Essay On Improving Access To Legal Services

Mr. Potbelly holds a garage sale at his home. Mr. Slim Jim stops by the sale and upon noticing a rare piece of art pottery offers a price of $100 for the art that is marked $250. Mr. Potbelly accepts Mr. Slim Jim’s offer. Mr. Potbelly informs Mr. Slim Jim he is selling his home because he is moving up north because he has lost his job. Mr. Slim Jim asks how much he is selling it for and Mr. Potbelly informs him he is thinking $75,000. Mr. Slim Jim offers him $70,000 cash for the property which Mr. Potbelly immediately accepts the offer. Mr. Slim Jim informs Mr. Potbelly that he will be back in one hour with a cashiers’ check made payable to Mr. Potbelly. Mr. Potbelly says “Great!” and that while Mr. Slim Jim

Today, in the United States, most citizens are able to appreciate the fair, balanced legal system that is in place. The country suffered many failures before establishing the United States Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, which became the foundation of the country’s legal system and protection of the citizens’ rights (American Sentinel University). Citizens may take their right to trial or their right to due process for granted, without realizing how life was before these rights were recognized and established. Until the Constitution in 1787, the justice system was not permanent and not quite clear, causing unfair and unjust treatment. Of course, no system can be perfect, but it is possible to discover options that suit the wants

Over the past years, it have been obvious, that jailhouse lawyers have increased the number of lawsuits filed by prisoners. In the year of 1980, prisoners filed 12,395 petitions of civil rights claims and in the year of 2000, prisoners filed 24,463 petitions of civil rights claims, in the Federal Courts, by State prisoners.(Mays & Winfree Jr, 2005, pp.304). Jailhouse lawyers have helped inmates file these petitions against the Federal Courts, in the favor of other inmates challenging their conditions of confinement. The conditions of their confinement seems to be, prisoners way for wanting to receive a sentence reduction, sometimes, a release from prison. On the other hand, prisoners tend to use jailhouse lawyers to file petitions that

More than ever people are losing access to justice. Even though the global economic crisis affected everyone, and every jurisdictions budget there needs to be a minimum level of funding for legal aid to protect the rights of those that cannot afford legal aid (Hainsworth, 2010). According to Hainsworth, (2010) the Canadian Bar Association has asked for national standards for legal aid, just like there are standards for health care and education. The CBA believes legal aid reform is needed to ensure access to justice for low income people, it also believes funding must be increased and national standards for eligibility and civil coverage are necessary to make the system function properly again.

Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the U.S. Supreme court unanimously ruled that the states are required under the Sixth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent indigent defendants who are unable to afford to pay for their own attorneys. Gideon extended the right to counsel and enforced its requirements upon the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) also stands as precedent to guarantee indigent defendants charged with serious offenses the right to court-appointed attorney at the government’s expense. The ruling in Gideon established the principle “that every man, the rich, the poor, and poor as well as rich, is entitled to the benefit of counsel” (Fortas,

Throughout the riveting and eye-opening memoir, Just Mercy, by influential lawyer Bryan Stevenson readers are given a real insight on the predominance of racial minorities on crime sentencings. He opens up on the taboo topics of prejudice and sentencing the poor and weak simply because it’s convenient. This is re-affirmed through New York Times article by Shaila Dewan, “Court by Court, Lawyers Fight Policies that Fall Heavily on the Poor,” where she point blank states “[the justice system] is waging a guerilla campaign to reserve what they consider unconstitutional practices that penalize the poor.” In addition to both of these sources, the video “Keeping the Poor Out of Jail” by Kassie Bracken and Jessica Naudziunas, two Harvard law school students, upholds the same beliefs about inequality as they take on local justice systems and current policies targeting the poor. Although the fourteenth amendment states no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws poverty remains to be an exception to some degree. Those living in poverty lack the same equality as the rest of the US, not being given fair chances in trials or overly punished for their lack of resources. There needs to be an improvement in our justice system so we can eliminate the injustice on the impoverished, whether it be a more involved state-provided lawyer or an adequate, unbiased, and

For the past 50 years, America’s criminal justice system has encountered several significant changes dealing with courts and policing. According to Marion and Oliver (2006), the historical Supreme Court rulings like Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona mold the way courts and law enforcement handle individuals charged with committing crimes. This paper will discuss the evolution of courts and law enforcement reflects the diverse and changing need for today’s population which is first importance, the urgency for cooperation and communication among criminal justice agencies and law enforcement within the country. Individuals must

American prison systems encompass all three spheres of criminal justice: law enforcement, judiciary, corrections. Within this system, a massive problem exists. America is known as the “mass incarceration nation” (Hamilton, 2014, p. 1271). Comparatively, the United States encompasses the majority of global prisoners, yet the population is nowhere near that proportion. Just how “free and equal” is this system? Since Gideon v. Wainwright, the racial divide in the criminal justice system has grown, which is contradictory to its intentions. The American criminal justice system has failed to provide the justice and protections it promises. There are many injustices caused by the mass incarceration of American citizens, especially those of minority descent. More harm is done by incarceration to the individual, their community, and the nation, than if other forms of justice were used. The criminal justice system is divided, with racial and income disparities defining the nation in way never intended.

