Gideon Vs Wainwright Research Paper
Socioeconomic Status and Sentencing – Is it Fair?
CRJU 354 – Corrections
Abstract
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that the Sixth Amendment guarantees every defendant, regardless of socioeconomic status, the right to an attorney and equal protection under the court of law. This means that an indigent defendant that cannot afford to hire a private attorney may have a public defender appointed to him or her. However, fifty years later, the promises of Gideon v. Wainwright may remain unfulfilled. Public defenders may not be able to provide the same treatment to their clients as a private attorney, resulting in harsher sentences being placed on indigent defendants. This is clearly not the equal treatment that Gideon sought, and it is rather evident that the public defender system is very flawed.
I. Introduction “You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with …show more content…
you while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning if you wish.” These are two very popular and well known lines that must be read from the Miranda Warning before questioning any suspect. But does this really guarantee equal treatment under the criminal justice system? Are defendants from a lower socioeconomic class guaranteed the same rights and equal protection under law to those from a higher socioeconomic class? These are very serious questions and concerns within the criminal justice system, as these defendants may not be receiving an adequate defense that all defendants are entitled to. It was not until Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) that all defendants were entitled to a public defender if they could not afford to hire their own attorney. Before this landmark case, the odds were very slim that a poor defendant accused of a felony would receive a fair sentence. Today, about 80% of criminal defendants across the United States are not able to afford their own lawyer (Solon, 2013). Thanks to Gideon v. Wainwright, these defendants are appointed a public defender at no cost to them. However, these public defenders face major issues such as lack of funding, massive caseloads, and possibly relative inexperience, leading to the belief that they may not be in a position to represent their client as well as a private attorney would. If 80% of criminal defendants are poor or from a lower socioeconomic class, and cannot afford to pay for their own attorney, do they really have equal access to justice as the remaining 20% of criminal defendants? It seems that the original goal of Gideon v. Wainwright remains entirely unaccomplished.
II. The Effects of Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v.
Wainwright in 1963 was the landmark case that resulted in all criminal defendants given the right to have an attorney appointed to them at no monetary cost. Before Gideon v. Wainwright, poor defendants, or those from lower socioeconomic classes, were highly discriminated against, and not given a fair trial when compared to those from higher socioeconomic classes who could afford to hire their own lawyer.
Clarence Earl Gideon was a man charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor – a felony under Florida law. Gideon could not afford to hire a private attorney, and so requested one be appointed to him at his hearing. The judge denied the request, as at the time, only defendants charged with capital offenses were able to have court appointed attorneys. Therefore, Gideon was forced to represent himself in court and was found guilty, and sentenced with five years of imprisonment. Gideon filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the
case. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is required to hold a fair and just trial, regardless of the defendant. Justice Black, who wrote the opinion of the court, stated “any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him” (1963). This aims to ensure that all defendants, regardless of socioeconomic status, are treated fairly in the criminal justice system. However, the system is very flawed, and poor defendants still do not receive equal treatment for various reasons, the main of which is due to the very nature of public defenders.
