Just a quick research journal about a book that is very relevant to my topic of interest-

Approximately a year ago I read a book called Gideon’s Trumpet. This book deals with the issue of a defendant’s right to be provided with a lawyer if he cannot afford to get one on his own. I do not remember the exact details, but I know that the case was started by an indigent defendant who wrote a letter to the Supreme Court, claiming that he could not adequately defend himself without an attorney, and eventually the court ruled that indeed the State (meaning, the government) must provide defendants with a lawyer if necessary.

The case raises some interesting issues. Conservatives would argue that it is perhaps contrary to public policy that the taxpayers should have to pay for lawyers for all the criminals who demand to have them. True, the state/ prosecution has a lot of resources that the defendant doesn’t, but at the same time a person is in theory capable of defending himself without a lawyer, especially if he didn’t do the crime, so why should the taxpayers be responsible for paying for a lawyer for every single criminal defendant who insists on having one provided for him? It’s true that defendants have rights that need to be protected, but how far should those rights go – and at whose expense?

Besides, the lawyers that are provided by the State are not necessarily competent ones (e.g., public defenders who graduated from law school approximately two weeks ago and are already representing people who are accused of murder). That is another issue that needs to be taken into consideration.

If the defendant is capable of writing letters to the Supreme Court and standing up for his rights, then why isn’t he capable of defending himself in a courtroom setting? It’s true that having a lawyer can help, but I think that it’s important to consider both sides of the issue – both the position that a lawyer should be provided by the State, as well as the opposite position. In recent decades, there has been a trend to give defendants more and more rights (Miranda warnings, right to a lawyer, etc.) They are certainly entitled to some rights (after all, the United States is not – and should not be – a dictatorship), but we have to know where to draw the line. Otherwise, we will be giving the alleged criminals more rights than their alleged victims. It is a complex matter that needs to be decided not by bleeding-heart liberals or tough-on-crime conservatives, but rather by level-headed people on both sides of the ideological spectrum who should come together and decide what course of action is best for our society.

~Michael