Mass Incarceration is a growing dilemma in the United States that populates our prisons at an alarming rate. Michelle Alexander is a professor at Ohio State University and a graduate of Stanford law school. She states in her award winning book, The new Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness “In less than thirty years, the U.S. penal population exploded from around 300,000 to more than 2 million” (Alexander, 6). These young men and women are unable to afford a decent lawyer because they come from such a poverty-stricken background. Men and women are at a financial disadvantage in our justice system. Lawyers and attorneys cost a fortune and most people can just simply not afford them. Others plead to their charges because

Since 1974 the Legal Services Corporation has worked to ensure access to legal assistance for low-income persons, and safeguard America's fundamental value of equal justice under the law. As the costs of legal services continue to rise and the justice gap-- wherein 80 percent of the civil legal need of low-income Americans goes unmet-- continues to widen, LSC remains the single largest funder of civil legal aid in the nation. Nevertheless, since 1981 the Heritage Foundation has called for the elimination of LSC in their Mandate for Leadership book series affirming the following arguments:

In the United States, the adversarial system of justice relies on ensuring a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. The sixth amendment gives defendants the right to legal representation in criminal trials even if they cannot afford one themselves. Each city and county in the United States ensures a defendant the right to counsel. There are different ways cities and counties across the United States provide representation for indigent defendants. One such approach to indigent defense is public defender programs and is a popular system used by many states today. Public defender programs have been around since the 1900’s but gained popularity throughout the years due to the many indigent defense cases.

The need for basic civil legal assistance for people who cannot afford to pay for an attorney is overwhelming. Nearly 20% of the U.S. population (63 million) qualify for LSC-funded legal services based on the latest (2015) data from the U.S. Census Bureau, yet studies have consistently found that less than 20 percent of the legal problems experienced by the poor are being met. Moreover, LSC’s justice gap studies (2005, 2009) determined that for every individual serviced by an LSC-funded legal aid program, another is turned away due to inadequate resources.

Many death row inmates were convicted while being defended by a court appointed lawyer who are often the worst paid and most inexperienced and least skillful lawyers. The Bar Association published guidelines for a good defense in a death penalty case”. Anti-death Penalty ( 2010)

Imagine you are a teen walking down the street with a friend. Now imagine being surrounded by police and getting searched for something that is not there. Since the item in question can not be placed the accuser changes their story; After multiple versions of what allegedly happened the police arrest you and your friend. Due to having a history of theft, a judge charges you with second degree robbery, even though there is no evidence to prove any wrong doing. Thinking the justice system will come through, and knowing your innocence, a trial is requested. Bail is set and cannot be paid due to economic hardship. Another consequence of not having money for bail, is there is also no money for a private attorney. A public defender, who has to many cases to keep straight, is assigned to help defend in court, yet he is trying to lessen his load and recommends several times that a plea deal is the best option that should be taken, even in the case of innocence. Picture holding out hope that if the case could just go to trial all would come to light. Four years pass by, mostly spent in solitary confinement, where the harsh circumstances begin to take a toll, mentally and physically. Imagine conditions so horrible, death seems better than enduring another day. Now picture the day for “justice” is finally here. No sooner does court get started it ends. The case gets thrown out due to the person who started all of this not being present. All the suffering that has been endured,

According to Major General Charles Dunlap, Jr., U.S. Air Force (ret.), lawfare is defined as “the strategy of using-or misusing-law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve a warfighting objective.” Orde F. Kittie, author of Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War and professor of law at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law, provides a compelling analysis of the use of lawfare in recent history, both by U.S. and foreign entities. He shows how even non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are able to effectively use law as a weapon against foreign and domestic actors, motivating them to make changes which benefit the particular NGO. The major point that Kittrie attempts to make in his work, however, is the lack of acceptance that lawfare has been given by the United States government. He compares our use of lawfare to that of China, U.S. private sector entities, the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian NGOs, Hamas and Israel, effectively