III. The Problem Facing Public Defenders Criminal defendants that cannot afford to hire their own attorney must rely on an appointed public defender to argue their case. This public defender system is incredibly flawed, and results in those defendants not getting fair treatment. One such way that the public defender system is flawed is that to this day, many defendants still do not receive counsel at all, and are forced to represent themselves, generally ending with a guilty plea. In 2002, one county in California saw 12,000 guilty pleas entered by those who were not represented by a lawyer (nlada.org, 2011). Defendants are also often pressured or forced into waiving their constitutional right to have an attorney and pleading guilty immediately. Public defenders also have excessive caseloads appointed to them, resulting in lack of attention on each specific case. Benjamin Rush Jr., a public defender in Memphis, Tennessee, faces caseloads that are three to four times the national average. Rush states that “the way the system is set up, we don’t have separate interview rooms to talk to our clients – this is our first time meeting them, in the middle of a courtroom… and guess what, when you’re done talking to him, you got ten more to talk to” (2013). These excessive caseloads mean the public defender simply does not have time to speak to each client individually and give them the time and attention that they deserve, and that a private attorney with a much lighter caseload would be able to provide. Most of these public defenders only get a few minutes with their client, forcing them to enter a rushed guilty plea. It is for this reason that poor defendants that must rely on these public defenders do not receive equal protection under law, and often get more severe sentences than those who can afford to hire their own attorney. Rush states “… We face problems that regular criminal justice attorneys don’t face – and that’s poverty” (2013). In addition to their excessive caseloads, there are no enforceable standards for public defenders across the nation (nlada.org, 2011). In some jurisdictions, public defenders receive adequate training, although in many others, they receive very little or none at all. Unfortunately, many public defenders are very inexperienced or inept, resulting in unfair treatment of their clients. In 1982, James Fisher was found guilty and sentenced to death. This sentence was based upon an incredibly unfair trial due to an overwhelmingly incompetent public defender, E. Melvin Porter. Porter was nowhere near prepared for the trial, and a federal appellate court noted he was “unwilling or unable to reveal evident holes in the state’s case,” yet “remarkably successful in undermining his own client’s testimony” (Barry, 2010). Porter also failed to present a closing argument for his client. Due to his poor representation, Fisher was sentenced to death and spent the next 19 years on death row, living 23 hours of every day in a prison cell. 19 years after his original sentence, Fisher was tried again after an appellate court overturned the conviction due to “ineffective assistance of counsel”. However, Fisher yet again received an incompetent public defender, Johnny Albert. Albert admitted to drinking heavily, abusing cocaine, and neglecting cases, and saw that Fisher was sentenced to death, yet again. Fisher’s inability to afford a private attorney resulted in him spending 28 years on death row. This is not justice, and clearly shows how socioeconomic status can effect sentencing. Another issue facing public defenders is underfunding. Due to inadequate funding, many public defenders are not given access to adequate training, investigations, experts, or scientific testing, while private attorneys can afford these things for their clients. Three times as much money is spent on prosecution as on public defense (nlada.org, 2011). This underfunding can lead to incompetent or undertrained public defenders, resulting in unfair treatment for indigent offenders. Clay Conrad says it best in his article titled “Indefensible”:
“I would, however, expect that before the taxpayers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to incarcerate one of their neighbors for years, branding him virtually unemployable for life and making him part of America’s permanent undercaste, they would want to ensure that he had a competent lawyer, with adequate resources and adequate time to do everything possible within the law to help his client. It is not an extravagance to make sure that before a man’s life is destroyed or taken from him, his defense has fully tested every element of the government’s case. The cost of an adequate defense pales against the cost of incarcerating an innocent man” (2011).
IV. Socioeconomic Stereotypes In addition to being unable to afford specialized treatment from private attorneys, indigent defendants are also often stereotyped by jurors, studies have found. This stereotyping can negatively affect the defendant, causing him or her to receive a harsher sentence than a wealthy defendant, or those from higher socioeconomic classes. Often in a court case, the defendant’s occupation will be brought up, or other cues to indicate socioeconomic status. Jurors may associate a wealthier defendant with responsibility and success, leading to the assumption of innocence, affecting the defendant’s sentencing. However, indigent defendants with lower socioeconomic statuses are also stereotyped against, receiving harsher sentences because jurors may see them as transgressors (Osborne & Rappaport, 1985).
