Indigent Defense

I’ve chosen to write my reflection over chapter 4 of Bryan Stevenson’s Just Mercy. This chapter involves the aftermath of the successful opening of Stevenson’s and Ansley’s “Equal Justice Initiative” and their relations with their new clients, particularly, Herbert Richardson. The chapter follows these clients’ cases, most of them being unsuccessful, and the unjust practices in the judicial system that cause these failures. This chapter holds significance to me because it was one of the first times while reading that the book managed to strongly affect me emotionally and relate to me on a personal level.

Following the refusal of a counsel to represent him during his trial, Clarence Gideon, an individual convicted of pilfering a pool room in Florida, was found guilty and sentenced to prison for five years. At the time, the trial judge refused a counsel due to the state law of Florida that declared the utilization of a counsel for impoverished individuals who committed a capital offense. However, Gideon believed he was well endowed with the right to be represented by a counsel, for “his conviction violated the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Lewis 7).

In his book, Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson writes of cases where the defendant was wrongfully condemned because their attorney did not do their job correctly. In some cases, this behavior extended past the original trial, all the way through any appeals available to the client. Stevenson continues by discussing how the trials were either clearly biased, or evidence was blatantly ignored. Yet often, the attorney either submitted a brief attesting to no appeal, or simply neglected to file an appeal by the deadline. Their clients not only did not receive the fair trial that our constitution mandates, but also lost any chance to take advantage of the fail-safes that were built into the legal system. When these ineffective defenders were eventually disbarred, no investigations were launched to revisit their past cases in search of legal malpractice. Instead, any cases directly impacted by their conduct were left as they were- with unfairly convicted people sitting behind bars. While the Equal Justice Initiative does what it can to help find justice for people who deserve it, they must be contacted by, or on behalf of, the victim of injustice. There are few programs to help individuals with mental illness or those without knowledge of the initiative, even though these are the people who need guidance the most.

The American criminal justice system has been augmented since its founding with more stress on individual rights and increased requirements on those in the field of the administration of justice, including plaintiffs’

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

According to Professor Eve Brensike Primus, the Public defenders in “New Orleans Parish were handling the equivalent of 19,000 misdemeanor cases per attorney annually” (Brensike, 2016, p. 1771). In effect, Professor Brensike estimates that each case received only about seven minutes (Brensike, 2016, p. 1771). Arguably, spending just seven minutes per client is not quality defense. With such a high number of clients to represent, plea bargains become a reality for the majority of cases . The problem with the plea bargain, however, is the assumption of guilt. Pleading essentially equates to admitting guilt in exchange for a lesser punishment. Thus, even if a client believes in his innocence, an attorney may opt to ignore the pleas of innocence (Brensike, 2016, p.1776). Ignoring pleas of innocence go against the presumption of innocence, where defendants are “innocent until proven guilty.” Automatically defaulting to plea bargains does not fall under that presumption. Recognizing the problems when it comes to funding and caseload, some individuals have put forth ideas in the form of

(Birmingham, Alabama) One of only a few states in the nation that fails to provide a statewide indigent defender program, Alabama also lacks post-conviction counsel for those inmates on death row. Clayton Tartt, an associate with Birmingham's Parkman White, LLP, a birmingham criminal defense firm, feels this is a critical flaw in the state's judicial system and works to provide representation to those who otherwise cannot afford it. Mr. Tartt volunteers with the Alabama Post-Conviction Relief Project to help individuals in this situation. Cody Owens of Weld Magazine recently interviewed Mr. Tartt about this issue.

Jonathan Simon is a dean and law administrator, centering on the study of law and society at the UC Berkeley School of law. He’s best known for writing for his work on the role of crime and criminal justice in leading contemporary societies. Simon’s most recent work included a book called “Mass Incarceration on Trial: A Remarkable Court Decision and the Future of Prisons in America”, which was devoted to his mother, Marlene Bragman Simon. She was quite passionate towards serving to alleviate social problems and in search of social justice. Mass Incarceration on Trial gives a shocking impression towards Simon’s disagreement that the representation of a war on crime has converted entirely to the public existence in the United States. An issue in which I believe has gotten out of hand by the political candidates; especially when they regularly oath to be tough on crime for all the wrong reasons. Simon’s main claim is to demonstration that the causes of mass imprisonment and overall incapacitation has completely worsened in the prison community. Milestone cases in which the Coleman v. Wilson, Plata v. Davis, Coleman-Plata v. Schwarzenegger, and Brown v. Plata explored the main development in jurisprudence and glimmer of hope brought upon the protection of the Eight amendments. The cases that challenges California disciplinary

Bryan Stevenson aims to convey the urgent need for reform within the legal system. Through the stories of the individuals he has represented and the injustices they have faced, Stevenson sheds light on the deep-rooted racial bias and systemic flaws that pervade the criminal justice system. He wants to evoke a sense of moral outrage and spark a call to action for a more just and equitable legal system. Throughout Chapter 8, All God’s Children, the reader experiences lots of smaller cases that have an even bigger impact on the purpose of Just Mercy. “Defendants who are deemed incompetent can’t be tried in adversarial criminal proceedings — meaning that the State can’t prosecute them unless they become well enough to defend themselves.

Just Mercy Persuasive Essay In the book Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson argues that the current criminal justice system in the United States of America is inherently corrupt, especially to people of color and people in poverty. This argument is laid out throughout the course of the book, woven through different stories and backed with concrete evidence. Throughout the book, Stevenson builds upon this argument and creates an extremely strong stance for criminal justice reform and for protecting human rights. Bryan’s Stevenson’s argument for criminal justice reform in Just Mercy can be considered effective as it fulfills his goal of persuading the reader that America’s current court and prison systems are corrupt and need to be reformed.

Courts play a vital role in the Criminal Justice System in America, however; understanding how the courts work and function is essential. Even the general public should have a basic knowledge regarding the similarities and differences of the jurisdiction and structure of our dual court system – federal and state. In addition, there are ethical and diversity issues that can be experienced by each of the courts that could possibly impact the courts’ functioning.

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

The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).

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.

Within the criminal justice system, officials abuse their power. The officials of the justice system have a duty to protect and perform their duties with unbiased decision making. The abuse of power jeopardizes people’s lives who are not able to sustain oneself and their families. Some people do not understand that poorer people find themselves in jail more and once a person is released, that person is subjected to return to jail for the amount of money owed to the state. There are many obstacles for the poor, especially those of color. People of color are treated unfairly in the justice system, from the arrest, the sentencing, and the release. The criminal justice system is supposed to be just but that is not the case. The criminal justice system allows for the police, public defenders, and judges to bend the laws and not be punished for their actions or that apologizes can fix the wrong that has been done. This paper will discuss the abuse of power from the justice system and the solutions to rectify the damages.