Right To Lasnik Case
The Right to an Attorney Who Actually Does His Job
The public defense systems of two towns near Seattle, Washington were found to be so in adequate that they violate the sixth amendment right to the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik condemned the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington, Washington for failing to provide meaningful representation to indigent defendants facing misdemeanor charges. A class-action suit against the cities, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington affiliate and private citizens went to trial in June. Inadequate representation is not an isolated issue that only exists in Washington state. Attorney General Eric Holder continues to bring attention to the …show more content…
problems in public defense systems throughout the United Sates. In an August speech he said, "America's indigent defense systems continue to exist in a state of crisis."
Judge Lasnik pointed out that two lawyers the cities had contracted, each handled about 1000 cases per year, far exceeding the supreme court's annual public-defender caseload cap of 400! The lawyer often spent less than one hour per case. They didn't have the opportunity, or financial incentive to interview their clients and thus did not represent their clients properly. Their failure to provide adequate representation is a violation of the sixth amendment.
Give States More Power With Caution
This article discusses the benefits of giving states the power to decide how to choose their senators. The states would be allowed to choose their senators by appointment, or indirect or direct election. Allowing the states to decide how to choose their senators would violate the 17th amendment to the United States Constitution which states that senators must be elected by popular vote. The article points out that federalism is fundamental to American political institutions. Also, it explains that the 17th amendment is outdated. It was partially a response to corruption in the 19th century, a time when the choosing as Senators was often marred by bribery, horse-trading, and the purchasing of seats.
Another reason to repeal the 17th amendment is that there is no institutionalized means for protecting states' interests in Congress.
The article suggests that we find a way to include state governments in debates over federal power, and that repealing the 17th amendment could lead to a more balanced Federation. Thus, doing without the 17th amendment would benefit the states.
Best Way to Disrupt Illegal Handgun Market is to Impose Nationwide Limit of One Handgun Purchase Per Month
This article suggests imposing a nationwide limit of one handgun purchase per month (excepting the purchase of handgun collector sets) is the most effective way to disrupt the illegal handgun market. Imposing such a law would still uphold our second amendment rights, because the US Supreme Court has ruled that "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are legal." Additionally it suggests limiting the number of handgun bullets that can be purchased at any one time and imposing higher taxes on ammunition. Doing so would not violate the second amendment. In addition to imposing restrictions on handguns and bullets, the article tells the importance of violence prevention programs focused on supporting individuals at high risk of committing violent acts. Regulations such as a limit of one handgun purchase per month may be seen as impeding on our rights, but these regulations could save lives by disrupting the illegal handgun market and keeping guns out of the hands of those most likely to kill others. In addition to violence prevention programs these regulations would increase public safety, while still upholding our Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Victims Push Laws To End Online Revenge Posts
Online a growing number of revenge porn sites feature explicit photos posted by ex-boyfriends, ex-husbands, and ex-lovers. The images are very often accompanied by identifying details, such as where the woman live and work, their names, and links to their Facebook pages. Unfortunately little can be done to protect these women because doing so would challenge the first amendment. Legal scholars and woman's advocates continue to push for criminal penalties for people posting on revenge porn sites. However, such laws would likely violate the First Amendment. Therefore little can be done for the victims of revenge porn. Some experts say that any state law punishing revenge porn would be vulnerable to first amendment challenges. Eugene Volokh, a first amendment scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he saw no constitutional obstacle to a law written narrowly to address sexual images distributed without permission.
Posting revenge porn without permission is an invasion of privacy and it is online harassment. Legislation protecting the victims of revenge porn, however, could infringe on and violate the first amendment. Such legislation should be considered a protection of privacy, not a violation to our first amendment rights.
A Senator Plans Legislation to Narrow Authorities' Cellphone Data Requests
Senator Edward J. Markey planned to introduce legislation providing stronger privacy protections for consumers, including the requirement of a warrant for police to get cell phone location information from a carrier as proof that it would help uncover evidence of a crime. The new legislation would ensure that we are abiding by the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Senator Markey said in a phone interview, "Congress needs to ensure that our laws keep up with technology, including how long law enforcement handles and disposes of this sensitive mobile phone information." Senator Markey inquired several carriers, and their responses suggest that data-sharing policies are inconsistent among carriers. Also, the carriers currently devote a significant amount of resources to dealing with requests from law enforcement. AT&T has a staff of 100 full-time employees working seven days a week handling responses, and it received $10.3 million in reimbursement for law-enforcement responses last year.