V. Delayed Appointment of Public Defenders Another disadvantage that indigent defendants have is that it often may take an excessive amount of time to be appointed a public defender as opposed to immediately being able to hire a private attorney. Many poor offenders are required to wait in jail for weeks or months at a time while they wait to be appointed a lawyer. Jacqueline Winbrone was arrested and detained in New York due to her inability to pay her $10,000 bail. She was not appointed a lawyer in time to reduce this bail, and because of this, was unable to bring her husband to his dialysis appointments, ultimately resulting in his death. Another indigent defendant, Diego Moran of Del Rio, Texas, was facing the death penalty. He requested a lawyer the day of his arrest, but was not appointed one until over eight months later (Chasnoff, 2010). It is clear from these studies and examples that indigent defendants are not treated fairly in the criminal justice system when compared to those of higher socioeconomic status. However, other studies have found that a defendant’s socioeconomic status does not have a significant, if any impact on sentencing.
VI. The Opposing Argument Although it is generally believed that indigent defendants of low socioeconomic status do not receive fair treatment and may receive harsher sentences than those of higher socioeconomic status, some studies have shown that the defendant’s socioeconomic status has no impact at all on criminal sentencing. Some argue that public defenders are able to negotiate more favorable sentences for their defendant as compared to private attorneys. Skolnick suggests that indigent defendants that utilize public defenders are more willing to share information with public defenders than private attorneys, leading to better plea bargains (1967). A study in 2000 by Wolf-Harlow found that sentencing outcomes varied for both private attorneys and public defenders. In federal courts, 88% of defendants with public defenders were incarcerated, as opposed to 77% of defendants with private attorneys (Wolf-Harlow, 2000). This difference is even more substantial in state courts, 71% of defendants with public defenders being incarcerated, as opposed to 54% of defendants with private attorneys (Wolf-Harlow, 2000). However, the length of sentencing was just the opposite, the average sentence in federal courts for defendants with a private attorney being 62 months, compared to 58 months for defendants with a public defender. State courts yield similar statistics, the average sentence for defendants represented by a private attorney being 38 months, compared to 31 months for defendants represented by a public defender. According to Richard Hartley, “These statistics suggest mixed outcomes; similar conviction rates for both attorney types, higher incarceration rates for those represented by public defenders, but longer average sentence lengths for those represented by privately retained counsel” (Hartley, 2010). A study conducted by Richard Hartley in Cook County, Illinois, suggested that there is little difference in the quality of legal defense provided to defendants by private attorneys and public defenders (Hartley, 2010). However, in this case, there were no controls for the experience of the lawyers, or the amount of time that was spent with and investigating each client. Therefore, the “quality of defense” in this particular study refers only to sentencing outcome, and not time and effort spent on each case.
VI. Conclusion Studies have gathered mixed results when determining if a defendant’s socioeconomic status affects the sentencing he or she receives in the court of law. Most studies conclude that indigent defendants of lower socioeconomic status do not receive equal treatment and therefore suffer harsher sentences, primarily due to the fact that they cannot afford to hire their own private lawyer, and must rely on public defenders to argue their case. These public defenders are often inexperienced or inept, underfunded, and suffer from excessive caseloads. In most cases, public defenders will only get a few rushed minutes to speak with their client before trial, almost always resulting in a plea bargain. This can be easily seen as unfair treatment under the criminal justice system, as private attorneys will often spend a great deal of time speaking with their clients and investigating their cases, ensuring that they receive as lenient of a sentence as possible. On the other hand, some studies also suggest that defendants of lower socioeconomic status receive equal treatment to those of high socioeconomic status, and that public defenders and private attorneys yield similar sentences. Some also argue that public defenders are able to negotiate more favorable sentences for their defendant as compared to private attorneys. Overall, most cases show that a low socioeconomic status results in the defendant being more likely to receive a sentence, and that the sentence will be harsher than one given to a defendant with a higher socioeconomic status. Unfortunately, it appears that fifty years later, the promises and goals of Gideon v. Wainwright remain unfulfilled.
