Self-defense in Criminal Cases Essay

There has been two shooting of deadly force as I know of in our local department. I live in the city of Humboldt tn.There has been two incident after 2008. A person would not think it would have happen in such a small town, but it has been (Police officers charged in fatal shootings while on duty, 2016).

When a defendant is convicted of a crime, arrested, and stand trial there are multiple ways that they can defend themselves. The criminal justice system has a variety of types of criminal defenses that one should be familiar with, if ever in the position of being charged with an offense. Within this paper, I will be talking about seven different types of criminal defenses, starting with: insanity, automatism, duress, self defense, intoxication, necessity/ lesser harm, and mistake of fact.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” (U.S. Const. amend. VI). The history of the modern right to counsel dates back to over a century ago in the Indiana Supreme Court case of Webb v. Baird, 6 In. 13 (1853), in which the right to counsel for a person accused of a crime was officially recognized (Koplow, 2007). However, it was not a decision based on constitutional or statutory law, but a decision warranted under “the principles of a civilized society” (Koplow, 2007). Since the case of Webb v. Baird, the right to counsel has immensely extended beyond just appointing an indigent person an attorney.

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

Public defenders have a tough job defending their indigent clients. In an ideal scenario, they are to defend their clients in a zealous manner. Unfortunately for the clients, most cases end via plea bargains . For cases that do make it to court, some clients find their attorney lacking in many respects . This is because the Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright only guarantees the right to an attorney. Unfortunately, that right does not extend to a quality lawyer or defense . I intern at the Orange County Public Defender’s office, where the clients are poor and homeless. As such, they cannot hire their own lawyers and must rely on free legal representation from the office’s attorneys. But just like other Public Defenders across the U.S.,

In chapter seven of Criminal Courts discusses defense attorneys with addition to a section over indigent rights. More importantly it talks about the court case Powell v. Alabama, “The Court concluded that given the seriousness of the charges and the special circumstances present, the lack of counsel denied the defendants due process under the law… Established a right to appointed counsel in capital cases, it did not require counsel to be appointed in noncapital state prosecutions so long as the proceedings were not fundamentally unfair (Criminal Courts, 2017, p. 193). In the documentary over the case we see multiple times that the boys were not properly represented in a court of law in respect to counsel.

Classical Criminology The classical school of criminology was around in the eighteenth century. It came abount in a time when the previous dominent spiritual look at defining crime and criminal behaviour was being challenged by a newer naturalistic approach of the social contract theorists. The classical school was the established ideas of monarchs, fedual lords and the fathers of the church.

We all do our best to protect what is ours, but how far will we go to do that and will it justify our reasons behind our actions? Whether it’s protecting our properties and possessions, or family or even ourselves, situations get out of hand and we are faced with making decisions that could change our lives and the lives of those around us. The tiniest detail can determine ones actions as justifiable or unjustifiable. For Don Luis Ceballos and Judy-Ann Laws Norman their actions of defense were unjustifiable according to a jury.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution requires the states to give safeguard lawyers to criminal respondents accused of genuine offenses who can't manage the cost of attorneys themselves

Cite and explain criminal defenses. How do the various defenses attack the prosecutor’s case? Criminal defenses are strategic arguments that attempt to challenge the prosecutor’s evidence. Each type of defense attacks a specific portion of the case and aims to have the evidence thrown dismissed. A very common defense used currently is the Affirmative Criminal defense, but that is not the only one.

“Give him the same fair trial, and consideration, since he is not represented by counsel, that you would if he were represented”, how easy those words oozed out the mouth of Judge Robert McCrary, nearly 50 years ago. Words that could never sanely be uttered today. A change spearheaded by some of the basic rights given within the first amendment to the constitutional -- right to petition the government -- and a mere Floridian who asked a only 5 words. “May I have a lawyer”, while the words may not have been that simple, the concept was. All Clarence Earl Gideon asked was whether he could be appointed a lawyer, a question so simple today that deserved only a simple ‘yes’ but it was not the same back then.

In the New York Times article, “A Mockery of Justice for the Poor,” the author discusses how the poor are cheated in the criminal justice system. By law, it is mandatory that the government provides an attorney to any defendant facing possible prison time, even if he or she cannot afford one. However, there are underlying fees that must be paid despite these people being poor. John Pfaff mentions how 43 states are now requiring indigent defendants to pay at least a portion of their lawyers’ fees, even though they had to be appointed one in the first place. Those who do qualify as indignant may be able to be acquitted, however, they could be convicted for failing to pay for the legal services the Constitution requires the states to provide for the defendants. Not to mention, spending money on attorneys for the poor amounts to only $2.3 billion – barely even 1% of the $200 billion the government spends annually on the criminal justice system (Pfaff 2016). Not surprisingly, public defenders who are appointed to these cases are often stripped of resources while tackling multiple other assignments at the same time.

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)

In Stephen Bright’s article, “The Death Penalty as the Answer to Crime: Costly, Counterproductive, and Corrupting” Bright asserts that capital punishment does not work because it is racially biased, the quality of the lawyers and attorneys supplied by the state to poor defendants is unfair, and that the law system currently in place does not accomplish its true goals. Bright defends his claim with logos and ethos by examining the opinions of judges and district attorneys, and by describing experience within the fields of human rights and law himself in order to persuade the reader to take up more cases for those on death row. Given the language used in this article Bright is writing to an audience with intermediate to professional experience within the field of law, and a willingness to adopt a new idea on the constitutionality behind the death penalty.

Since the beginning of the regime on criminal law, countries across the world have been focused on the rights of the accused and not those of victim. This is because of the consideration that the accused is alone and the government as well as the societal machinery is running against him.