Senator Markey will propose legislation that would limit the amount of time carriers could hold onto customers' personal information. To increase accountability for information requests, he will also propose a piece of legislation requiring law-enforcement officials to submit a signed and sworn statement whenever they received information from carriers in the case of emergency circumstances. These new legislations would help to ensure that the fourth amendment is being upheld and that our laws keep up with technology.
Essay
Without the sixth amendment my life would be very different.
Our justice system is one of the things I admire most about american government. The sixth amendment ensures American citizens in all criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to trial by jury, and the right to legal counsel. Without the sixth amendment our justice system would not be very just because those accused of a crime would not have sufficient legal protection. this would impact my life and the lives of all Americans.
If I was ever accused of a crime without the protection of the sixth amendment I wouldn't be guaranteed a speedy trial. This could lead to great anxiety for the defendant for a prolonged period of time. Also, the longer the trial is postponed the more likely it is that evidence will be lost or destroyed and that memories will fade away. Without the sixth amendment I wouldn't have the right to a public trial. Public criminal proceedings sometimes operate as a check against malevolent prosecutions, corrupt judges, and false witnesses. Not having a public trial would deny me these benefits. Also the defendant's friends and relatives wouldn't be guaranteed permission to attend the
trial.
Without the sixth amendment I wouldn't have the right to a trial by jury. This would mean that the outcome of my case could be determined by people who are biased. My case could very likely be determined based on someone's prejudices rather than the evidence presented.
Lastly, without the sixth amendment I wouldn't have the right to counsel. In the case that I could not afford to hire an attorney, I would be on my own. This would hurt my case and lead to an unfair trial. Without representation by counsel I could not possibly properly defend myself.
In conclusion, without the sixth amendment Americans would no longer have the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to a trial by jury, or the right to counsel. Not having these fundamental right would cause unfair trials. If I was ever accused of a crime I could suffer from prolonged anxiety, my case could be determined by biased individuals, and if I didn't have enough funds I would be without representation by counsel. Without the protections of the sixth amendment I would not be guaranteed a fair trial.
The public defense systems of two towns near Seattle, Washington were found to be so in adequate that they violate the sixth amendment right to the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik condemned the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington, Washington for failing to provide meaningful representation to indigent defendants facing misdemeanor charges. A class-action suit against the cities, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington affiliate and private citizens went to trial in June. Inadequate representation is not an isolated issue that only exists in Washington state. Attorney General Eric Holder continues to bring attention to the …show more content…
problems in public defense systems throughout the United Sates. In an August speech he said, "America's indigent defense systems continue to exist in a state of crisis."
Judge Lasnik pointed out that two lawyers the cities had contracted, each handled about 1000 cases per year, far exceeding the supreme court's annual public-defender caseload cap of 400! The lawyer often spent less than one hour per case. They didn't have the opportunity, or financial incentive to interview their clients and thus did not represent their clients properly. Their failure to provide adequate representation is a violation of the sixth amendment.
Give States More Power With Caution
This article discusses the benefits of giving states the power to decide how to choose their senators. The states would be allowed to choose their senators by appointment, or indirect or direct election. Allowing the states to decide how to choose their senators would violate the 17th amendment to the United States Constitution which states that senators must be elected by popular vote. The article points out that federalism is fundamental to American political institutions. Also, it explains that the 17th amendment is outdated. It was partially a response to corruption in the 19th century, a time when the choosing as Senators was often marred by bribery, horse-trading, and the purchasing of seats.
Another reason to repeal the 17th amendment is that there is no institutionalized means for protecting states' interests in Congress.
The article suggests that we find a way to include state governments in debates over federal power, and that repealing the 17th amendment could lead to a more balanced Federation. Thus, doing without the 17th amendment would benefit the states.
