Introduction
The 6th Amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” The right to counsel during a civil or criminal proceeding is founded in the Constitution. However, when that right requires the state or federal government to provide the lawyer it has often been debated. For most civil cases, there is no guarantee that one will be provided. Even for criminal cases, that right had been challenged until the Supreme Court decided in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) that indigent individuals who are criminally charged and who cannot pay for counsel have a right to have one provided. The fact that the majority of those criminally charged fall within this category shows the impact that the case brought by Clarence E. Gideon to the Supreme Court still has on society and the criminal justice system. Yet, there have been issues as to the limits of such representation and the quality of lawyer provided. Public defenders who typically represent those charged and who cannot pay are often over-worked. None-the-less, there is the reality of having access that will often help those most in need. The question still remains as to the level of that access once the case is decided, e.g., should free council be provided in appeals to higher courts? Do you agree with the right to counsel if one cannot pay for it in criminal proceedings, and if so why?
In the case of Gideon, why do you suppose that the Supreme Court took such an aggressive move to ensure that those who cannot provide a lawyer for themselves must be provided with a court-appointed one in a criminal proceeding? What about the quality of lawyer and the amount he/she will charge for taking on the case? Should the state provide an adequate one or a truly superior lawyer for the indigent charged with a crime?