References
Arye Rattner, Hagit Turjeman, Gideon Fishman, Public versus private defense: Can money buy justice?, Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 36, Issue 1, March-April 2008, Pages 43- 49, ISSN 0047-2352, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.12.005. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235207001298
Barry, D. (2010, August 11). In the Rearview Mirror, Oklahoma and Death Row. The New York Times, p. A1. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/11land.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Bright, S. B., & Sanneh, S. M. (2013, March 20). 'Gideon v. Wainwright ', Fifty Years Later. The Nation. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.thenation.com/article/173458/gideon-v-wainwright-fifty-years-later#
Bright, S. B., & Sanneh, S. M. (2013, June). Fifty years of defiance and resistance after Gideon v. Wainwright. In Galegroup. Retrieved November 2, 2013 from AcademicOneFile (GALE|A337365787).
Clear, T.; Cole, F.; Reisig, M.; Petrosino, C. (2012). American Corrections In Brief. United States. Wadsworth.
Conrad, C. (2011, July). Indefensible. In Reason.com. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/22/indefensible
Facts and Case Summary: Gideon v. Wainwright. (n.d.). In Uscourts.gov. Retrieved November
2, 2013, from http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/sixth-amendment/right-counsel/facts-case-summary-gideon.aspx
Five Problems Facing Public Defense on the 40th Anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright. (2011). In Nlada.org. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.nlada.org/Defender/Defender_Gideon/Defender_Gideon_5_Problems
Moore, M., & Newton, D. (2005). The Influence of a Defendant’s Status, Level of Community Involvement, and the Severity of a Crime upon Degree of Juror Sentencing (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://psych.hanover.edu/research/Thesis06/MooreandNewton.pdf
Richard D. Hartley, Holly Ventura Miller, Cassia Spohn, Do you get what you pay for? Type of Counsel and its effect on criminal court outcomes, Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 38, Issue 5, September-October 2010, pages 1063-1070, ISSN 0047-2352, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.009. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235210001625 Solon, S. (2013, March 15). “You Have the Right to an Attorney.” We All Know the Hollywood Version, But What’s the Real Story?. In ACLU.org. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/you-have-right-attorney-we-all-know- hollywood-version-whats-real-story
What are your Miranda Rights?. (2013). In MirandaWarning.org. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html
CRJU 354 – Corrections
Abstract
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that the Sixth Amendment guarantees every defendant, regardless of socioeconomic status, the right to an attorney and equal protection under the court of law. This means that an indigent defendant that cannot afford to hire a private attorney may have a public defender appointed to him or her. However, fifty years later, the promises of Gideon v. Wainwright may remain unfulfilled. Public defenders may not be able to provide the same treatment to their clients as a private attorney, resulting in harsher sentences being placed on indigent defendants. This is clearly not the equal treatment that Gideon sought, and it is rather evident that the public defender system is very flawed.
I. Introduction “You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with …show more content…
you while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning if you wish.” These are two very popular and well known lines that must be read from the Miranda Warning before questioning any suspect. But does this really guarantee equal treatment under the criminal justice system? Are defendants from a lower socioeconomic class guaranteed the same rights and equal protection under law to those from a higher socioeconomic class? These are very serious questions and concerns within the criminal justice system, as these defendants may not be receiving an adequate defense that all defendants are entitled to. It was not until Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) that all defendants were entitled to a public defender if they could not afford to hire their own attorney. Before this landmark case, the odds were very slim that a poor defendant accused of a felony would receive a fair sentence. Today, about 80% of criminal defendants across the United States are not able to afford their own lawyer (Solon, 2013). Thanks to Gideon v. Wainwright, these defendants are appointed a public defender at no cost to them. However, these public defenders face major issues such as lack of funding, massive caseloads, and possibly relative inexperience, leading to the belief that they may not be in a position to represent their client as well as a private attorney would. If 80% of criminal defendants are poor or from a lower socioeconomic class, and cannot afford to pay for their own attorney, do they really have equal access to justice as the remaining 20% of criminal defendants? It seems that the original goal of Gideon v. Wainwright remains entirely unaccomplished.
