What influences the governments both federal and state to invest heavily on both prosecution and representation by a counsel, of defendants unable to raise the egal fees?
Governments hire lawyers to persecute defendants while defendants who have money hire the best lawyers in their defence which points out to legal representation being a fundamental need rather than a luxury only preserved for a few privileged individuals. In the initial rulings in the federal court in Florida, the court declared that it was not a fundamental right to have legal representation especially where the offence is not considered as capital. However, in a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court, the defendant was acquitted from serving his five-year jail term after an appeal he made arguing that his fundamental right to a counsel had been denied by a lower court.
Coming to think of it, our state and federal prisons could be having a huge number of people sentenced to serve for minor offences or even innocent people jailed since they could not have legal representation. Initially I have always held the thought that a suspected felon should explain his way out of the gallows of the justice system. However, after going through the court ruling of Gedion vs Wainwright (1963) my perspective on the criminal justice system has changed. Everyone from those in the highest social strata in the society to the illiterate poor individuals all deserve to be represented fully by counsels.
To what extent can societal tolerance be on those who commit crimes against the society and the influence on judicial decisions and criminal justice systems?
President Nixon’s televised announcement on two nominees to the Supreme Court on October 22, 1997 expressed his concern on the growing animosity between the society and those committing crimes against it. The judicial officers are a times torn between defending the society against crimes committed against and upholding the rule of justice.
In the basic human response to crime, the society always tends to be repulsive to law breaks and castigates them. They are often viewed as outcasts of the community. This response to criminals at times gets to the court rooms as well and judicial officers get torn between upholding conservationists’ judicial philosophy and communis philosophy. Judges by virtue of natural human response to crime can at times making rulings that appeal to the societal interests without having much consideration on the justice system.
Are laws myths or the judicial system meant to serve pollical interests?
In the journal by Alexander M Bickel, “Is the Warren Court too Political?” the tenure of Chief Justice Warren is marred by a lot of controversy and technicality. He is faced with a lot of critics in the manner in which the court dispenses its duties.
It’s notable that judicial systems can at times be used by the political class especially in instances where the government of the day exercises absolute power wielded by a minority at the helm. It’s also questionable that laws can be termed as myths. Critically it can be argued out to be true since they are crafted by a chosen few and the society in genral has to be believe in its absoluteness for it to govern them
Conclusion
Its conclusively agreeable that the judiciary is a critical organ pf the justice system. For its effectiveness there should be maximum impartiality and absolute upholding of the fundamental human nights. The society should also let judicial process follow the course defined for it by law.