court reached the decision for the wrong reason (under the due process clause rather than the privileges or immunities clause) would still apply, of course.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2005, 02:16:35 PM »

Wrongly decided, as were Johnson v. Zerbst and Powell v. Alabama.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2005, 06:09:45 PM »

Correctly decided.  The right to an attorney is a right of the people.  Thus states are compelled to provide them.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2005, 06:20:17 PM »

Correctly decided.  The right to an attorney is a right of the people.  Thus states are compelled to provide them.
Well, it's not that simple. There is a right to bear arms, but the states are not required to provide free firearms to those who cannot afford them.

The text alone would not justify requiring states to provide attorneys to poor defendants. One would instead have to appeal to various precedents that might have indicated the original understanding.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2005, 06:24:36 PM »

Correctly decided.  The right to an attorney is a right of the people.  Thus states are compelled to provide them.
Well, it's not that simple. There is a right to bear arms, but the states are not required to provide free firearms to those who cannot afford them.

The text alone would not justify requiring states to provide attorneys to poor defendants. One would instead have to appeal to various precedents that might have indicated the original understanding.

The argument, quite correctly, goes that you cannot have due process of law if you cannot understand the process.  Thus, people need an attorney to help them in such cases.  Since people have the right to an attorney, the state must provide one if they wish to deprive them of life or liberty.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2005, 06:28:37 PM »
« Edited: October 19, 2005, 06:32:49 PM by A18 »

You're making two separate arguments, that are in no way connected.

One is that there's a right to an attorney, so the government must provide one. By that logic, the government also has to provide people with weapons pursuant to the Second Amendment.

The other is a due process argument. The problem is that "due process of law" traditionally means following the law of the land, and nothing else.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2005, 06:52:18 PM »

The argument, quite correctly, goes that you cannot have due process of law if you cannot understand the process.
That is not so. Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property with due process of law means depriving someone of life, liberty, or property according to the procedures laid down in the law. It does not matter if the people understand them or not. If the law has prescribed a particular procedure, and that procedure has been followed, then the due process requirements are satisfied.

Consider the example of a dangerous insane person. Surely, the law can outline procedures for confining him to a mental institution. But just because he does not understand the procedure, does it follow that the procedure is unconstitutional?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That would not follow--the same argument could be made with the right to bear arms.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2005, 07:55:18 PM »

The argument, quite correctly, goes that you cannot have due process of law if you cannot understand the process.
That is not so. Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property with due process of law means depriving someone of life, liberty, or property according to the procedures laid down in the law. It does not matter if the people understand them or not. If the law has prescribed a particular procedure, and that procedure has been followed, then the due process requirements are satisfied.

Consider the example of a dangerous insane person. Surely, the law can outline procedures for confining him to a mental institution. But just because he does not understand the procedure, does it follow that the procedure is unconstitutional?

The individual does not have to understand, that is why we provide a lawyer.  Can a person recieve proper due process if they do not understand the process?  Can a person put up an adequate defense of their life or liberty if they have no clue what is happening?  Would you have no problem if there was a law that all court cases must be heard in latin, and a person had to defend themselves if they could not afford a translator?

That is an extreme example, but to many people the law may as well be written in Latin. 

For an insane person, they must be represented by someone who is competent.  This is a point in favor of my argument, not a refutation of it.  If due process does not require a person to understand it, as you have said, an insane person can be sentenced to death without ever understanding what is happening to them.  Unless, of course, they are provided an attorney who can represent them and understands the law.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That would not follow--the same argument could be made with the right to bear arms.
[/quote]

They are not at all analogous.  You can have the right to a lawyer without ever needing one.  You can have the right to bear arms without ever bearing one.  WHen you do need a lawyer, one is provided.  When you do need weapons, like when you are in the military, you are provided one.  If the state wishes you to bear arms, they must provide. 
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2005, 08:12:38 PM »

The question is not whether he has a problem with it, but what the Constitution has to say about it.

You're engaging in a classical debate tactic, whereby you ignore the central argument, and instead focus on what he asserts to be an absurd result of your logic. "Due process of law" is defined by the law.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are both secured to the people as rights in the Constitution. You are creating an arbitrary reason to separate the two.

The Second Amendment plainly has nothing to do with bearing arms while in the military.

It, like the right to an attorney, is a right the state may not abridge.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2005, 08:16:30 PM »

Can a person recieve proper due process if they do not understand the process?
Due process has nothing to do with whether the process is fair or not. It has to do with whether the process is authorized by law.

The due process clause has its roots in the Magna Carta, which provided, "'No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled ... [except] by the Law of the Land." According to English common law, the term "due process of law" and "by the Law of the Land" were synonymous. This is indicated by the fact that later statutes used the terms interchangably. One statute passed in 1350 declared, "none shall be imprisoned nor put out of his Freehold ... unless it be by the Law of the Land"; another in 1363 enacted, "no man be taken or imprisoned, nor put out of his freehold, without process of law."

In 1642, Lord Chief Justice Coke confirmed that "due process of law" and "by the Law of the Land" meant the same. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, holding in Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. (1856), that "The words, 'due process of law,' were undoubtedly intended to convey the same meaning as the words 'by the law of the land.'"

Thus, when a state legislature has made a law, that law becomes "the law of the land," and the procedures prescribed by that law become "due process." The due process clause never restricts the actions of the legislature. It only prevents the executive and judicial branches from acting contrary to the law.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2005, 08:27:57 PM »

A correct decision.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 13 queries.