II. The Effects of Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v.
Wainwright in 1963 was the landmark case that resulted in all criminal defendants given the right to have an attorney appointed to them at no monetary cost. Before Gideon v. Wainwright, poor defendants, or those from lower socioeconomic classes, were highly discriminated against, and not given a fair trial when compared to those from higher socioeconomic classes who could afford to hire their own lawyer.
Clarence Earl Gideon was a man charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor – a felony under Florida law. Gideon could not afford to hire a private attorney, and so requested one be appointed to him at his hearing. The judge denied the request, as at the time, only defendants charged with capital offenses were able to have court appointed attorneys. Therefore, Gideon was forced to represent himself in court and was found guilty, and sentenced with five years of imprisonment. Gideon filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the
case. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is required to hold a fair and just trial, regardless of the defendant. Justice Black, who wrote the opinion of the court, stated “any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him” (1963). This aims to ensure that all defendants, regardless of socioeconomic status, are treated fairly in the criminal justice system. However, the system is very flawed, and poor defendants still do not receive equal treatment for various reasons, the main of which is due to the very nature of public defenders.
III. The Problem Facing Public Defenders Criminal defendants that cannot afford to hire their own attorney must rely on an appointed public defender to argue their case. This public defender system is incredibly flawed, and results in those defendants not getting fair treatment. One such way that the public defender system is flawed is that to this day, many defendants still do not receive counsel at all, and are forced to represent themselves, generally ending with a guilty plea. In 2002, one county in California saw 12,000 guilty pleas entered by those who were not represented by a lawyer (nlada.org, 2011). Defendants are also often pressured or forced into waiving their constitutional right to have an attorney and pleading guilty immediately. Public defenders also have excessive caseloads appointed to them, resulting in lack of attention on each specific case. Benjamin Rush Jr., a public defender in Memphis, Tennessee, faces caseloads that are three to four times the national average. Rush states that “the way the system is set up, we don’t have separate interview rooms to talk to our clients – this is our first time meeting them, in the middle of a courtroom… and guess what, when you’re done talking to him, you got ten more to talk to” (2013). These excessive caseloads mean the public defender simply does not have time to speak to each client individually and give them the time and attention that they deserve, and that a private attorney with a much lighter caseload would be able to provide. Most of these public defenders only get a few minutes with their client, forcing them to enter a rushed guilty plea. It is for this reason that poor defendants that must rely on these public defenders do not receive equal protection under law, and often get more severe sentences than those who can afford to hire their own attorney. Rush states “… We face problems that regular criminal justice attorneys don’t face – and that’s poverty” (2013). In addition to their excessive caseloads, there are no enforceable standards for public defenders across the nation (nlada.org, 2011). In some jurisdictions, public defenders receive adequate training, although in many others, they receive very little or none at all. Unfortunately, many public defenders are very inexperienced or inept, resulting in unfair treatment of their clients. In 1982, James Fisher was found guilty and sentenced to death. This sentence was based upon an incredibly unfair trial due to an overwhelmingly incompetent public defender, E. Melvin Porter. Porter was nowhere near prepared for the trial, and a federal appellate court noted he was “unwilling or unable to reveal evident holes in the state’s case,” yet “remarkably successful in undermining his own client’s testimony” (Barry, 2010). Porter also failed to present a closing argument for his client. Due to his poor representation, Fisher was sentenced to death and spent the next 19 years on death row, living 23 hours of every day in a prison cell. 19 years after his original sentence, Fisher was tried again after an appellate court overturned the conviction due to “ineffective assistance of counsel”. However, Fisher yet again received an incompetent public defender, Johnny Albert. Albert admitted to drinking heavily, abusing cocaine, and neglecting cases, and saw that Fisher was sentenced to death, yet again. Fisher’s inability to afford a private attorney resulted in him spending 28 years on death row. This is not justice, and clearly shows how socioeconomic status can effect sentencing. Another issue facing public defenders is underfunding. Due to inadequate funding, many public defenders are not given access to adequate training, investigations, experts, or scientific testing, while private attorneys can afford these things for their clients. Three times as much money is spent on prosecution as on public defense (nlada.org, 2011). This underfunding can lead to incompetent or undertrained public defenders, resulting in unfair treatment for indigent offenders. Clay Conrad says it best in his article titled “Indefensible”:
“I would, however, expect that before the taxpayers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to incarcerate one of their neighbors for years, branding him virtually unemployable for life and making him part of America’s permanent undercaste, they would want to ensure that he had a competent lawyer, with adequate resources and adequate time to do everything possible within the law to help his client. It is not an extravagance to make sure that before a man’s life is destroyed or taken from him, his defense has fully tested every element of the government’s case. The cost of an adequate defense pales against the cost of incarcerating an innocent man” (2011).