Best Way to Disrupt Illegal Handgun Market is to Impose Nationwide Limit of One Handgun Purchase Per Month
This article suggests imposing a nationwide limit of one handgun purchase per month (excepting the purchase of handgun collector sets) is the most effective way to disrupt the illegal handgun market. Imposing such a law would still uphold our second amendment rights, because the US Supreme Court has ruled that "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are legal." Additionally it suggests limiting the number of handgun bullets that can be purchased at any one time and imposing higher taxes on ammunition. Doing so would not violate the second amendment. In addition to imposing restrictions on handguns and bullets, the article tells the importance of violence prevention programs focused on supporting individuals at high risk of committing violent acts. Regulations such as a limit of one handgun purchase per month may be seen as impeding on our rights, but these regulations could save lives by disrupting the illegal handgun market and keeping guns out of the hands of those most likely to kill others. In addition to violence prevention programs these regulations would increase public safety, while still upholding our Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Victims Push Laws To End Online Revenge Posts
Online a growing number of revenge porn sites feature explicit photos posted by ex-boyfriends, ex-husbands, and ex-lovers. The images are very often accompanied by identifying details, such as where the woman live and work, their names, and links to their Facebook pages. Unfortunately little can be done to protect these women because doing so would challenge the first amendment. Legal scholars and woman's advocates continue to push for criminal penalties for people posting on revenge porn sites. However, such laws would likely violate the First Amendment. Therefore little can be done for the victims of revenge porn. Some experts say that any state law punishing revenge porn would be vulnerable to first amendment challenges. Eugene Volokh, a first amendment scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he saw no constitutional obstacle to a law written narrowly to address sexual images distributed without permission.
Posting revenge porn without permission is an invasion of privacy and it is online harassment. Legislation protecting the victims of revenge porn, however, could infringe on and violate the first amendment. Such legislation should be considered a protection of privacy, not a violation to our first amendment rights.
A Senator Plans Legislation to Narrow Authorities' Cellphone Data Requests
Senator Edward J. Markey planned to introduce legislation providing stronger privacy protections for consumers, including the requirement of a warrant for police to get cell phone location information from a carrier as proof that it would help uncover evidence of a crime. The new legislation would ensure that we are abiding by the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Senator Markey said in a phone interview, "Congress needs to ensure that our laws keep up with technology, including how long law enforcement handles and disposes of this sensitive mobile phone information." Senator Markey inquired several carriers, and their responses suggest that data-sharing policies are inconsistent among carriers. Also, the carriers currently devote a significant amount of resources to dealing with requests from law enforcement. AT&T has a staff of 100 full-time employees working seven days a week handling responses, and it received $10.3 million in reimbursement for law-enforcement responses last year.
Senator Markey will propose legislation that would limit the amount of time carriers could hold onto customers' personal information. To increase accountability for information requests, he will also propose a piece of legislation requiring law-enforcement officials to submit a signed and sworn statement whenever they received information from carriers in the case of emergency circumstances. These new legislations would help to ensure that the fourth amendment is being upheld and that our laws keep up with technology.
Essay
Without the sixth amendment my life would be very different.
Our justice system is one of the things I admire most about american government. The sixth amendment ensures American citizens in all criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to trial by jury, and the right to legal counsel. Without the sixth amendment our justice system would not be very just because those accused of a crime would not have sufficient legal protection. this would impact my life and the lives of all Americans.
If I was ever accused of a crime without the protection of the sixth amendment I wouldn't be guaranteed a speedy trial. This could lead to great anxiety for the defendant for a prolonged period of time. Also, the longer the trial is postponed the more likely it is that evidence will be lost or destroyed and that memories will fade away. Without the sixth amendment I wouldn't have the right to a public trial. Public criminal proceedings sometimes operate as a check against malevolent prosecutions, corrupt judges, and false witnesses. Not having a public trial would deny me these benefits. Also the defendant's friends and relatives wouldn't be guaranteed permission to attend the
trial.
Without the sixth amendment I wouldn't have the right to a trial by jury. This would mean that the outcome of my case could be determined by people who are biased. My case could very likely be determined based on someone's prejudices rather than the evidence presented.
Lastly, without the sixth amendment I wouldn't have the right to counsel. In the case that I could not afford to hire an attorney, I would be on my own. This would hurt my case and lead to an unfair trial. Without representation by counsel I could not possibly properly defend myself.
In conclusion, without the sixth amendment Americans would no longer have the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to a trial by jury, or the right to counsel. Not having these fundamental right would cause unfair trials. If I was ever accused of a crime I could suffer from prolonged anxiety, my case could be determined by biased individuals, and if I didn't have enough funds I would be without representation by counsel. Without the protections of the sixth amendment I would not be guaranteed a fair trial.