The Criminal Justice System
The criminal justice system includes the establishment of governments and practices that help maintain social control, deter and minimize crime, or discipline lawbreakers through rehabilitative initiatives and criminal penalties. Courts, law enforcement, and corrections are the three main components of the criminal justice system that work together to prevent and punish deviant behavior.
The Courts in the Criminal Justice System
The courts are an important part of the criminal justice system since they assess whether an accused individual is innocent or guilty. It usually consists of the judge, counsels, the defendant, witnesses, and the jury. Fundamental rights are those that require a greater level of government protection, such as the right to due process. The sixth amendment to the US constitution provides the right for the defendant to choose his or her attorney of choice if they are qualified. (Rappaport, 2017)
The "Administration of the Criminal Justice System: When Efficiency Trumps a Fundamental Right" Article
“Administration of the criminal justice system: When efficiency trumps a fundamental right” is an article written by Sean McLeod in 2016. It is part of the Touro Law Review journal, volume 32, Number 4 and article number 10. It can be retrieved online from digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu.cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=2752&context=lawreview. The article focuses on the sixth amendment’s right to choose an attorney of the defendant’s choice. It gives various examples of instances where the defendant was not allowed to choose their counsel which leads to reversal of many lower court decisions by the Court of Appeal for direction for a new trial.
The Case of People V O’Daniel
McLeod (2016) pays particular attention to the case of People V O’Daniel. The defendant faced severe criminal charges and had a retained counsel. However, before the trial could begin, his counsel was taken ill and could not represent him. He sought continuance for the defendant to obtain a substitute counsel. The lawyer at the behest of the court chose Mr Bruno who took over the case. The defendant was convicted.
Infringement of the Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right
The article finds that the court infringed O’Daniel’s sixth amendment right. He did not get to choose a counsel of his choice. The Chief Judge of the New York’s Court of Appeal in is dissenting opinion found that there was an infringement of the defendant’s fundamental and constitutional rights. The adequate representation of Mr Bruno does not vitiate the fact that the defendant had the right to choose his counsel. The infringement of his right in the sixth amendment could have caused an unfair trial since the defendant didn’t select his attorney hence the undercutting of fundamental trust between the attorney and client. This confidence is the cornerstone of the adversarial system.
The Law Governing Adjournments and the Defendant’s Right to Choose Counsel
The article is talking about the law governing adjournments from the right to choice of counsel. The defendant has the right to exercise his right to choose a counsel of his choice without intending to delay court proceedings. The majority decision of the Court of Appeal upheld the county court’s decision on the ground that O’Daniel was seeking continuances to delay judicial proceedings. US Court of Appeals in United States V Burton held that extension depends on the all circumstance of the case such as if the adjournment would inconvenience the court if the defendant contributed to the events that led to the request for a continuance and whether adjournment had previously been requested by the defendant and granted. The Chief Judge noted that the defendant’s appeals for postponements were not dilatory but were made to seek a counsel of his choice. O’Daniel should have been granted continuances to find a counsel of his choice so that he, the defendant, can be heard.
Ethical Dilemmas and the Right to Fair Trial
In the midst of all these, some ethical dilemmas are present in the article. The court would want to give the defendant a fair hearing but at the same time want to treat him like a criminal based on the allegations made against him. A fair trial is a right that every accused person has.(Rappaport, 2017) The court has to balance giving the defendant what he needs for there to be a fair trial and restricting his rights because to them; he represents a criminal. A Christian would consider the defendant as a fellow human because they believe that everybody is a sinner who deserves a chance to present their case and the grace of God too! This example is from the Bible, in the book of John chapter 8 verse 3 to 11 where scribes and Pharisees had brought an adulterous woman to Jesus so that they can test Him. Instead, He told them that whoever had no sin to throw the first stone at her and they all left.
The Merit of the Article and the Need for Amendments
The article is of merit to the study of the criminal justice system. It depicts a criminal justice system that needs to be amended to provide for the rights of accused persons under the sixth amendment. The government, through its departments, should be at the forefront in the protection of the right to a counsel of the defendant’s choosing and not just try to show how the right has not entirely been violated. From the article, it is clear that accused persons need education on their rights, particularly the right attached to the sixth amendment. They will go through the trial with an attorney they have not chosen only to appeal later stating that they did not have an opportunity to choose a counsel. The court should not take advantage of their lack of knowledge so that they can exercise efficiency and keep up with their court calendar.
Fairness and Accused Persons' Rights
The Bible preaches fairness, something that was absent in the O’Daniel case. Christians are called upon to be fair in their dealings with one another. In the same way, accused persons should have a chance to be heard fairly. Choosing a counsel of their choice plays a contributory part. The courts in O’Daniel’s appeal preferred finality and efficiency, ignoring the fact that he was forced to proceed to trial with a counsel he had not chosen. The court infringed his sixth amendment right. He deserves a reversal and a new trial with a counsel of his choice.
References
Rappaport, J. (2017). The Structural Function of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel of
Choice. The Supreme Court Review