IV. Socioeconomic Stereotypes In addition to being unable to afford specialized treatment from private attorneys, indigent defendants are also often stereotyped by jurors, studies have found. This stereotyping can negatively affect the defendant, causing him or her to receive a harsher sentence than a wealthy defendant, or those from higher socioeconomic classes. Often in a court case, the defendant’s occupation will be brought up, or other cues to indicate socioeconomic status. Jurors may associate a wealthier defendant with responsibility and success, leading to the assumption of innocence, affecting the defendant’s sentencing. However, indigent defendants with lower socioeconomic statuses are also stereotyped against, receiving harsher sentences because jurors may see them as transgressors (Osborne & Rappaport, 1985).
V. Delayed Appointment of Public Defenders Another disadvantage that indigent defendants have is that it often may take an excessive amount of time to be appointed a public defender as opposed to immediately being able to hire a private attorney. Many poor offenders are required to wait in jail for weeks or months at a time while they wait to be appointed a lawyer. Jacqueline Winbrone was arrested and detained in New York due to her inability to pay her $10,000 bail. She was not appointed a lawyer in time to reduce this bail, and because of this, was unable to bring her husband to his dialysis appointments, ultimately resulting in his death. Another indigent defendant, Diego Moran of Del Rio, Texas, was facing the death penalty. He requested a lawyer the day of his arrest, but was not appointed one until over eight months later (Chasnoff, 2010). It is clear from these studies and examples that indigent defendants are not treated fairly in the criminal justice system when compared to those of higher socioeconomic status. However, other studies have found that a defendant’s socioeconomic status does not have a significant, if any impact on sentencing.
VI. The Opposing Argument Although it is generally believed that indigent defendants of low socioeconomic status do not receive fair treatment and may receive harsher sentences than those of higher socioeconomic status, some studies have shown that the defendant’s socioeconomic status has no impact at all on criminal sentencing. Some argue that public defenders are able to negotiate more favorable sentences for their defendant as compared to private attorneys. Skolnick suggests that indigent defendants that utilize public defenders are more willing to share information with public defenders than private attorneys, leading to better plea bargains (1967). A study in 2000 by Wolf-Harlow found that sentencing outcomes varied for both private attorneys and public defenders. In federal courts, 88% of defendants with public defenders were incarcerated, as opposed to 77% of defendants with private attorneys (Wolf-Harlow, 2000). This difference is even more substantial in state courts, 71% of defendants with public defenders being incarcerated, as opposed to 54% of defendants with private attorneys (Wolf-Harlow, 2000). However, the length of sentencing was just the opposite, the average sentence in federal courts for defendants with a private attorney being 62 months, compared to 58 months for defendants with a public defender. State courts yield similar statistics, the average sentence for defendants represented by a private attorney being 38 months, compared to 31 months for defendants represented by a public defender. According to Richard Hartley, “These statistics suggest mixed outcomes; similar conviction rates for both attorney types, higher incarceration rates for those represented by public defenders, but longer average sentence lengths for those represented by privately retained counsel” (Hartley, 2010). A study conducted by Richard Hartley in Cook County, Illinois, suggested that there is little difference in the quality of legal defense provided to defendants by private attorneys and public defenders (Hartley, 2010). However, in this case, there were no controls for the experience of the lawyers, or the amount of time that was spent with and investigating each client. Therefore, the “quality of defense” in this particular study refers only to sentencing outcome, and not time and effort spent on each case.
VI. Conclusion Studies have gathered mixed results when determining if a defendant’s socioeconomic status affects the sentencing he or she receives in the court of law. Most studies conclude that indigent defendants of lower socioeconomic status do not receive equal treatment and therefore suffer harsher sentences, primarily due to the fact that they cannot afford to hire their own private lawyer, and must rely on public defenders to argue their case. These public defenders are often inexperienced or inept, underfunded, and suffer from excessive caseloads. In most cases, public defenders will only get a few rushed minutes to speak with their client before trial, almost always resulting in a plea bargain. This can be easily seen as unfair treatment under the criminal justice system, as private attorneys will often spend a great deal of time speaking with their clients and investigating their cases, ensuring that they receive as lenient of a sentence as possible. On the other hand, some studies also suggest that defendants of lower socioeconomic status receive equal treatment to those of high socioeconomic status, and that public defenders and private attorneys yield similar sentences. Some also argue that public defenders are able to negotiate more favorable sentences for their defendant as compared to private attorneys. Overall, most cases show that a low socioeconomic status results in the defendant being more likely to receive a sentence, and that the sentence will be harsher than one given to a defendant with a higher socioeconomic status. Unfortunately, it appears that fifty years later, the promises and goals of Gideon v. Wainwright remain unfulfilled.
References
Arye Rattner, Hagit Turjeman, Gideon Fishman, Public versus private defense: Can money buy justice?, Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 36, Issue 1, March-April 2008, Pages 43- 49, ISSN 0047-2352, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.12.005. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235207001298
Barry, D. (2010, August 11). In the Rearview Mirror, Oklahoma and Death Row. The New York Times, p. A1. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/11land.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Bright, S. B., & Sanneh, S. M. (2013, March 20). 'Gideon v. Wainwright ', Fifty Years Later. The Nation. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.thenation.com/article/173458/gideon-v-wainwright-fifty-years-later#
Bright, S. B., & Sanneh, S. M. (2013, June). Fifty years of defiance and resistance after Gideon v. Wainwright. In Galegroup. Retrieved November 2, 2013 from AcademicOneFile (GALE|A337365787).
Clear, T.; Cole, F.; Reisig, M.; Petrosino, C. (2012). American Corrections In Brief. United States. Wadsworth.
Conrad, C. (2011, July). Indefensible. In Reason.com. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/22/indefensible
Facts and Case Summary: Gideon v. Wainwright. (n.d.). In Uscourts.gov. Retrieved November
2, 2013, from http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/sixth-amendment/right-counsel/facts-case-summary-gideon.aspx
Five Problems Facing Public Defense on the 40th Anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright. (2011). In Nlada.org. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.nlada.org/Defender/Defender_Gideon/Defender_Gideon_5_Problems
Moore, M., & Newton, D. (2005). The Influence of a Defendant’s Status, Level of Community Involvement, and the Severity of a Crime upon Degree of Juror Sentencing (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://psych.hanover.edu/research/Thesis06/MooreandNewton.pdf
Richard D. Hartley, Holly Ventura Miller, Cassia Spohn, Do you get what you pay for? Type of Counsel and its effect on criminal court outcomes, Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 38, Issue 5, September-October 2010, pages 1063-1070, ISSN 0047-2352, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.009. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235210001625 Solon, S. (2013, March 15). “You Have the Right to an Attorney.” We All Know the Hollywood Version, But What’s the Real Story?. In ACLU.org. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/you-have-right-attorney-we-all-know- hollywood-version-whats-real-story
What are your Miranda Rights?. (2013). In MirandaWarning.org. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html